[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
533 views1 page

G.R. No. 111426 July 11, 1994 NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN, Petitioner, People of The Philippines, Respondent

Uploaded by

jepree123

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding Norma Dizon-Pamintuan guilty of violating Presidential Decree 1612, also known as the Fencing Law. She was found in possession of stolen jewelries belonging to Teodoro and Luzviminda Encarnacion that were spotted being sold by the accused at Chinatown only two days after the robbery. While the accused argued she should only be held liable as an accessory, the Supreme Court held she failed to rebut the presumption that she knew the jewelries were stolen based solely on her brother's testimony.

Copyright:

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

G.R. No. 111426 July 11, 1994 NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN, Petitioner, People of The Philippines, Respondent

Uploaded by

jepree123
533 views1 page
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding Norma Dizon-Pamintuan guilty of violating Presidential Decree 1612, also known as the Fencing Law. She was found in possession of stolen jewelries belonging to Teodoro and Luzviminda Encarnacion that were spotted being sold by the accused at Chinatown only two days after the robbery. While the accused argued she should only be held liable as an accessory, the Supreme Court held she failed to rebut the presumption that she knew the jewelries were stolen based solely on her brother's testimony.

Original Title

G.R. No. 111426 July 11, 1994

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding Norma Dizon-Pamintuan guilty of violating Presidential Decree 1612, also known as the Fencing Law. She was found in possession of stolen jewelries belonging to Teodoro and Luzviminda Encarnacion that were spotted being sold by the accused at Chinatown only two days after the robbery. While the accused argued she should only be held liable as an accessory, the Supreme Court held she failed to rebut the presumption that she knew the jewelries were stolen based solely on her brother's testimony.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
533 views1 page

G.R. No. 111426 July 11, 1994 NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN, Petitioner, People of The Philippines, Respondent

Uploaded by

jepree123
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding Norma Dizon-Pamintuan guilty of violating Presidential Decree 1612, also known as the Fencing Law. She was found in possession of stolen jewelries belonging to Teodoro and Luzviminda Encarnacion that were spotted being sold by the accused at Chinatown only two days after the robbery. While the accused argued she should only be held liable as an accessory, the Supreme Court held she failed to rebut the presumption that she knew the jewelries were stolen based solely on her brother's testimony.

Copyright:

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

G.R. No.

111426 July 11, 1994


NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
That during the period from February 12 to 24, 1988 in the City of Manila, Philippines in
her possession was found stolen jewelries belonging to Teodoro and Luzviminda
Encarnacion. The said set of jewelries was stolen by five (5) unidentified man on
February 12, 1988 on their house at Paranaque. Two days after the incident, lost
jewelries were spotted being sold by the accused at the Chinatown. Accused was found
guilty by Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals of the crime of violation of PD 1612
(Fencing Law).
ISSUE
Whether or not the accused be held liable for violation of PD 1612, only as an
accessory.
HELD
No. The accused failed to rebut the third element of the crime of fencing. She
relied only to her brothers testimony which is insufficient to overcome the presumption.
Thus the decision of the RTC is affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Castillo, Rhonnah Mhyrr Joyce

You might also like