ARNOLD JAMES M.

YSIDORO, Petitioner, Petitioner was charged of the crime Fencing for

vs. buying Two Hundred Ten (210) cases of Coca Cola
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. products worth Php52,476.00 owned by and
belonging to the offended party Johnson Tan which
FACTS: accused know, or should be known to him, to have
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
Theft, to the damage and prejudice of said owner.
This case is about a municipal mayor charged with
illegal diversion of food intended for those suffering
from malnutrition to the beneficiaries of Tan discovered that contrary to his instructions,
reconsideration projects affecting the homes of Lopez and Lariosa delivered the subject items to
victims of calamities. petitioner's store. Tan then went to petitioner and
informed him that the delivery to his store was a
mistake and that he was pulling out the subject items
Polinio told Garcia that the SFP still had sacks of rice
but the petitioner refused.
and boxes of sardines in its storeroom. And since she
had already distributed food to the mother
volunteers, what remained could be given to the The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable
CSAP beneficiaries. Mayor Ysidoro approved the doubt of the crime charged. CA affirmed decision.
release and signed the withdrawal slip for four sacks
of rice and two boxes of sardines worth. ISSUE:

Alfredo Doller, former member of the Sangguniang WON CA correctly upheld petitioner's conviction for
Bayan of Leyte, filed the present complaint against the crime of Fencing.
Ysidoro that the subject SFP goods were intended for
RULING:
its target beneficiaries, Leyte’s malnourished
children. Thus, Ysidoro committed technical
YES. The courts a quo correctly found that the
malversation when he approved the distribution of prosecution was able to establish beyond
SFP goods to the CSAP beneficiaries. In his defense, reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of
Ysidoro claims that the diversion of the subject goods Fencing. Fencing is a malum prohibitum, and PD
to a project also meant for the poor. 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of Fencing
from evidence of possession by the accused of any
ISSUE: good, article, item, object or anything of value,
which has been the subject of robbery or theft; and
WON good faith is a valid defense for technical prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of
malversation. the property.

RULING: The proper penalty to be imposed on petitioner,

pertinent portions of Section 3 of PD 1612 read:
NO. Criminal intent is not an element of technical Section 3. Penalties. - Any person guilty of fencing
malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting shall be punished as hereunder indicated:
public property earmarked by law or ordinance for
a particular public purpose to another public a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the
purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not
the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property
becomes a criminal offense because positive law exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
forbids its commission based on considerations of paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period,
public policy, order, and convenience. It is the adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos;
commission of an act as defined by the law, and not but the total penalty which may be imposed shall
the character or effect thereof, that determines not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty
whether or not the provision has been violated. shall be termed reclusion temporal and the
Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the
irrelevant. Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.

IRENEO CAHULOGAN, Petitioner, v. Notably, while the crime of Fencing is defined and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. penalized by a special penal law, the penalty
provided therein is taken from the nomenclature in
FACTS: the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, officers having control, management or
vs. direction of their business shall be liable.
BULU CHOWDURY, accused-appellant.
Private complainants are left with no remedy for the
FACTS: wrong committed against them. The Department of
Justice may still file a complaint against the officers
Bulu Chowduly and Josephine Ong were charged having control, management or direction of the
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila with the business of Craftrade Overseas Developers
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. (Craftrade), so long as the offense has not yet
prescribed.
The prosecution presented private complainants
Aser Sasis, Estrella Calleja and Melvin Miranda. They
testified that Chowdury of Craftrade Overseas
Developers (Craftrade) interviewed them and EVANGELINE LADONGA, petitioner,
completed all the requirements but failed to deploy vs.
them. Upon verification with the POEA, they learned PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
that Craftrade's license had already expired and has
not been renewed and that Chowdury, in his FACTS:
personal capacity, was not a licensed recruiter.
Evangeline Ladonga and her husband Adronico who
Trial court found Chowdury guilty beyond are regular customers in his pawnshop business of
reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment complainant Oculam in Tagbilaran City, Bohol.
in large scale. Ladonga spouses obtained a loan from him,
guaranteed by United Coconut Planters Bank
ISSUE: (UCPB) Check. The three checks bounced upon
presentment for the reason "CLOSED
WON accused-appellant knowingly and ACCOUNT";when the Ladonga spouses failed to
intentionally participated in the commission of the redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he
crime charged. filed a criminal complaint against them.

RULING: RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga

spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
NO. Evidence shows that accused-appellant B.P. Blg. 22. Adronico applied for probation which
interviewed private complainants in the months of was granted. On the other hand, petitioner brought
June, August and September in 1994 at Craftrade's the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the
office. At that time, he was employed as interviewer RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring
of Craftrade which was then operating under a with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is
temporary authority given by the POEA pending inapplicable to B.P. Blg. 22 which is a special law;
renewal of its license. moreover, she is not a signatory of the checks and
had no participation in the issuance. CA affirmed the
conviction of petitioner.
The prosecution failed to prove that accused-
appellant was aware of Craftrade's failure to register
his name with the POEA and that he actively ISSUE:
engaged in recruitment despite this knowledge. The
obligation to register its personnel with the POEA WON CONSPIRACY IS APPLICABLE IN VIOLATIONS
belongs to the officers of the agency. A mere OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22 BY INVOKING THE
employee of the agency cannot be expected to LAST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE REVISED PENAL
know the legal requirements for its operation CODE

The last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) RULING:

804219 states who shall be held liable for the offense,
thus: NO. B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the
suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC.
The persons criminally liable for the above Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg.
offenses are the principals, accomplices and 22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their
accessories. In case of juridical persons, the nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
suppletorily. Indeed, in the recent case of Yu vs.
People, the Court applied suppletorily the provisions stolen from his warehouse, based on the chalk
on subsidiary imprisonment under Article 39 of the marking and the serial number thereon.
RPC to B.P. Blg. 22.
A buy bust team was formed and was able to
The suppletory application of the principle of confiscate thirteen (13) tires. Accused Ong in his
conspiracy in this case is analogous to the defense, alleged that he had been engaged in the
application of the provision on principals under business of buying and selling tires for twenty-four
Article 17 in U.S. vs. Ponte. For once conspiracy or (24) years and denying that he had any knowledge
action in concert to achieve a criminal design is that he was selling stolen tires in Jong Marketing.
shown, the act of one is the act of all the
conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of RTC found that the prosecution had sufficiently
participation of each of them becomes secondary, established that all thirteen (13) tires found. CA
since all the conspirators are principals. affirmed.

Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, ISSUE:

but by positive and conclusive evidence.
Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and WON accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in violation of PD 1612 or Anti-Fencing Law.
itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge,
acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not
RULING:
enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy,
absent any active participation in the commission of
Yes. Fencing is defined in Section 2(a) of P.D. 1612
the crime with a view to the furtherance of the
as the "act of any person who, with intent to gain
common design and purpose
for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess,
keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the
buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article,
petitioner with moral certainty. Its evidence falls short
item, object or anything of value which he knows,
of the quantum of proof required for conviction.
or should be known to him, to have been derived
Accordingly, the constitutional presumption of the
from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft."
petitioner’s innocence must be upheld and she must
be acquitted.
In his defense, Ong argued that he relied on the
receipt issued to him by Go.1âwphi1 Logically, and
JAIME ONG y ONG, Petitioner,
for all practical purposes, the issuance of a sales
vs.
invoice or receipt is proof of a legitimate
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
transaction and may be raised as a defense in the
charge of fencing; however, that defense is
FACTS: disputable. In this case, the validity of the issuance
of the receipt was disputed, and the prosecution
Private complainant was the owner of forty-four (44) was able to prove that Gold Link and its address
Firestone truck tires. After appellant sold six (6) tires were fictitious.24Ong failed to overcome the
sometime in January 1995, thirty-eight (38) tires evidence presented by the prosecution and to
remained inside the warehouse. prove the legitimacy of the transaction. Thus, he
was unable to rebut the prima facie presumption
Private complainant learned from caretaker Jose under Section 5 of P.D. 1612.
Cabal that all thirty-eight (38) truck tires were stolen
from the warehouse, the gate of which was forcibly Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612 creates
opened. Private complainant, together with a prima fqcie presumption of fencing from
caretaker Cabal, reported the robbery. evidence of possession by the accused of any
good, article, item, object or anything of value,
On February 24, 1995, private complainant chanced which has been the subject of robbery or theft; and
upon Jong's Marketing, a store selling tires in Paco, prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of
Manila, owned and operated by appellant. Private the property.
complainant inquired if appellant was selling any
Model T494 1100 by 20 by 14 ply Firestone tires, to IRENEO CAHULOGAN, Petitioner, v.
which the latter replied in the affirmative. Appellant PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
brought out a tire fitting the description, which
private complainant recognized as one of the tires FACTS:
Petitioner was charged of the crime Fencing for
buying Two Hundred Ten (210) cases of Coca Cola
products worth Php52,476.00 owned by and
belonging to the offended party Johnson Tan which
accused know, or should be known to him, to have
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
Theft, to the damage and prejudice of said owner.

Tan discovered that contrary to his instructions,

Lopez and Lariosa delivered the subject items to
petitioner's store. Tan then went to petitioner and
informed him that the delivery to his store was a
mistake and that he was pulling out the subject items
but the petitioner refused.

The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime charged. CA affirmed decision.

ISSUE:
WON CA correctly upheld petitioner's conviction for
the crime of Fencing.

RULING:

YES. The courts a quo correctly found that the

prosecution was able to establish beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of
Fencing. The essential elements of the crime of
fencing are as follows: (a) a crime of robbery or theft
has been committed; (b) the accused, who is not a
principal or an accomplice in the commission aof
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 crime of
robbery or theft; (c) the accused knew 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 (d)
there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain
for oneself or for another.