0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
423 просмотров1 страница
NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES, respondent. In her possession was found stolen jewelries belonging to Teodoro and Luzviminda Encarnacion. The said set of jewelries was stolen by five (5) unidentified man on February 12, 1988 on their house at Paranaque. Two days after the incident, lost jewelries were spotted being sold by the accused at the chinatown.
NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES, respondent. In her possession was found stolen jewelries belonging to Teodoro and Luzviminda Encarnacion. The said set of jewelries was stolen by five (5) unidentified man on February 12, 1988 on their house at Paranaque. Two days after the incident, lost jewelries were spotted being sold by the accused at the chinatown.
NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES, respondent. In her possession was found stolen jewelries belonging to Teodoro and Luzviminda Encarnacion. The said set of jewelries was stolen by five (5) unidentified man on February 12, 1988 on their house at Paranaque. Two days after the incident, lost jewelries were spotted being sold by the accused at the chinatown.
NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. FACTS That during the period from February 12 to 24, 1988 in the City of Manila, Philippines in her possession was found stolen jewelries belonging to Teodoro and Luzviminda Encarnacion. The said set of jewelries was stolen by five (5) unidentified man on February 12, 1988 on their house at Paranaque. Two days after the incident, lost jewelries were spotted being sold by the accused at the Chinatown. Accused was found guilty by Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals of the crime of violation of PD 1612 (Fencing Law). ISSUE Whether or not the accused be held liable for violation of PD 1612, only as an accessory. HELD No. The accused failed to rebut the third element of the crime of fencing. She relied only to her brothers testimony which is insufficient to overcome the presumption. Thus the decision of the RTC is affirmed by the Supreme Court.