TAN v.
PEOPLE Mendez had a phone call at around accepting the stolen items
(Napa) G.R. NO. 134298 | August 26, 1999| Pardo, J.
PETITIONER: RAMON C. TAN
RESPONDENT: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUMMARY: Rosita Lim owned a company that manufactures spare parts
for boats, one of the employees left and Lim discovered some of the spare
parts of the boats were missing that was amounting to Php 48,000. Mendez
admitted and asking for forgiveness pointing Ramon Tan bought the stolen
spare parts for Php 13,000. Thus, Lim filed a case against Tan for violation of
the anti fencing law (PD1612) RTC and CA convicted Tan guilty of PD1612.
The Supreme court REVERSED the decision reasoning that there was no
assertion that there was unlawful taking (theft or robbery) the confession
was inadmissible as evidence, also, there was no assertion of Tan knowing
that these articles were stolen.
DOCTRINE: The prosecution shall prove the guilt by the existence of all the
elements of the crime.
FACTS:
1. Lim is proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries in Tondo, Manila
manufacturing propellers or spare parts for boats.
2. Manuelito Mendez one of the employees working for her, he left the
company and she noticed some her merchandise, spare parts were
missing (i.e. bronze, stainless propellers and brass screws)
amounting Php 48,000 [Php 48, 130 in the Information].
3. Lim called Sy uncle of Mendez confronting him that Mendez stole
from her.
4. Mendez was arrested, admitted that he and Dayop stole some of
boat spare parts. He pointed out Ramon C. Tan who bought the
items for Php 13,000.
5. A case was filed with the RTC indicting Mr. Tan of violation of Anti
Fencing Law.
Witnesses statements:
6. ROSITA LIM. Same with above facts, with addition that:
Presented receipts for the stolen materials (under the name of
William Tan and her husband
7. MANUELITO MENDEZ. Admitted the taking (corroborated with
the facts above) with addition that when it was delivered to Ramon
Hardware, 7AM to 8AM it was the Mr. Tan who accepted it and
(secretary was usually the one that accepting delivery of items).
8. RAMON TAN denied the facts presented; saying that it was not
really Rosita Lim in the receipts but her husband, and it was too
early to receive the goods at 7AM (he usually reports at 9AM).
RTC found Tan guilty
CA affirmed in toto later fied Motion for Reconsideration, denied.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFRORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision o the
Court of Appeals xxx and hereby ACQUITS petitioner of the offense charged
xxx.
RATIO:
Explaining the Anti-Fencing Law
Court explained fencing, before there was PD1612, there is accessory
after the fact (Art. 19) under the RPC for robbery or theft
o PD1612 imposes heavy penalties and makes it a malum
prohibitum
o The State may choose to prosecute him either under the RPC
or PD 1612.
Elements of Fencing:
a. Crime of robbery or theft committed;
b. Accused, not principal or accomplice in the commission of said crime
Buy, Possess, Keep, Receive, Acquire Conceal, Sell or Dispose, or
Buy and Sell the articles of the proceeds of the crime
c. Accused knows or should have known that those were proceeds of
the crime
d. Accused intent to gain for himself or for another
On the guilt of Ramon Tan
The prosecution shall prove the guilt by the existence of all the
elements of the crime.
There was no clear assertion of the first and third element:
o The crime of theft was not established, and the extrajudicial
confession was not obtained properly to be admitted as
evidence
o The knowledge of Mr. Tan was not established: knowledge
is the cognizance, consciousness, or awareness thereof. The
court cannot penetrate the mind therefore maintained on the
presumption of innocence
 Tan has no knowledge that he acquired stolen articles, he cannot be
guilty of fencing.

Fencing is defined:
o With intent to gain for himself or another
o Shall:
Buy
Possess
Keep
Receive
Acquire
Conceal
Sell or Dispose
Buy and Sell
o He knows to be proceeds from robbery or theft.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
1. Identity of the offender Bribery, Misrepresentation (of witnesses)
2. Verity, Authenticity evidence destroying, altering (for proceeding
and investigation)
3. Prevent arrest, prosecution, conviction harboring, facilitating escape
4. Evading prosecution or execution of judgment fictitious name,
concealing true name and personal circumstances
5. Obstruct Proceeding (of court orders); Disturb fiscal/tanodbayan
6. Affect outcome making, presenting false papers
7. Abstaining, Discontinuing, imeding prosecution
Soliciting/Accepting benefit
8. Prevent appearing threatening, imposing condition (legal or not)
9. Mislead - fabricated information