Portions of The Petition for Review to the Sec. Of Justice in Violation of The Anti Fencing Law (A) The Hon. Prosecutor FV acted with Grave Abuse of Discretion in conducting the Preliminary Investigation as if it were a Trial on the Merits and Denied the Motion for Reconsideration For utter Lack of Merit finding that: 1. There was no complaint of theft filed for the same incident to institute the crime of theft. The Court held in NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 111426, July 11, 1994; Elsewise stated, the crimes of robbery and theft, on the one hand, and fencing, on the other, are separate and distinct offenses. The spirit rather than the letter of the statute determines its construction, hence, a statute must be read according to its spirit or intent. ( ZACARIAS COMETA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 141855 , February 6, 2001) 2. The complaint itself has no evidence to show that Ipil ipil trees were derived from proceeds of robbery or theft. Facts : The Undersigned adduced Pictures of the Stolen logs1 as the True Representation of the stolen items which is in Constructive Possession of the Respondents Spouses. The SC Ruled in SALVADOR P. SOCRATES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. Nos. 116259-60 February 20, 1996: Evidentiary facts need not be alleged in the information because these are matters of defense./// It is not proper, therefore, to resolve the charges right at the outset without the benefit of a full-blown trial. 3. Anti-Fencing Law finds no application considering that there is no item, object or anything of value derived from proceeds of robbery or theft. Facts : The felonious taking is reported to the authorities2, the crime of theft and the value of the stolen logs as allege3 is established in the complaint against the Spouses F and R. It is within the personal knowledge of the complainant that the pictures of piled logs is the true representation of the stolen item. Its an undeniable fact that Corpus Delicti is present . In RAMON C. TAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 134298. August 26, 1999: However, Rosita Lim never reported the theft or even loss to the police./// As complainant Rosita Lim reported no loss, we cannot hold for certain that there was committed a crime of theft. In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking. 1. Pictures attached as ANNEXES C,D, E, F and G respectively., 2. Copy of a Police Blotter Extract attached as ANNEX B-AH , 3. Copy of the Complaint-Affidavit of TG attached as Annex B (B) The Hon. Prosecutor Gravely Abused its Discretion when he erroneously Denied the Motion for Reconsideration based on his failure to Appreciate the Existence of Probable Cause. Though the respondents Spouses F and R is not found in actual possession of the stolen logs, circumstances as allege would show that they are in constructive possession of the stolen item. As defined, Constructive Possession- Control or dominion over a property without actual possession or custody of it. ( Blacks Law Dictionary) Facts : As admitted by C and M that together with D and Spouses F and R is ordered by Mr. Police to cut the logs. The motorcycle driver left to watch our motorcycle heard our conversation and told us that the two is gone rushing towards the highway just minute after M returned back. And a picture of sacked charcoal and some of which is left untied by the Spouses is adduced. 4. Sacks of charcoal and some sacks of charcoal left untied attached as Annex l Contrary to Law ; Since Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 expressly provides that [m]ere POSSESSION of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be Prima Facie Evidence of Fencing, it follows that the petitioner is presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the items found in her possession were the proceeds of robbery or theft. The presumption is reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise from the established fact of her possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. This presumption does not offend the presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law. ( NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 111426July 11, 1994) As the SC held in REYNALDO T. COMETA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 124062, December 29, 1999 : Prima facie evidence requires a degree or quantum of proof greater than probable cause. “[It] denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a prosecution or establish the facts, as to counterbalance the presumption of innocence and warrant the conviction of the accused.” On the other hand, probable cause for the filing of an information merely means “reasonable ground for belief in the existence of facts warranting the proceedings complained of, or an apparent state of facts found to exist upon reasonable inquiry which would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent man to believe that the accused person has committed the crime . And further in LEONARDO M. ANDRES vs. JUSTICE SECRETARY SERAFIN CUEVAS, G.R. No. 150869 , June 9, 2005 : The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. Facts : Respondents Spouses F and R is required by the Hon. Prosecutor to file their Counter Affidavits twice to Rebut the accusation against them, but they failed and chose not to file their Counter-Affidavit , and complainant is on the theory that if they would submit countervailing evidence will be adverse to them. A clear showing that the Respondent Spouses is persistent on their silence that justifies an inference that they are not innocent. (An inference that happen not just once but twice). 5. Copy of the Resolution Dated November 11,2013 (page 1 par. 5)Annex O, Resolution Dated June 16,2011(page 1 par. 11) Annex L In THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MANUEL PILONES y IBAÑEZ, G.R. No. L-32754-5, July 21,1978 : Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 23. Admission by silence. — Any act or declaration made in the presence and within the observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, may be given in evidence against him. Silence is assent as well as consent, and may, where a direct and specific accusation of crime is made, be regarded under some circumstances as a quasi-confession. An innocent person will at once naturally and emphatically repel an accusation of crime, as a matter of self-preservation and self-defense, and as a precaution against prejudicing himself. A persons silence, therefore, particularly when it is persistent, will justify an inference that he is not innocent. (Underhills Criminal Evidence, 4th Ed. p. 401). Of the above circumstances, it would gave great injustice to the State who is deprived of the proper protection of the society and complainant who is deprived of the enjoyment on the value of the stolen item if it be denied his day in Court to prove his allegation on the culpability of the respondents that would amount to an evasion of a positive duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. Such that the Hon. Prosecutor FV committed a reversible error on the challenge Resolution Dated November 29,2013. Note: Of the five respondents, only three is charge in court but for violating the anti forestry law in cutting and gathering of logs without necessary permit in a titled land. A separate crime and with a lesser penalty than in violation of the Anti fencing law.
Posted on: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 01:46:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015