People v.

Bago
G.R. No. 122290, 6 April 2000

FACTS:
Appellant was accused and convicted of the crime of qualified theft through taking cold-
rolled steel from the company which he is employed as a leader in the cutting
department.
That sometime during the period from January 1992 to March 23, 1992, in Quezon City,
Philippines, REYNALDO BAGO y MADRID, being then employed as factory worker of
the Azkcon Metal Industries detailed with the Power Construction Supply Company
located at No. 130 Judge Juan Luna Street, San Francisco del Monte, this City, and as
such has free access to the different departments of the company, with grave abuse of
confidence, in conspiracy with his co-accused ARMANDO CAPARAS and RODOLFO
ONGSECO y VEGO, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one
another, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner
thereof, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry
away assorted cold rolled sheets and scraps valued in the total amount of P194,865.00,
Philippine Currency, belonging to Power Construction Supply Company, represented by
WILLIAM HILO, to the damage and prejudice of the owner thereof in the
aforementioned amount.

ISSUE:
Whether or not accused is guilty of qualified theft.

RULING:
Clearly, when all the elements of theft were established, to wit: (1) there was a taking of
personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was without the
consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was
accomplished without violence or intimidation against the person or force upon things.
When the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence, accused is guilty of
qualified theft.
In the crime of theft, if the value of the thing stolen exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty
shall be prision mayor in its maximum period and one year for each additional
P10,000.00, but the total penalty shall not exceed twenty years or reclusion temporal.
However, if that crime of theft is attended by any of the qualifying circumstances which
convert the taking into qualified theft, the penalty next higher by two degrees shall be
imposed, that is, at least, reclusion perpetua.
 TAN v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999

FACT:
Complainant Rosita Lim is the proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries, located at 301 Jose
Abad Santos St., Tondo, Manila, engaged in the business of manufacturing propellers or
spare parts for boats. Manuelito Mendez was one of the employees working for her.
Sometime in February 1991, Manuelito Mendez left the employ of the company.
Complainant Lim noticed that some of the welding rods, propellers and boat spare
parts, such as bronze and stainless propellers and brass screws were missing. She
conducted an inventory and discovered that propellers and stocks valued at
P48,000.00, more or less, were missing. Complainant Rosita Lim informed Victor Sy,
uncle of Manuelito Mendez, of the loss. Subsequently, Manuelito Mendez was arrested
in the Visayas and he admitted that he and his companion Gaudencio Dayop stole from
the complainant's warehouse some boat spare parts such as bronze and stainless
propellers and brass screws. Manuelito Mendez asked for complainant's forgiveness. He
pointed to petitioner Ramon C. Tan as the one who bought the stolen items and who
paid the amount of P13,000.00, in cash to Mendez and Dayop, and they split the
amount with one another. Complainant did not file a case against Manuelito Mendez
and Gaudencio Dayop.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of having committed the crime of “fencing”.

RULING:
No. Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of P.D. No. 1612 is the act of any person who, with
intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire,
conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article,
item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. 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.
Note that there was no showing at all that the accused knew or should have known that
the very stolen articles were the ones sold to him. When knowledge of the existence of a
particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is
aware of a high probability of its existence unless he actually believes that it does not
exist. Without petitioner knowing that he acquired stolen articles, he cannot be guilty of
fencing. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential elements of
fencing, and thus petitioner is entitled to an acquittal.