Tan v.

People
Facts: Manuelito Mendez was one of the employees of complainant Rosita Lim,
proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries. Mendez left the company and Lim thereafter noticed
that materials valued about P48,000 were missing. Mendez was arrested and he thereafter
admitted to the crime. He asked for forgiveness and he pointed to Ramon C. Tan, petitioner,
as the one who bought the stolen items. Complainant Lim never filed charges against
Mendez.

Issue: Whether the petitioner may be held liable for fencing.

Held: Before the enactment of PD 1612, the fence could only be prosecuted as an
accessory after the fact of robbery or theft. Presently, the accessory could be prosecuted
under the RPC or as the principal under PD 1612.

The essential elements of fencing are: 1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
2) the accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice in the crime, with intent to gain,
buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes of, or shall buy and
sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value derived from the
proceeds of the crime; and 3) the accused knows, or should have known that the article or
object was derived from the proceeds of the crime.

Lim reported no loss to the police, therefore it cannot be held for certain that the crime of
theft was committed. Thus, the first element of the crime of fencing is absent; that is, the
commission of the crime of robbery or theft. There was no evidence of corpus delicti as theft
or robbery was not proved. What is more, there was no showing that the accused knew or
should have known that the stolen articles were the ones sold to him. Without the petitioner
knowing that he acquired stolen articles, he cannot be guilty of fencing.