G.R. No.
193854               September 24, Nothing in the evidence presented by the
2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
DINA DULAY y PASCUAL, Appellant
Facts: Private complainant was 12 years old
when her sister introduced her to the
appellant. The appellant convinced AAA to
accompany her at a wake. Before going to the
said wake, appellant convinced AAA to
accompany her to look for her boyfriend.
They then went to a Fish Port where they saw
the boyfriend of the appellant. They
proceeded to a Kubuhan at the back of
Bulungan Fish Port. When they reached said
Kubuhan, appellant suddenly pulled AAA
inside a room where a man named Speed
was waiting. Speed gave money to the
appellant and heard Spped tell appellant to
look for a younger girl. Thereafter, Speed
wielded a knife and tied AAA’s hands to
the papag and raped her. AAA asked for
the help of appellant who she saw peeping
but the appellant did not do so.
Dulay was charged with conspiracing with
Spped in raping AAA.
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as co-
principal by indispensable cooperation
CA affirmed the decision
Ruling:
Under the Revised Penal Code, an accused
14  facilitated or induced child prostitution.
may be considered a principal by direct
participation, by inducement, or by
indispensable cooperation. To be a principal
by indispensable cooperation, one must
participate in the criminal resolution, a
conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose
and cooperation in the commission of the
offense by performing another act without
which it would not have been accomplished.15 
prosecution does it show that the acts
committed by appellant are indispensable
in the commission of the crime of rape.
The events narrated by the CA, from the
time appellant convinced AAA to go with
her until appellant received money from
the man who allegedly raped AAA, are not
indispensable in the crime of rape. Anyone
could have accompanied AAA and offered
the latter's services in exchange for money
and AAA could still have been raped. Even
AAA could have offered her own services
in exchange for monetary consideration
and still end up being raped.
Thus, this disproves the indispensable
aspect of the appellant in the crime of
rape. It must be remembered that in the
Information, as well as in the testimony of
AAA, she was delivered and offered for a
fee by appellant, thereafter, she was raped
by "Speed." Thus:
In this light, while this Court does not find
appellant to have committed the crime of rape
as a principal by indispensable cooperation,
she is still guilty of violation of Section 5 (a) of
R.A. 7610, or the Special Protection of
Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act, which states that:
Paragraph (a) essentially punishes acts
pertaining to or connected with child
prostitution. It contemplates sexual abuse of a
child exploited in prostitution. In other words,
under paragraph (a), the child is abused
primarily for profit.
23
As alleged in the Information and proven
through the testimony of AAA, appellant
Children, whether male or female, who for
money, profit, or any other consideration or
due to the coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed
to be children exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse.
G.R. No. 172707               October 1, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE,
vs.
HALIL GAMBAO Y ESMAIL, EDDIE KARIM
Y USO, EDWIN DUKILMAN Y SUBOH,
TONY ABAO Y SULA, RAUL UDAL Y
KAGUI, THENG DILANGALEN Y NANDING,
JAMAN MACALINBOL Y KATOL,
MONETTE RONAS Y AMPIL, NORA EVAD
Y MULOK, THIAN PERPENIAN Y RAFON
A.K.A LARINA PERPENIAN AND JOHN
DOES, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
FACTS: The accused-appellants herein along
with an unidentified person were charged with
Kidnapping for Ransom.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Lucia Chan was a fish dealer based on
Manila. She usually expected fish deliveries
which were shipped by her suppliers from
provinces.
One afternoon, two persons one of whom is
accused appellant Dingalen went to Chan
residence to inquire about a certain passport
alleged to have been mistakenly placed inside
a box of fish delivered to her. Unable to locate
said passport, the two left. Dingalen came
back the next morning along with Abao but
were told that she was out. When the two
returned in the afternoon, Chan informed
them that the delivery had yet to arrive.
Dingalen accompanied by an unidentified
person returned to Chan’s residence that
evening. Chan houseboy ushered them in
and Chan met them by the stairs. Thereat,
the unidentified companion of Dingalen
pointed his gun at the son of CHAN and the
house companions. The unidentified man
forcibly dragged Chan, her son Levy tried
to stop this but Dingalen pointed a gun at
Levy’s head forcing the latter to release his
grip on her mother’s feet.
Chan was forced to board a Tamarax FX.
After two hours, they stopped at a certain
house. Accused appeallant Dukilam warned
appellant not to shout. Chan was ordered to
go with Evad and Ronas inside the house and
was made to lie on a bed guarded. Ronas and
Evad threatened Chan that she would be
killed unless 20 Million pesos is paid. The
following day, Chan was awakened by Evad
and was asked to board the Tamaraw van.
After travelling for about ten minutes,
Chan was brought to a room on the
second floor of the house. Inside the room
were Macalinbol, Udal and Gamboa.
Another woman, later identified as
Perpenian arrived.
At about 9pm in the evening, Mandanao
entered the room with a handgun and asked
Chan “ Bakit kayo nagsumbong sa Pulis”
Another man, whom Chan idenitified in court
as Karim ordered Mandanao in the room.
Chan was instructed to talk to her son
through her cellphone and she gave
instructions to get 75k. It was agreed upon
that Levy was to deliver 400k at the
Chowking Buendia.
The Philippine Anti Origanized Crime Task
Force conducted a rescue operation.
The surveillance team successfully
intercepeted the van on board the Tamarax
FX wherein Karim, Abao, Gamboa and
dukilam was boarded. The team was able
to recover the 400k ransom.
Morning of the following day, the police
team assaulted Cottage 1 was
apprehended seven of the abductors
including Pernian
On 16 October 1998, the RTC rendered a
decision convicting Gambao, Karim,
Dukilman, Abao, Udal, Mandao, Dilangalen,
Macalinbol, Ronas, Evad and Perpenian of
Kidnapping for Ransom. Hence, they
appealed to the CA.
In a Decision dated 28 June 2005, the
appellate court affirmed with modifications the
decision of the trial court. The dispositive
portion of the CA decision reads.
Perpenian likewise argued that the evidence
for her conviction is insufficient. We also find
her argument bereft of merit.
The testimony of Inspector Ouano,
establishing Perpenian as one of the seven
people apprehended when they conducted the
rescue operation at around 5:00 o’clock in the
morning of 14 August 1998,34 and the positive
identification of Perpenian by Chan
constituted adequate evidence working
against her defense of denial.
Further, it should be noted that the only
defense the accused-appellants proffered was
denial. It is established jurisprudence that
denial cannot prevail over the witnesses’
positive identification of the accused-
appellants, more so where the defense did not
present convincing evidence that it was
physically impossible for them to have been
present at the crime scene at the time of the
commission of the crime.35
The trial court took note of the fact that
Perpenian gave inconsistent answers and lied
several times under oath during the
trial.57 Perpenian lied about substantial
details such as her real name, age,
address and the fact that she saw Chan at
the Elizabeth Resort. When asked why she
lied several times, Perpenian claimed she
was scared to be included or identified
with the other accused-appellants. The
lying and the fear of being identified with
people whom she knew had done wrong
are indicative of discernment. She knew,
therefore, that there was an ongoing crime
being committed at the resort while she
was there. It is apparent that she was fully
aware of the consequences of the unlawful
act.
As reflected in the records,58 the prosecution
was not able to proffer sufficient evidence to
hold her responsible as a principal. Seeing
that the only evidence the prosecution had
was the testimony59 of Chan to the effect that
on 13 August 1998 Perpenian entered the
room where the victim was detained and
conversed with Evad and Ronas regarding
stories unrelated to the kidnapping, this Court
opines that Perpenian should not be held
liable as a co-principal, but rather only as an
accomplice to the crime.
Jurisprudence60 is instructive of the elements
required, in accordance with Article 18 of the
Revised Penal Code, in order that a person
may be considered an accomplice, namely,
(1) that there be community of design; that is
knowing the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he concurs with the latter
in his purpose;
(2) that he cooperates in the execution by
previous or simultaneous act, with the
intention of supplying material or moral aid in
the execution of the crime in an efficacious
way; and
(3) that there be a relation between the acts
done by the principal and those attributed to
the person charged as accomplice
The defenses raised by Perpenian are not
sufficient to exonerate her criminal
liability.  Assuming arguendo that she just
1âwphi1
came to the resort thinking it was a swimming
party, it was inevitable that she acquired
knowledge of the criminal design of the
principals when she saw Chan being
guarded in the room. A rational person
would have suspected something was
wrong and would have reported such
incident to the police. Perpenian, however,
chose to keep quiet; and to add to that,
she even spent the night at the cottage.
It has been held before that being present
and giving moral support when a crime is
being committed will make a person
responsible as an accomplice in the crime
committed.61 It should be noted that the
accused-appellant’s presence and
company were not indispensable and
essential to the perpetration of the
kidnapping for ransom; hence, she is only
liable as an accomplice.62 Moreover, this
Court is guided by the ruling in People v.
Clemente, et al.,63 where it was stressed
that in case of doubt, the participation of
the offender will be considered as that of
an accomplice rather than that of a
principal.
Having admitted their involvement in the crime
of kidnapping for ransom and considering the
evidence presented by the prosecution, linking
accused-appellants’ participation in the crime,
no doubt can be entertained as to their guilt.
The CA convicted the accused-appellants of
kidnapping for ransom and imposed upon
them the supreme penalty of death, applying
the provisions of Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code. Likewise, this Court finds
accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as principals to the crime of kidnapping
for ransom. However, pursuant to R.A. No.
9346,64 we modify the penalty imposed by the
trial court and reduce the penalty to Reclusion
Perpetua, without eligibility for parole.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 224562, September 18,
2019
EXCEL GURRO Y MAGA,
PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
G.R. NO. 237216
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLE, v. EXCEL
GURRO Y MAGA, WENNIE INTING,
JJ. IDIAN Y JAMINDANG AND JOEL
JAMINDANG Y ZOSA, ACCUSED,
WENNIE IDIAN Y JAMINDANG AND
EXCEL GURRO Y MAGA. ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.
DECISION
An Information for Kidnapping with
Homicide was filed against Excel. The
prosecution, with leave of court, filed an
Amended Information to include Wennie
Modification should also be made as
to the criminal liability of Perpenian.
Pursuant to the passing of R.A. No.
9344,65 a determination of whether she
acted with or without discernment is
necessary. Considering that
Perpenian acted with discernment
when she was 17 years old at the time
of the commission of the offense, her
minority should be appreciated not as
an exempting circumstance, but as a
privileged mitigating circumstance
pursuant to Article 68 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Under Section 38 of R.A. No.
9344,66 the suspension of sentence of
a child in conflict with the law shall still
be applied even if he/she is already
eighteen (18) years of age or more at
the time of the pronouncement of
his/her guilt.
and Joel Jamindang y Zosa (Joel) as
additional accused.
The antecedents facts reveal that Arnel
Salvador brought his daughter AAA
to the house of Winnie. Wennie is the
wife of Randy, the brother of Arnel’s
wife Helen.
It was confirmed that AAA was
playing at Wennies house with the
latters daughter at around 2pm.
Later on, Wennie left with AAA and
Wennie returned alone. AAA went
missing thereafter.
Helen, Arnel, Randy and Helen’s
mother went to Wennie’s house to
look for AAA. When the group had
left, Wennie asked Patrick’s help to
look for AAA. Since Wennie’s cellphone
battery was running low, she borrrown
Patrick’s cellphone and inserted her sim
card therein. She then texted someone.
After removing her sim card, Wennie
apologized to Patrick claiming that she
accidentally deleted all the messagaes in
his cellphome. Lter, Wennie again
borrowed Patrick’s cellphone and
deleted all the laters contacts.
The next day, Patrick was about to send
Joel a text when he noticed that Joel’s
number has been deleted. She went to
ask Wennie about this by which Wennie
casually replied that she deleted it by
accident. Patrick asked Wennie for the
number of Joel but the latter
dismissively said that Joel no longer has
the cellphone. Patrick asked the house
helper for Joel’s number. Later, Patrick
showed the number of Joel to the family
of AAA and they noticed that it matched
the numbder of the kidnapper.
Arnel’s family received another text
message from the kidnapper asking for
money and if they failed to come up
with the money, they would kill A.
The next morning, Arnel sent a message
to the Kidnappers and informed them
that he only had 186k. The kidnappers
instructed him to bring the money at 7-
eleven Marikina and upon reaching
there, the kidnappers instructed him to
deposit it to the metrobank account of
one Jackilou.
While depositing the money, Arnel was
informed that the amount he deposited
was wired to Catbalogan. Randy
commented that Joel might be involved.
Arnel then later on learned that AAA had
been killed.
Wennie suddenly left for Catbalogan
Samar.
During trial Jackielou testified that she
was approached by Excel who was also
santding in line the ATM in Metrobank
Catbalogan. Excel asked if he could
borrow her account so that his cousin
Joel could deposit 20,000 in her account
for his tuition. Later on, Jackielou
recived a text massage informing her
that 186k had been deposited to her
account. She withdrew the money and
handed it to Excel.
The accused vehemently denied
the charges leveled against them.
Wennie and Joel related that they
are siblings, while Excel is their
cousin. Joel admitted that he
kidnapped AAA and, thereafter,
killed her because he got irritated
with her, as she kept insisting to
go home.21
Joel stated that Wennie had nothing to
do with the crime, and that he merely
used Excel to receive the ransom
money. He related that he told Excel to
look for somebody with a Metrobank
account because Joel's father will be
sending a large sum of money to Excel.
After withdrawing the money, Excel
remitted P183,000.00 to Joel through
ML Kwarta Padala. Thereafter, he and
his· cohorts went to Naga City and
divided the ransom.22
Likewise, Joel claimed that Patrick was
the mastermind of the plot to kidnap
AAA. He related that he sent P30,000.00
to Patrick from the ransom money he
received from the Salvador family. 23
Wennie also denied the charges leveled
against her. Wennie admitted that Arnel
left AAA. in her care. She claimed that
she brought the victim to her friend's
house and they went home after 15
minutes. Then, AAA left for home at
around 2:00 p.m.24
the RTC rendered a
25
Decision  conv1ctmg Wennie and
Joel, as principals and Excel, as an
accomplice for the crime of
Kidnapping with Homicide.
 acts.54
The CA rendered the assailed
27
Decision  affirming the conviction On the other hand, accessories to the
meted by the RTC unto Wennie and crime are described in Article 19 as:
Excel. The CA found that Joel and [T]hose who, having knowledge of the
Wennie conspired to kidnap AAA. Also, commission of the crime, and without
the CA held that Excel was an having participated therein, either as
accomplice of Joel and Wennie. principals or accomplices, take part
According to the CA, Excel's act of subsequent to its commission in any of
borrowing the Metrobank account of the following manners:
his friend, thereby allowing him to
receive the ransom was proof that 1. By profiting themselves or assisting
he assisted in thecrime.28 the offender to profit by the effects
of the crime.
Joel pleaded guilty to the crime but
denied conspiring with his sister 2. By concealing or destroying the body
Wennie. In the same regard, Wennie of the crime, or the effects or
urges that the prosecution failed to instruments thereof, in order to prevent
prove the alleged conspiracy between its discovery.
her and Joel.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting
in the escape of the principals of the
crime, provided the accessory acts with
ISSUE: WON Excel is liable as a abuse of his public functions or
accomplice to the crime whenever the author of the crime is
guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or
an attempt to take the life of the Chief
Excel is Guilty as an Accessory to Executive, or is known to be habitually
the Crime of Kidnapping for guilty of some other crime.55 (Emphasis
Ransom with Homicide Ours)

The RPC delineates the liabilities of each In the instant case, Excel was convicted
of the offenders by determining the by the trial court and the CA as an
extent of their respective participations accomplice to the special complex crime
in the offense committed. of Kidnapping for Ransom with
Homicide.
Relatedly, principals are those who
either (i) "take a direct part in the The Court disagrees.
execution of the act;"51 
It must be noted that the
(ii) "directly force or induce others to prosecution failed to prove, much
commit it;"52  less allege, any overt act on Excel's
part showing his direct participation
(iii) "or cooperate in the commission of in the kidnapping itself . It must be
the offense by another act without remembered that for one to be regarded
which it would not have been as an accomplice, it must be shown that
accomplished."53 While accomplices are (i) he knew the criminal design of the
those persons who, not having acted as principal by direct participation, and
principals, cooperate in the execution of concurred with the latter in his purpose;
the offense by previous or simultaneous (ii) he cooperated in the execution by
previous or simultaneous acts, with the
intention of supplying material or moral
aid in the execution of the crime in an G.R. NO. 190475 : April 10, 2013
efficacious way; and
JAIME ONG y
(iii) his acts bore a direct relation ONG, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
with the acts done by the PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
principal.56

There was no showing that Excel

actually cooperated or assisted in Facts:
kidnapping AAA and detaining the latter.
At best, Excel's participation in the Private complainant Lee was the owner
incident was limited to acts of 44 Firestone truck tires. His
committed after the abduction was acquisition was evidenced by a Sales
already consummated. Particularly, Invoice and an inventory list
Excel retrieved the ransom money from acknowledging receipt of the tires
Metrobank and, thereafter, immediately specifically described by their Serial
forwarded the same to Joel, through numbers.
four money transfer transactions
through ML Kwarta Padala remittance
Private complainant then learned from
on August 4, 2008, merely two hours
his caretaker that all of the 38 truck
after Arnel wired the ransom money to
tures were stolen from the warehouse
the kidnappers.57 This was established
which was forcibly opened. The robbery
through the documents presented by
was reported to the Southern Police
Atty. Heidi Caguioa (Atty. Caguioa),
District.
Compliance Officer of ML Kwarta Padala.
Atty. Caguioa presented photocopies of
Excel's identification card and the Pending police investigation, private
complainant canvassed from numerous
accomplished "Know-Your-Customer
Form" of Joel, as well as the Payout business establishment in an attempt to
locate the stolen tires. Private
Receipts issued to Joel.58
complaiant then chanced upon Jong
Marketing selling tires in Paco, Manila
Likewise, there is no doubt that Excel
was aware of the crime Joel committed. and owned and operated by appellant.
His actuations are certainly suspect. He
deceived Jackielou by telling her that his Private complainant inquired whether
cousin Joel will be depositing they sold tires which is the same model
P20,000.00 to her account for his tuition as the was that was stolen. The
fee. However, he later on texted appellant replied in the affirmative.
Jackielou that the amount was Appellant brought out a tire fitting the
P183,000.00. He did not express any description, which private complainant
shock or surprise about suddenly recognized as one of the stolen tires and
receiving a hefty sum. Moreover, he it also bore the same serial number.
immediately forwardede money to Joel,
two hours after the said amount was Private complaiant reported the matter
deposited by Arnel.59 to the police. The buy-bust team then
confirmed that the tires in the appellant
shop was the same tires that was
stolen.
Accused Ong stated that he was selling sells, or in any manner deals in any
tires for 24 years and that he had no article, item, object or anything of
knowledge that the tires were stolen. He value, which has been derived from the
avvered that a certain Ramon Go proceeds of the crime of robbery or
offered to sell the 13 confiscated theft;
firestone truck tires for 3500 each. Ong
brought the tires and was issued a Sales (3) the accused knew or should have
Invoice with a LETTER HEAD OF gold known that the said article, item, object
Link or anything of value has been derived
from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft; and

The RTC found that the prosecution had (4) there is, on the part of one accused,
sufficiently established that all thirteen intent to gain for oneself or for
(13) tires found in the possession of another.10
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Ong constituted a prima facie evidence

of fencing. Having failed to overcome
the presumption by mere denials, he We agree with the RTC and the CA
was found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of P.D. 1612.8
that the prosecution has met the
requisite quantum of evidence in
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's proving that all the elements of
findings with modification by reducing fencing are present in this case.
the minimum penalty from ten (10)
years and one (1) day to six (6) years of First, the owner of the tires,
prision correcional.9
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

private complainant Francisco

Azajar (Azajar), whose
Fencing is defined in Section 2(a) of
testimony was corroborated by
P.D. 1612 as the "act of any person
who, with intent to gain for himself or Jose Cabal - the caretaker of
for another, shall buy, receive, possess, the warehouse where the
keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose thirty-eight (38) tires were
of, or shall buy and sell, or in any stolen testified that the crime
manner deal in any article, item, object of robbery had been committed
or anything of value which he knows, or on 17 February 1995. Azajar was
should be known to him, to have been
able to prove ownership of the tires
derived from the proceeds of the crime
of robbery or theft." through Sales Invoice No.
11
4565  dated 10 November 1994
The essential elements of the crime of and an Inventory List.12 Witnesses
fencing are as follows: for the prosecution likewise
testified that robbery was reported
(1) a crime of robbery or theft has been as evidenced by their Sinumpaang
committed; Salaysay
(2) the accused, who is not a principal
Second, although there was no
or on accomplice in the commission of
the crime of robbery or theft, buys, evidence to link Ong as the
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, perpetrator of the robbery, he
conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and never denied the fact that
thirteen (13) tires of Azajar
were caught in his possession.
The facts do not establish that Ong
was neither a principal nor an
accomplice in the crime of robbery,
but thirteen (13) out of thirty-eight
(38) missing tires were found in his
possession
Third, 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. The words "should know"
denote the fact that a person of
reasonable prudence and
intelligence would ascertain the
fact in performance of his duty
to another or would govern his
conduct upon assumption that
such fact exists.17 Ong, who was
in the business of buy and sell of
tires for the past twenty-four (24)
years,18 ought to have known
the ordinary course of business
in purchasing from an unknown
seller. Admittedly, Go approached
Ong and offered to sell the thirteen
(13) tires and he did not even ask
for proof of ownership of the
tires.19 The entire transaction, from
the proposal to buy until the
delivery of tires happened in just
one day.20 His experience from
the business should have given
him doubt as to the legitimate
ownership of the tires
considering that it was his first
time to transact with Go and
the manner it was sold is as if
Go was just peddling the
thirteen (13) tires in the
streets.
Moreover, Ong knew the
requirement of the law in selling
second hand tires. Section 6 of
P.D. 1612 requires stores,
establishments or entities dealing
in the buying and selling of any
good, article, item, object or
anything else of value obtained
from an unlicensed dealer or
supplier thereof to secure the
necessary clearance or permit from
the station commander of the
Integrated National Police in the
town or city where that store,
establishment or entity is located
before offering the item for sale to
the public. . In fact, Ong has
practiced the procedure of
obtaining clearances from the
police station for some used tires
he wanted to resell but, in this
particular transaction, he was
remiss in his duty as a diligent
businessman who should have
exercised prudence.
In this case, the validity of the
issuance of the receipt was
disputed, and the prosecution was
able to prove that Gold Link and its
address were fictitious.24 Ong failed
to overcome the evidence
presented by the prosecution and
to prove the legitimacy of the
transaction. Thus, he was unable to
rebut the prima facie presumption
under Section 5 of P.D. 1612.
Finally, there was evident intent to
gain for himself, considering that
during the buy-bust operation, Ong
was actually caught selling the
stolen tires in his store, Jong
Marketing.

G.R. No. 181184               January 25, 2012
MEL DIMAT, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Facts: The government charged accused Mel
Dimat with violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
It was testified that Delagado’s wife Sonia was
bought from accused Dimat a 1997 Nissan
Saffari bearing a plate number WAH 569 for
850k.
Several officers then spotted the Nissan Safari
on E. Rodriguez Quezon bearing a suspicious
plate number. After stopping and inspecting
the evehicle, they discovered the engine
number and chassis number of the said
vehicle and found out that it was on their list of
stolen vehicles. They brought the vehicle to
their Camp Crame office and further learned
that it was stolen from its registered owner
Jose Mantequilla.
Mantequilla affirmed that he owned a
1997 Nissan Safari that carried plate
number JHM-818, which he mortgaged
to Rizal Commercial Banking
Corporation. The vehicle was carnapped
on May 25, 1998 at Robinsons Galleria’s
parking area. He reported the
carnapping to the TMG.
For his part, Dimat claimed that he did
not know Mantequilla. He bought the
1997 Nissan Safari in good faith and for
value from a certain Manuel Tolentino
under a deed of sale that gave its
engine number as TD42-126134 and its
chassis number as CRGY60-YO3553.
Dimat later sold the vehicle to Delgado.
He also claimed that, although the
Nissan Safari he sold to Delgado and
the one which the police officers took
into custody had the same plate
number, they were not actually the same
vehicle.
On July 20, 2005 the RTC found Dimat guilty
of violation of the Anti-Fencing Law and
sentenced him to an imprisonment of 10
years, 8 months, and 1 day of prision mayor to
20 years of reclusion temporal. The court also
ordered him to pay ₱850,000.00 as actual
damages and ₱50,000.00 as exemplary
damages, as well as the costs of suit.
On October 26, 2007 the Court of Appeals
(CA) affirmed in CA-G.R. CR 29794 the RTC
2 
decision but modified the penalty to
imprisonment of 8 years and 1 day of prision
mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to
17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period, as maximum,
thus, the present appeal.
Sole issue presented in this case is
whether or not the CA correctly ruled
that accused Dimat knowingly sold to
Sonia Delgado for gain the Nissan
Safari that was earlier carnapped
from Mantequilla.
The elements of "fencing" are
1) a robbery or theft has been
committed;
2) the accused, who took no part in the
robbery or theft, "buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals,
sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in
any manner deals in any article or object
taken" during that robbery or theft;
3) the accused knows or should have
known that the thing derived from that
crime; and
4) he intends by the deal he makes to
gain for himself or for another.
3
Here, someone carnapped Mantequilla’s
Nissan Safari on May 25, 1998. Two
years later in December 2000, Dimat
sold it to Delgado for ₱850,000.00.
Dimat’s defense is that the Nissan Safari
he bought from Tolentino and later
sold to Delgado had engine number
TD42-126134 and chassis number
CRGY60-YO3553 as evidenced by the
deeds of sale covering those
transactions. The Nissan Safari stolen
from Mantequilla, on the other hand, had
engine number TD42-119136 and
chassis number CRGY60-YO3111.
But Dimat’s defense is flawed.
First, the Nissan Safari Delgado
bought from him, when stopped on
the road and inspected by the police,
turned out to have the engine and
chassis numbers of the Nissan Safari
stolen from Mantequilla. This means
that the deeds of sale did not reflect the
correct numbers of the vehicle’s engine
and chassis.
Second. Dimat claims lack of criminal
intent as his main defense. But
Presidential Decree 1612 is a special
law and, therefore, its violation is
regarded as malum prohibitum, requiring
no proof of criminal intent.
4 
Of course, the prosecution must still
prove that Dimat knew or should have
known that the Nissan Safari he
acquired and later sold to Delgado was
derived from theft or robbery and that he
intended to obtain some gain out of his
acts.
1âwphi1
Dimat testified that he met Tolentino at
the Holiday Inn Casino where the latter
gave the Nissan Safari to him as
collateral for a loan. Tolentino
supposedly showed him the old
certificate of registration and official
receipt of the vehicle and even
promised to give him a new
certificate of registration and official
receipt already in his name. But
Tolentino reneged on this promise.
Dimat insists that Tolentino’s failure
to deliver the documents should not
prejudice him in any way. Delgado
himself could not produce any certificate
of registration or official receipt.
Based on the above, evidently, Dimat
knew that the Nissan Safari he
bought was not properly
documented. He said that Tolentino
showed him its old certificate of
registration and official receipt.
But this certainly could not be true
because, the vehicle having been
carnapped, Tolentino had no
documents to show. That 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 her
purchase. That she might herself be
liable for fencing is of no moment since
she did not stand accused in the case.