Persons criminally liable for felonies Jeanette allegedly told accused-appellant Geroche to “take
care of the two.” Said utterance could, therefore, not have
PRINCIPAL been the inducement to commit the crime charged in this People v. Batin case.
People v. Ragundiaz WHEREFORE, accused-appellants JEANETTE
YANSON-DUMANCAS is hereby ACQUITTED and People v. Yanson-Dumancas forthwith ordered released from detention unless there may be reason for their further detention on other criminal cases. Under Art. 17(2) of the RPC, those who directly force or induce other to commit a crime shall be considered principals. Note: Even the prosecution witness testified that what was meant by Jeanette was: to bring the two to the PC a. ) There are 2 ways of directly forcing another to commit or police and she will call Atty. Geocadin so that proper a crime: 1. using irresistible force or 2. by uncontrollable fear. cases could be filed against them Here, nothing to conclude that Jeanette used ACCOMPLICES irresistible force or caused uncontrollable fear upon the other accused-appellants. From the factual findings of the trial court, People v. Yau it is patent that the plan to abduct and liquidate the victims was hatched on August 5, 1992 (10:30 A.M.) without Jeanette’s People v. Tolentino involvement or participation whatsoever. The record is entirely People v. Garcia bereft of any evidence to show that Jeanette directly forced the participants of the said meeting to come up with such plan, by Garcia v. CA either using irresistible force or causing uncontrollable fear. The only basis relied upon by the trial court in arriving at its People v Roche conclusion that Jeanette is guilty of the crime as principal by ACCESSORIES inducement, is the supposed “commands” or order given by her to accused-appellant Dominador Geroche on two occasions People v. Tolentino (inside the Ceres Compound and inside the motel) People v. Antonio Thus, no stretch of the imagination may these so-called People v. Verzola “commands,” standing alone, be considered as constituting irresistible force or causing uncontrollable fear. ANTI-FENCING LAW b.) Likewise, there are 2 ways of directly inducing Ong v. People another to commit a crime, namely: (i) by giving a price, or offering reward or promise, and (ii) by using words of The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: command. (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; Here, The Court finds no evidence, as did the trial (2) the accused, who is not a principal or on accomplice in the court, to show that Jeanette offered any price, reward, or commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, promise to the rest of accused-appellants should they abduct possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and later kill the victims in this case. If at all, the prosecution and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or witness mentioned the name of Ricardo Yanson as having lent anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of money to accused-appellant Col. Torres to be used for paying the crime of robbery or theft; the latter’s debts or obligations. But definitely, no money ever came from Jeanette herself. The trial court’s surmise that the (3) the accused knew or should have known that the said article, money delivered by Ricardo Yanson to the group was with the item, object or anything of value has been derived from the knowledge and approval of Jeanette is completely baseless. proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and Furthermore, in order that a person may be (4) there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself convicted as principal by inducement, the following must be or for another. present: (1) the inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime, and (2) such First element: crime of robbery has been committed. inducement be the determining cause of the commission by Second: Ong is neither a principal nor an accomplice the material executor. By the foregoing standards, the in the robbery but 13 stolen tires were found in his remark of Jeanette to “take care of the two” does not possession. constitute the command required by law to justify a finding that she is guilty as a principal by inducement. Third, Ong, who was in the business of buy and sell of tires for the past twenty-four (24) years, ought to Moreover, the utterance which was supposedly have known the ordinary course of business in the act of inducement, should precede the commission of the purchasing from an unknown seller. Admittedly, Go crime itself. In the case at bar, the abduction, which is an approached Ong and offered to sell the thirteen (13) essential element of the crime charged (kidnapping for tires and he did not even ask for proof of ownership ransom with murder) has already taken place when of the tires.19 The entire transaction, from the proposal to buy until the delivery of tires happened in just one day.
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.
Lastly: there was evident intent to gain for
considering that during the buy-bust operation, Ong was actually caught selling the stolen tires in his store, Jong Marketing.
Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612 creates
a prima facie presumption of fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any good, article, item, object or anything of value, which has been the subject of robbery or theft; and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property.