ANTIFENCING - People Vs de Guzman

People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Jose C.
De Guzman
G.R. No. 77368
October 5, 1993
FACTS:
On 09 September 1985, robbery was committed in Quezon City in the house
of Jose L. Obillos, Sr., where various pieces of precious jewelry alleged to
be worth millions of pesos were taken. An information, dated 30 September
1985, was instituted against the perpetrators in the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 101, docketed thereat asCriminal Case No. G.R. No.
42078.
Subsequently, an information, dated 22 October 1985, for violation of

Presidential Decree No. 1612, otherwise known as the "Anti-Fencing Law,"
was also filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 93,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 42433, against herein respondent spouses
Danilo A. Alcantara and Isabelita Esguerra-Alcantara, from whose
possession the jewelries stolen were recovered in Antipolo, Rizal..
The trial court, acting on the motion to quash filed by the accused [now
private respondents], issued the now questioned order of 28 February 1986.
Before the Court is a Motion to Quash, filed by the accused thru counsel,
praying that the information filed against both accused be quashed, on the
ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the offense charged. Among
others, the motion alleges, that as per police investigation, the crime took
place in Antipolo, Rizal. For this reason, Violation of Presidential Decree
No. 1612 is an independent crime, separate and distinct from that of
Robbery. The accused claims, likewise, that jurisdiction to try the same is
with the Court within which territorial jurisdiction, the alleged fencing took
place.
The Prosecution filed an opposition thereto, alleging among others, that

there is nothing in the law which prohibits the filing of a case of fencing in
the court under whose jurisdiction the principal offense of robbery was
committed. The prosecution claims further, that the consideration in the
enactment of PD 1612 was to impose a heavier penalty on persons who
profit by the effects of the crimes robbery or theft.
Since the alleged act of fencing took place in Antipolo, Rizal, outside the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and considering that all criminal
prosecutions must be instituted and tried in the Municipality or Province
where the offense took place, this Court, necessarily, does not have
jurisdiction over the instant case.
ISSUE/S of the CASE:
(a) Whether or not the crime of "fencing" is a continuing offense that could
allow the filing of an information therefore in the place where the robbery or
theft is committed and not necessarily where the property, unlawfully taken
is found to have later been acquired.
RULING:
RTC: Wherefore, the above-entitled case is hereby QUASHED, without

prejudice to the filing of the corresponding action against the accused in the
Court having proper jurisdiction.
The private prosecutor's motion for reconsideration was denied in the court's
order.
SUPREME COURT DECISION
HELD: NO. In People vs Ledesma: A "continuous crime" is a single crime

consisting of a series ofacts arising from a single criminal resolution or
intent not susceptible of division. According to Cuello Calon, when the
actor, there being unity of purpose and of right violated, commits diverse
acts each of which, although of a delictual character merely constitutes a
partial execution of a single particular delict, such concurrence of delictual
acts is called a "delito continuado." For it to exist there should be plurality of
acts performed separately during a period of time; unity of penal provision
infringed upon or violated; unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means
that two or more violations of the same penal provision are united in one and
the same intent leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or
aim.
Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent

to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using
force upon anything. "Fencing", upon the other hand, 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 other 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.
We are not unaware of a number of instances when the Court would allow a
change of venue in criminal cases "whenever the interest of justice and truth
so demand, and there are serious and weighty reasons to believe that a trial
by the court that originally had jurisdiction over the case would not result in
a fair and impartial trial and lead to a miscarriage of justice." Here, however,
we do not see the attendance of such compelling circumstances, nor are we
prepared to state that the lower court gravely abused its discretion in its
questioned orders.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus is

DISMISSED, and the orders appealed from are hereby AFFIRMED.

ANTIFENCING - People Vs de Guzman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANTIFENCING - People Vs de Guzman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANTIFENCING - People Vs de Guzman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Jose C.

Subsequently, an information, dated 22 October 1985, for violation of

The Prosecution filed an opposition thereto, alleging among others, that

ISSUE/S of the CASE:

RTC: Wherefore, the above-entitled case is hereby QUASHED, without

SUPREME COURT DECISION

HELD: NO. In People vs Ledesma: A "continuous crime" is a single crime

Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus is

You might also like