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.

Hence, assailed decision is affirmed.

Francisco v. People

Tan v. People