Scribd
Upload
129 views3 pages

Lim vs. Chubaka

The document discusses three cases related to the crime of fencing under Philippine law. In the first case, the court affirmed the conviction of a defendant for fencing a stolen vehicle. In the second case, the court overturned a conviction for fencing stolen construction equipment, finding the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the equipment was stolen or that the defendant knew it was stolen. In the third case, the court also overturned a fencing conviction because the prosecution failed to prove a theft had actually occurred or that the defendant knew the items were stolen. The court then outlined the essential elements required to establish the crime of fencing.

Uploaded by

Reino Cabitac
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
129 views3 pages

Lim vs. Chubaka

The document discusses three cases related to the crime of fencing under Philippine law. In the first case, the court affirmed the conviction of a defendant for fencing a stolen vehicle. In the second case, the court overturned a conviction for fencing stolen construction equipment, finding the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the equipment was stolen or that the defendant knew it was stolen. In the third case, the court also overturned a fencing conviction because the prosecution failed to prove a theft had actually occurred or that the defendant knew the items were stolen. The court then outlined the essential elements required to establish the crime of fencing.

Uploaded by

Reino Cabitac
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

1. What is Fencing?

2. Elements of Fencing?
3. Robbery vs Fencing
4. Accessory in robbery vs Fence
5. Fencing a continuing crime?
6. Fencing Cases
7. When is Clearance to sell required?
8. Drug Cases

1. Dimat v. People

FACTS:
- PO Ramirez and fellow officers spotted a Nissan Safari bearing a suspicious plate
number. During inspection, they found out that the engine number was different from
that indicated in the deed of sale and that it is the same with the particular Nissan Safari
on their list of stolen vehicles.
- They brought it to Camp Crame for further investigation and learned that it had been
stolen in the parking area in Rob Galleria from its registered owner, Mantequilla.
- Dimat claimed that he did not know Mantequilla and that he bought the vehicle in good
faith from a certain Tolentino under a deed of sale with the same engine and chassis
number as evidenced by the deeds of sale. This was later sold to Sonia.
- RTC found him guilty of violation of Anti Fencing Law. The CA affirmed but modified the
penalty.

ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in its decision of convicting him of Anti Fencing Law?

RULING: No.

First, the Nissan Safari, when stopped on the road and inspected by the police, was found out
to have the engine and chassis number of the stolen Nissan Safari from Mantequilla. The deed
of sale did not reflect that correct numbers of the vehicle’s engine and chassis. Moreover,
Tolentino was unable to make good on his promise to produce new documents undoubtedly
confirmed to Dimat that the Nissan Safari came from an illicit source. Still, Dimat sold the same
to Sonia Delgado who apparently made no effort to check the papers covering the purchase.

Second, Dimat’s defense of lack of criminal intent is flawed. P.D. 1612 is a special law and its
violation is regarded as malum prohibitum. Therefore, its violation requires no proof of criminal
intent.

2. Lim v. People

In the case of Mariano Lim vs People (GR 211977, 12 October 2016), a heavy equipment stolen
from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) was found in the possession of the
accused. In his defense, the accused said that he bought the heavy equipment from Petronilo
Banosing who showed him a certificate of ownership that stated that the heavy equipment was
his.

In his petition, he alleged that:


1) the crime of theft has not been proven.
2) he is a purchaser for value and in good faith, without intent to gain

ISSUE: Whether the elements of the crime of fencing were established

RULING: In overturning his conviction, the Supreme Court laid down the following elements of
PD 1612:

1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;


2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of
robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes,
or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value,
which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime;
3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything
of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and:
4. There is on the part of the accused intent to gain for himself or for another.

The High Court ruled that the first and 2nd elements were not established because the DPWH
did not present satisfactory evidence to prove its ownership of the equipment and the fact that
it had been stolen (memorandum of receipt only showed that the subject grader was received
by the engineer for his safekeeping). Theft was not proven, those were only based on hearsay.

The third element is also absent. The presumption under Section 5 of the law was overcome by
the certificate of ownership presented by Banosing to the accused. Being a duly notarized
document which, by virtue of its notarization, it enjoys a presumption of regularity. The accused
need not obtain a police clearance first because it is only required if several conditions are met:
first, that the person, store, establishment or entity is in the business of buying and selling of
any good, articles item object, or anything of value; second, that such thing of value was
obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof; and third, that such thing of value is to
be offered for sale to the public. Here, the accused did not appear to be engaged in the
business of buying and selling, neither did it appear that he had intended to sell the equipment
to the public.

3. Tan v. People

FACTS: Accused allegedly bought stolen propellers and boat spare parts from Manuelito
Mendez. The stolen items were owned by Mrs. Lim who was the former employer of Mendez.
The former did not report the theft incident to the incident and did not file charges against
Mendez. Instead, she filed violation of P.D. 1612, otherwise known as Anti-Fencing Law, against
the accused.
ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution established the elements of fencing against the
petitioner.

RULING: No.

In this case, the theft was not proved because complainant Rosita Lim did not complain to the
public authorities of the felonious taking of her property. She sought out her former employee
Manuelito Mendez, who confessed that he stole certain articles from the warehouse of the
complainant and sold them to petitioner. Such confession is insufficient to convict, without
evidence of corpus delicti. In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the
property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.

There was no showing at all that the accused knew or should have known that the very stolen
articles were the ones sold to him. Without petitioner knowing that he acquired stolen articles,
he cannot be guilty of "fencing."

Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential elements of fencing, and
thus petitioner is entitled to an acquittal.

The court set out the essential elements of the crime of fencing as follows:
1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery
or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells,
or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived
from the proceeds of the said crime;
3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of
value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
4. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another. Consequently,
"the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused by establishing the existence of all the
elements of the crime charged."

You might also like