You are on page 1of 3

Mendoza v.

Rolando Mendoza was convicted of murder by the Regional Trial Court in its March
2000 decision. His co-accused, Reynaldo Balverde, is still at large. On October
11,1998, the witness, Eduardo Mariquit saw the two accused stabbing the Prudencio
Valdoz, on the streets of Caloocan City. Mendoza used a kitchen knife while Balverde
used a butcher's knife. Afterwards Balverde, alias jingjing, warned him and said,
"wala kang nakita, wala kang narinig." Mariquit went to the the brother of the victim,
Manuel Valdo, and told him whay happened. Meanwhile, Estrellita Carmelo was
watching TV when she heard shouts that someone was stabbed. She went outside
and helped the others bring the victim to the hopital. Inside the operating room, the
victim beckoned her to come near him, the victim told her who stabbed him in case
he dies. The victim, in his ante mortem statement, pointed to Mendoza and Balverde
as the persons who stabbed him.
1. Whether or not the defendant Mendoza is a mere accessory and not a principal to
the commission of the crime
1. Defendant denies any participation in the death of Valdoz, maintaining that it was
Balverde who actually stabbed and killed the victim. In the light of the positive
identification of defendant as the perpetrator of the crime, this denial cannot be
sustained. Naturally, he would pass the blame to his co-accused in the belief that the
latter, who has not yet been apprehended, will be in no position to contradict the
former's assertions. The defendant is found guilty of homicide, and the aggravating
circumstance of treachery is not appreciated.

Taer v. CA
Jorge Taer, along with Mario Cago, Cirilo Saludes, and Emilio Namocatcat were
charged in the RTC of Bohol of the crime of cattle rustling. On December 5, 1981,
Saludes slept in the house of Taer. At 2 am dawn Namocatcat and Cago came in the
house with 2 carabaos, which were tied in a post near Taers house. Tirso Dalde and
Eladio Palaca, the rightful owners of the carabaos, noticed the animals missing and
searched in vain, they were informed later on that the carabaos were found near
Taers house.
Whether or not Taer is an accessory to the crime of cattle rustling

Jorge Taer is only an accessory and not a principal to the crime. There was no
conspiracy between Namocatcat and Taer, mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or
approval of the act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
constitute one a party to a conspiracy absent the intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. At
most the facts establish Taer's knowledge of the crime. And yet without having
participated either as principal or as an accomplice, for he did not participate in the
taking of the carabaos, he took part subsequent to the commission of the act of
taking by profiting himself by its effects. Taer is thus only an accessory after the fact.
Dizon-Pamintuan v. People
Petitioner, Norma Dizon-Pamintuan, was convicted by the Court of Appeals of the
violation of Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612) She bought jewelries, which she knew
or should have known that these were derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery committed by Joselito Sacdalan Salinas against the owners Teodoro and
Luzviminda Encarnacion. The police were tipped that the stolen jewelries were being
sold at Chinatown. The owners posed as buyers and there they confirmed that it was
the same jewelries they own. The store owner, Norma Dizon-Pamintuan were invited
to the police station.
Whether or not the petitioner is an accessory to the crime committed
No. Before P.D. No. 1612, a fence could only be prosecuted for and held liable as an
accessory, as the term is defined in Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. The
penalty applicable to an accessory is obviously light under the rules prescribed in
Articles 53, 55, and 57 of the Revised Penal Code, subject to the qualification set
forth in Article 60 thereof. Nothing, however, the reports from law enforcement
agencies that "there is rampant robbery and thievery of government and private
properties" and that "such robbery and thievery have become profitable on the part of
the lawless elements because of the existence of ready buyers, commonly known as
fence, of stolen properties," P.D. No. 1612 was enacted to "impose heavy penalties
on persons who profit by the effects of the crimes of robbery and theft." Evidently, the
accessory in the crimes of robbery and theft could be prosecuted as such under the
Revised Penal Code or under P.D. No. 1612. However, in the latter case, he ceases
to be a mere accessory but becomes a principal in the crime of fencing. Elsewise
stated, the crimes of robbery and theft, on the one hand, and fencing, on the other,
are separate and distinct offenses. The state may thus choose to prosecute him
either under the Revised Penal Code or P.D. No. 1612, although the preference for
the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is a malum prohibitum, and

P.D. No. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing 14 and prescribes a higher penalty
based on the value of the property.
Tan v. People
Petitioner, Ramon Tan, was convicted by the RTC for the crime of fencing. Rosita Lim
owns a business manufacturing propellers or spare parts of boats. Manuelito Mendez
was one of the employees working for her. Sometime in February 1991 Manuelito
resigned as an employee. Lim noticed that some of the welding rods, propellers and
boat spare parts, such as bronze and stainless propellers and brass crews were
missing. She informed Victor Sy, uncle of Manuelito, about this. Subsequently,
Manuelito was arrested in Visayas and admitted that he and his companion stole
from Lims warehouse some spare boat parts. He pointed to petitioner Ramon Tan as
the one who bought the stolen items.
Whether or not petitioner violated P.D. No. 1612 or the Anti-Fencing Law
No. The Court held that prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused by
establishing the existence of all the elements of the crime charged. Short of evidence
establishing beyond reasonable doubt the existence of essential elements of fencing,
there can be no conviction for such offense. In this case, the guilt of the complainant
and the elements of the crime of fencing were not duly established. First, Rosita Lim
never reported the theft or even loss to the police. She admitted that Manuelito
confessed to the unlawful taking but did not prosecute him. Theft is a public crime. It
can be prosecuted de officio, or even without a private complainant, but it cannot be
without a victim. As complainant Lim reported no loss, the first element of the crime
of fencing is absent.