Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    ANTIFENCING - DIMAT Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Kathlyn Dacudao
    Mel Dimat was charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law for knowingly selling a stolen vehicle. Police stopped a Nissan Safari driven by Samson Delgado and discovered it had been reported stolen from its owner Jose Mantequilla. Delgado testified he bought the vehicle from Dimat. Dimat claimed he bought the vehicle in good faith from Manuel Tolentino, but the vehicle's engine and chassis numbers matched those of the stolen vehicle. Both the RTC and CA found Dimat guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Dimat knew or should have known the vehicle was stolen based on the matching numbers, and lack of criminal intent is not a defense for violating the Anti-Fencing Law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    ANTIFENCING - DIMAT Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Kathlyn Dacudao
    53 views3 pages
    Mel Dimat was charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law for knowingly selling a stolen vehicle. Police stopped a Nissan Safari driven by Samson Delgado and discovered it had been reported stolen from its owner Jose Mantequilla. Delgado testified he bought the vehicle from Dimat. Dimat claimed he bought the vehicle in good faith from Manuel Tolentino, but the vehicle's engine and chassis numbers matched those of the stolen vehicle. Both the RTC and CA found Dimat guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Dimat knew or should have known the vehicle was stolen based on the matching numbers, and lack of criminal intent is not a defense for violating the Anti-Fencing Law.

    Original Title

    ANTIFENCING_DIMAT vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mel Dimat was charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law for knowingly selling a stolen vehicle. Police stopped a Nissan Safari driven by Samson Delgado and discovered it had been reported stolen from its owner Jose Mantequilla. Delgado testified he bought the vehicle from Dimat. Dimat claimed he bought the vehicle in good faith from Manuel Tolentino, but the vehicle's engine and chassis numbers matched those of the stolen vehicle. Both the RTC and CA found Dimat guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Dimat knew or should have known the vehicle was stolen based on the matching numbers, and lack of criminal intent is not a defense for violating the Anti-Fencing Law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    53 views3 pages

    ANTIFENCING - DIMAT Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Kathlyn Dacudao
    Mel Dimat was charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law for knowingly selling a stolen vehicle. Police stopped a Nissan Safari driven by Samson Delgado and discovered it had been reported stolen from its owner Jose Mantequilla. Delgado testified he bought the vehicle from Dimat. Dimat claimed he bought the vehicle in good faith from Manuel Tolentino, but the vehicle's engine and chassis numbers matched those of the stolen vehicle. Both the RTC and CA found Dimat guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Dimat knew or should have known the vehicle was stolen based on the matching numbers, and lack of criminal intent is not a defense for violating the Anti-Fencing Law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Dimat vs.

    People

    G.R. No. 181184

    January 25, 2012

    FACTS: Information: The government charged the accused Mel Dimat


    with violation of the Anti-Fencing Law 1 before the Manila Regional
    Trial Court (RTC), Branch 03, in Criminal Case 02-202338.

    PROSECUTION: On March 7, 2001 PO Ramirez and fellow officers of


    the Traffic Management Group (TMG) spotted the Nissan Safari on E.
    Rodriguez Avenue, Quezon City, bearing a suspicious plate number. After
    stopping and inspecting the vehicle, they discovered that its engine number
    was actually TD42-119136 and its chassis number CRGY60-YO3111which
    is the same with the particular Nissan Safari on their list of stolen vehicles.
    They brought it to their Camp Crame office and there further learned that it
    had been stolen from its registered owner, Jose Mantequilla. Samson
    Delgado, together with Jose Mantequilla and police officers Danilo Ramirez
    and Ruben Familara, testified in substance that in December 2000
    Delgado's wife, Sonia, bought from accused Dimat a 1997 Nissan Safari
    bearing plate number WAH-569 for P850,000.00.

    DEFENSE: Dimat claimed that he did not know Mantequilla. He bought


    the 1997 Nissan Safari in good faith and for value from a certain Manuel
    Tolentino under a deed of sale that gave its engine number as TD42-126134
    and its chassis number as CRGY60-YO3553. Dimat later sold the vehicle to
    Delgado. Dimat's defense is that the Nissan Safari he bought from Tolentino
    and later sold to Delgado had engine number and chassis number as
    evidenced by the deeds of sale covering those transactions that is different
    from the Nissan Safari stolen from Mantequilla.
    RTC: RTC found Dimat guilty of violation of the Anti-Fencing Law and
    sentenced him to an imprisonment of 10 years, 8 months, and 1 day of
    prision mayo r to 20 years of reclusion temporal.

    CA: The CA affirmed the RTC decision but modified the penalty to
    imprisonment of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor in its medium period,
    as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal in its
    maximum period, as maximum.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that accused Dimat knowingly sold to
    Sonia Delgado for gain the Nissan Safari that was earlier carnapped from
    Mantequilla.

    RULING:

    SC: The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals. The
    elements of "fencing" are 1. a robbery or theft has been committed; 2. the
    accused, who took no part in the robbery or theft, "buys, receives, possesses,
    keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any
    manner deals in any article or object taken" during that robbery or theft; 3.
    the accused knows or should have known that the thing derived from that
    crime; and 4. he intends by the deal he makes to gain for himself or for
    another. G.R. No. 181184 Dimat vs. People January 25, 2012 But Dimat's
    defense is flawed. First, the Nissan Safari Delgado bought from him,
    when stopped on the road and inspected by the police, turned out to have
    the engine and chassis numbers of the Nissan Safari stolen from
    Mantequilla. This means that the deeds of sale did not reflect the correct
    numbers of the vehicle's engine and chassis. Second. Dimat claims lack of
    criminal intent as his main defense. But Presidential Decree 1612 is a
    special law and, therefore, its violation is regarded as malum prohibitum,
    requiring no proof of criminal intent.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy