Criminal Cases Digested
Case: Francisco vs. People
Facts:
Macario Linghon without knowledge went and sold to the shop of the petitioner Ernesto “Erning” Francisco the jewelries which was stolen by his sister Pacita Linghon to a certain Jovita Rodriguez. Sometime after the jewelries have been stolen, Jovita just discovered that the jewelries have been missing. She filed a complaint for theft against Pacita in the Counter Intelligence Group of the Philippine National Police in Camp Crame. Pacita was then invited for questioning and she then gave a sworn statement pointing to the petitioner as the person to whom she sold the stolen jewelries. Pacita was then charged with qualified theft in the Regional Trial Court and was then convicted guilty. With the joint affidavit of investigation by the police, a sworn statement executed by Jovita charging the petitioner of buying stolen jewelry and Macario, prosecution witness; testifying against the petitioner, the court found a probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest for the petitioner. Information was then filed by the Provincial Prosecutor with the RTC charging petitioner with violating against P.D. No. 1612 or the Anti-Fencing Law. The court held the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating P.D. No. 1612. Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the CA affirmed the RTC’s judgment. Petitioner then brought the case for appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that: 1. The Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s decision. 2. The Court of Appeals erred in relying on the conflicting testimonies of prosecution witnesses, all of which consisted of hearsay evidence.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating P.D No. 1612 or the Anti-Fencing Law?
Held:
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner is ACQUITTED of
Facts:
Macario Linghon without knowledge went and sold to the shop of the petitioner Ernesto “Erning” Francisco the jewelries which was stolen by his sister Pacita Linghon to a certain Jovita Rodriguez. Sometime after the jewelries have been stolen, Jovita just discovered that the jewelries have been missing. She filed a complaint for theft against Pacita in the Counter Intelligence Group of the Philippine National Police in Camp Crame. Pacita was then invited for questioning and she then gave a sworn statement pointing to the petitioner as the person to whom she sold the stolen jewelries. Pacita was then charged with qualified theft in the Regional Trial Court and was then convicted guilty. With the joint affidavit of investigation by the police, a sworn statement executed by Jovita charging the petitioner of buying stolen jewelry and Macario, prosecution witness; testifying against the petitioner, the court found a probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest for the petitioner. Information was then filed by the Provincial Prosecutor with the RTC charging petitioner with violating against P.D. No. 1612 or the Anti-Fencing Law. The court held the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating P.D. No. 1612. Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the CA affirmed the RTC’s judgment. Petitioner then brought the case for appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that: 1. The Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s decision. 2. The Court of Appeals erred in relying on the conflicting testimonies of prosecution witnesses, all of which consisted of hearsay evidence.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating P.D No. 1612 or the Anti-Fencing Law?
Held:
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner is ACQUITTED of