Ant-Fencing Q&A

Questions for Group Reporting Topic: Anti-Fencing Law1. Elements of Fencing: a. a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;ccused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives,ossesses, keeps, acuires, conceals, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any mannereals in any article, item , object or anything of value, which has been derived fromhe proceeds of said crime; b. the accused knows or should have known that saidrticle, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the from theroceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; c. and there is on the part of the accused,tent to gain for himself or for another. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed; The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possess, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime; The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, or object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and 1. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.(Dizon-Pamintuan vs People, GR 111426, 11 July 94) As regards the first element, the crime of robbery or theft should have been committed before crime of fencing can be committed. The person committing the crime of robbery or theft, may or may not be the same person committing the crime of fencing. As in the case ofD.M. Consunji, Inc., vs. Esguerra, quantities of phelonic plywood were stolen and the Court held that qualified theft had been committed. In People vs. Lucero there was first a snatching incident, where the bag of Mrs. Maripaz Bernard Ramolete was snatch in the public market of Carbon, Cebu City, where she lost a Chinese Gold Necklace and pendant worth some P4,000.00 to snatchers Manuel Elardo and Zacarias Pateras. The snatchers sold the items to Manuel Lucero. Consequently, Lucero was charged with violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. However, in this case, no eyewitness pointed to Lucero as the perpetrator and the evidence of the prosecution was not strong enough to convict him. The second element speaks of the 2. overt act of keeping, buying, receiving, possessing, acquiring, concealing, selling or disposing or in any manner deals with stolen items. It is thus illustrated in the case of Lim vs. Court of Appeals, where the accused, Juanito Lim stored and kept in his bodega and subsequently bought or disposed of the nine (9) pieces of stolen tires with rims owned by Loui Anton Bond. The accused known or should have known that the goods were stolen. As pointed out in the case of People vs. Adriatico, the court in convicting Norma Adriatico, stated that it was impossible for her to know that the jewelry were stolen because of the fact that Crisilita was willing to part with a considerable number of jewelry at measly sum, and this should have apprised Norma of the possibility that they were stolen goods. The approximate total value of the jewelry were held to be at P20,000.00, and Norma having bought it from Crisilita for only P2,700. The court also considered the fact that Norma engage in the business of buying and selling gold and silver, which business is very well exposed to the practice of fencing. This requires more than ordinary case and caution in dealing with customers. As noted by the trial court: ―. . . the Court is not inclined to accept the accused’s theory of buying in good faith and disclaimer of ever seeing, much more, buying the other articles. Human experience belies her allegations as no businessman or woman at that, would let go of such opportunities for a clean profit at the expense of innocent owners.’’ The Court in convicting Ernesto Dunlao Sr., noted that the stolen articles composed of farrowing crates and G.I. pipes were found displayed on petitioner’s shelves inside his compound. (Dunalao, Sr. v. CA, 08/22/96) In the case of People v. Muere (G.R.12902, 10/18/94), the third element was not proven. This case involves the selling of alleged stolen Kenwood Stereo Unit in the store Danvir Trading, owned by the spouses Muere. The store is engaged in buying and selling of second hand merchandise located at Pasay Road, Makati. The said stereo was bought from Wynn’s Audio, an existing establishment. The court held that there is no proof that the spouses Muere, had knowledge of the fact that the stereo was stolen. The spouses Muere purchased the stereo from a known merchant and the unit is displayed for sale in their store. These actions are not indicative of a conduct of a guilty person. On the same vein, the third element did not exist in the case of D.M. Consunji, Inc.(Consunji v. Esguerra, 07/30/96) where the subject of the court action are the alleged stolen phelonic plywood owned by D.M. Consunji, Inc., later found to be in the premises of MC Industrial Sales and Seato trading Company, owned respectively by Eduardo Ching and the spouses Sy. Respondents presented sales receipts covering their purchase of the items from Paramount Industrial, which is a known hardware store in Caloocan, thus they had no reason to suspect that the said items were products of theft. The last element is that there is 3. intent to gain for himself or for another. However, intent to gain need not be proven in crimes punishable by a special law such as the Anti-Fencing Law. The crimes punishable by special laws are called ―acts mala prohibita―. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is that, has the law been violated? (in Gatdner v. People, as cited in US v. Go Chico, 14 Phils. 134) When the act is prohibited by law, intent is immaterial. Likewise, dolo or deceit is immaterial in crimes punishable by special statute like the AntiFencing Law. It is the act itself which constitutes the offense and not the motive or intent. Intent to gain is a mental state, the existence if which is demonstrated by the overt acts of the person. The mental state is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act. (Dunlao v. CA) again, intent to gain is a mental state, the existence of which is demonstrated by the overt acts of person, as the keeping of stolen items for subsequent selling. 2. Definition of Fencing Sec. 2 of PD No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) is ―the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows or should be known to him, or to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, GR 111426, 11 July 94). The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participation in the criminal design to commit or to have been in any wise involved in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft. Neither is the crime of robbery or theft made to depend on an act of fencing in order that it can be consummated. (People v De Guzman, GR 77368). Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything. On the other hand, fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or shall be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. 3. Definition of Fencer includes any a. person, b. firm, c. association corporation or d. partnership or e. other organization who/which commits the act of fencing. "Unlicensed dealer/supplier" shall refer to any persons, partnership, firm, corporation, association or any other entity or establishment not licensed by the government to engage in the business of dealing in or of supplying the articles defined in the preceding paragraph The person liable is the one buying, keeping, concealing and selling the stolen items. If the fence is a corporation, partnership, association or firm, the one liable is the president or the manager or the officer who knows or should have know the fact that the offense was committed. MERE POSSESSION OF STOLEN ARTICLE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF FENCING Since Sec. 5 of PD NO. 1612 expressly provides that ―mere 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 accused is presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the items found in her possession were the proceeds of robbery or theft. The presumption does not offend the presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law. FENCING AS A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE. In violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, actual knowledge by the ―fence‖ of the fact that property received is stolen displays the same degree of malicious deprivation of one’s rightful property as that which animated the robbery or theft which by their very nature are crimes of moral turpitude. (Dela Torre v. COMELEC 07/05/96) Moral turpitude can be derived from the third element – accused knows or should have known that the items were stolen. Participation of each felon, one being the robber or the thief or the actual perpetrators, and the other as the fence, differs in point in time and degree but both invaded one’s peaceful dominion for gain. (Supra) Both crimes negated the principle of each person’s duty to his fellowmen not to appropriate things that they do not own or return something acquired by mistake or with malice. This signifies moral turpitude with moral unfitness. In the case of Dela Torre, he was declared disqualified from running the position of Mayor in Cavinti, Laguna in the last May 8, 1995 elections because of the fact of the disqualification under Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code, of persons running for elective position -‖Sec. 40 Disqualifications – (a) Those sentenced by final judgement for an offense involving moral turpitude…‖ Dela Torre was disqualified because of his prior conviction of the crime of fencing wherein he admitted all the elements of the crime of fencing. 227 SCRA 65 c. as mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. 12/22/97) 4. CA. the ―business‖ of robbing and stealing have become profitable. GR 128369. GR 128369. Francisco 434 SCRA 122 . Essence of Violation PD 1612. (Caoili v CA. 5. Venue 7. Section 2 thereof requires that the offender buys or otherwise acquires and then sells or disposes of any object of value which he knows or should he known to him to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. a law was enacted to also punish those who buy stolen properties. Hence. Dizon (234 SCRA 63) b. Cases: a.PROOF OF PURCHASE WHEN GOODS ARE IN POSSESSION OF OFFENDER NOT NECESSARY IN ANTI-FENCING The law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by petitioner. (Caoili v. 12/22/97) The Anti-Fencing Law was made to curtail and put an end to the rampant robbery of government and private properties. For if there are no buyers then the malefactors could not profit from their wrong doings. Is it a Continuing Crime 6. It was incumbent upon petitioner to overthrow this presumption by sufficient and convincing evidence. With the existence of ―ready buyers‖. . JR. Puno and Puno for petitioner. 111426 July 11. J.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G. 1994 NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN.: The chief issue presented for our determination in this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the correctness of the decision of 29 March 1993 of the Court of Appeals in . The Solicitor General for respondent. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. No. DAVIDE. vs. petitioner.R. respondent. to wit: one (1) set of earrings. to February 24. the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE. 88-64954 charged the petitioner with the violation of the Anti-Fencing Law in that on or about and during the period from February 12. leaving behind his driver and two housemaids outside to pick-up his personal belongings from his case. . Jr. 1988. subject-matter of this case.D.m. which she knew or should have known to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery committed by Joselito Sacdalan Salinas against the owner Teodoro and Luzviminda Encarnacion. Undersecretary. the prosecution having proved the guilty of the accused for violation of Presidential Decree No. both of the Western Police District. Ignacio Jao. That the men pointed a gun at him and was made to lie face down on the floor. the said accused. After the intruders left the house he reported the matter immediately to the police. inclusive. Emmanuel Sanchez. Cpl. of February 12. a ring studded with diamonds in a triangular style. The information in Criminal Case No.000. He was then interviewed by the Parañaque police and was informed that an operation group would be assigned to the case. 1612) but set aside the penalty imposed and ordered the trial court to receive additional evidence on the "correct valuation" of the pieces of jewelry involved for the sole purpose of determining the penalty to be imposed. The other occupants. With costs. in the City of Manila. No. No civil liability in view of the recovery of the items. did then and there wilfully. 88-64954 2 finding the petitioner guilty of the violation of the AntiFencing Law (P. It was at this point that five unidentified masked armed persons appeared from the grassy portion of the lot beside the house and poked their guns to his driver and two helpers and dragged them inside his house. 1988 coming from the Airport and immediately proceeded inside the house. namely his wife. Parañaque at around 9:45 p.CA-G.R. or all valued at P105. unlawfully and knowingly buy and keep in her possession and/or sell or dispose of the following jewelries. 3 On the basis of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Teodoro Encarnacion (one of the offended parties). one (1) set of earrings (diamond studded) and one (1) diamond-studded crucifix. the robbers ransacked the house and took away jewelries and other personal properties including cash. with intent of gain for herself or for another. Department of Public Works and Highways testified that he has just arrived at his residence located at Better Living Subdivision. the accused Norma Dizon-Pamintuan is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of prision mayor to NINETEEN (19) YEARS of reclusion temporal.. the maids and his driver were likewise made to lie on the floor. 1612 beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter.00. Philippines. CR No. the trial court promulgated on 16 November 1990 its decision. and Pfc. 4 The evidence of the prosecution is summarized by the trial court as follows: Teodoro Encarnacion. 11024 1 which affirmed the decision of Branch 20 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Criminal Case No. three persons arrived and he overheard that Cpl. is summarized by the trial court thus: The defense presented only the testimony of Rosito Dizon-Pamintuan who testified that he is the brother of Norma Dizon-Pamintuan and that sometime around 11:00 a. took place when. They likewise brought the said showcase to the WPD station. Jr. As such.m. on February 14. The display stall was hauled to a passenger jeepney and the same. Sta. After the spouses Encarnacion recognized the items subject matter of the robbery at the display window of the stall being tended by the herein accused. Perez. Cruz. he. the petitioner "admitted that she got the items but she did not know they were stolen [and that] she surrendered the items and gave them to [his] wife. He was later told that some of the lost items were in Chinatown area as tipped by the informer the police had dispatched. But ten minutes later when said Fredo did not show up. together with the accused went infront of the Carinderia along Florentino Torres Street. Cruz. Cruz. in the morning of February 24. they went to Camp Crame at around 9:00 a. a group of WPD operatives came over to his house and he was asked to prepare a list of items of jewelry and other valuables that were lost including a sketch of distinctive items. that he was with the group who accompanied the spouses Encarnacion in Sta. together with the accused were taken to the . 1988. That an entrapment would be made with their participation. 1988 and they proceeded to Florentino Torres Street. "C-4"). the pieces were: 1 earring and ring studded with diamonds worth P75.000 bought from estimator Nancy Bacud (Exh. "C-2"). Emmanuel Sanchez of the WPD testified that he reported for duty on February 24. Sta. Manila at the stall of Norma Dizon-Pamintuan together with Sgt. as testified to by Teodoro Encarnacion.He likewise reported the matter to the Western Police District on February 15. Manila and was around when the couple saw some of the lost jewelries in the display stall of the accused.000 (Exh. He was likewise present during the early part of the investigation of the WPD station. Jr. 1 set of earring diamond worth P15. of February 24. Cruz. the version of the defense.." 6 On the other hand. 1988.m. He further testified that he has no prior knowledge of the stolen jewelries of the private complainant from one store to another. they invited the latter to the precinct and investigated the same. on the basis of which the trial court ruled that no civil liability should be adjudged against the petitioner.m. Pfc. 1985. "C-3") and 1 gold chain with crucifix worth P3. Two days later. Suddenly.000 (Exh. Manila waiting for a vacancy therein to eat lunch. that he is with his wife posed as a buyer and were able to recognize items of the jewelry stolen displayed at the stall being tended by Norma Dizon Pamintuan. 1988. Jao told her sister to get the jewelry from inside the display window but her sister requested to wait for Fredo. the police officer opened the display window and got the contents of the same. and arrived at the vicinity of 733 Florentino Torres Street. the owner of the stall. of the WPD testified that he was with the spouses Teodoro Encarnacion. Corporal Ignacio Jao. Sta. as testified to by Rosito Dizon-Pamintuan. 5 The recovery of the pieces of jewelry. Manila at about 10:00 a. 1612). the Court of Appeals disposed of the first issue in this wise: The guilt of accused-appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt. the herein private complainants. acquires.00. All the elements of the crime of fencing in violation of the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (P. to wit: 1. possesses. article.000. to wit: Mere possession of any goods. He likewise testified that he accompanied his sister to the station and after investigation was sent home. receives. keeps. sells or disposes. A distinction should likewise be made between ownership and possession in relation to the act of fencing. 3. not a participant in said crime. 7 In convicting the petitioner. object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. item object. There is no doubt that the recovered items were found in the possession of the accused and she was not able to rebut the presumption though the evidence for the defense alleged that the stall is owned by one Fredo. With intent to gain for himself or for another. 2. have been established by positive and convincing evidence of the prosecution . 8 The petitioner then appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA-G. Of importance. Moreover. or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.D. or in any manner deals in any article or item.000. .R. or buys and sells. or should be known to said person that said item. as to the value of the jewelries recovered. conceals.00). and (2) that the prosecution failed to show that the value of the jewelry recovered is P93. No. 11024) where she raised two issues: (1) that the judgment was based on a mere presumption. the prosecution was able to show that the same is Ninety Three Thousand Pesos (P93. In its challenged decision of 29 March 1993. . . CR No. 4. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed. That such items were recovered by the Police Officers from the stall being tended by the accused at that time. the trial court made the following findings: The prosecution was able to prove by evidence that the recovered items were part of the loot and such recovered items belong to the spouses Encarnacion. A person. object or anything of value. With personal knowledge. is that the law provides a disputable presumption of fencing under Section 5 thereof. buys.police headquarters. Sta. A) and submitted a list and sketches of the jewelries robbed.. November 9. On the element of knowledge that the items are derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery and of intent to gain for herself or for another. among other things. C-1 to C-4 and D).000. from their residence located at Better Living Subdivision. Cpl. 1988 and January 11. C-2. accused-appellant was found selling the jewelries (Exhs. Sta. 11 Hence. C-3 and C-4) which was displayed in a showcase in a stall located at Florentino Street. Cruz. Hearings of October 3. 1988.. Encarnacion who immediately reported the same to Parañaque Police Station of the Southern Police District (TSN. 1988 is established by the testimony of private complainant Teodoro T. 1989) and Pfc. Knowledge and intent to gain are proven by the fact that these jewelries were found in possession of appellant and they were displayed for sale in a showcase being tended by her in a stall along Florentino Street. 9 Nevertheless. Let the original records be remanded immediately.00 based on the bare testimony of the private complainant and the selfserving list he submitted (Exhs. "C-2" and "C-4" for the sole purpose of determining the proper penalty to be meted out against accused under Section 3. Emmanuel Sanchez (TSN. its decision dated October 26. P. [Testimonies of Teodoro Encarnacion (id.D. 1612. marked as Exhibits "C". 1989. It opined that the trial court erred in concluding that "the value of the recovered jewelries is P93. finding that the trial court did not commit any reversible error. the Anti-Fencing Law provides: Sec. The second element is likewise established by convincing evidence. On February 24. Manila. Cruz. 1993). The fact that a crime of robbery has been committed on February 12. No. article. 1989)]. 1988. item. Parañaque. 1612. supra). 1990 convincing accused appellant is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the penalty imposed is SET ASIDE and the Regional Trial Court (Branch 20) of Manila is ordered to receive evidence with respect to the correct valuation of the properties involved in this case. Hearing of February 13. 5. object. or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. Ignacio Jao (TSN. Hearing of June 4. Manila. Presumption of Fencing. No. TSN.. C. which is essential to the imposition of the proper penalty under Section 3 of P. the Court of Appeals was of the opinion that there was not enough evidence to prove the value of the pieces of jewelry recovered. C-2 and C-4." 10 The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' decision reads: WHEREFORE.D. C. Exh. Hearing of October 3. Metro Manila (Exh. — Mere possession of any good. this petition wherein the petitioner contends that: . subject to the qualification set forth in Article 60 thereof. he ceases to be a mere accessory but becomes a principal in the crime of fencing. 13 The state may thus choose to prosecute him either under the Revised Penal Code or P. keep. commonly known as fence. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed. 1612 was enacted to "impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by the effects of the crimes of robbery and theft. receive. No. a fence could only be prosecuted for and held liable as an accessory. or shall buy and sell. is "the act of any person who. receives. as defined in Section 2 of P. the accessory in the crimes of robbery and theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or under P.I PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS MANIFESTLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE CAÑEBA. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). Fencing. Nothing. 12 On 23 February 1994. and P. buys. acquires.D. 1612.D. to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. The first assigned error is without merit. or should be known to him. or in any manner deal in any article. although the preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is a malum prohibitum. IN BLATANT DISREGARD OF APPLICABLE LAW AND WELL-ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE. acquire. however. possesses. are separate and distinct offenses. after the public respondents had filed their Comment and the petitioner her Reply to the Comment. and fencing. 1612.D. which they subsequently complied with. in the latter case. No. the crimes of robbery and theft. object or anything of value which he knows.D. item. shall buy. No. with intent to gain for himself or for another. who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft. Elsewise stated. No. this Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. as the term is defined in Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code.D. 55." Evidently. and 57 of the Revised Penal Code. 2. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing 14 and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property. No. However. on the one hand. keeps." Before P." P. The penalty applicable to an accessory is obviously light under the rules prescribed in Articles 53. on the other. . the reports from law enforcement agencies that "there is rampant robbery and thievery of government and private properties" and that "such robbery and thievery have become profitable on the part of the lawless elements because of the existence of ready buyers.D. No. conceal. sell or dispose of. possess. of stolen properties. 1612. 15 The elements of the crime of fencing are: 1. The accused. II PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS MANIFESTLY ERRED IN REMANDING THE CASE TO THE COURT A QUO FOR RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE CORRECT PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED. 000. and the CIS. There is. and 4. The accused knows or should have known that the said article. 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.00 (Exhibit "C-4"). 16 When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense. or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. And given two equally plausible states of cognition or mental awareness. No. there is no doubt that the first. One is deemed to know a particular fact if he has the cognizance. and submitted a list of the lost items and sketches of the jewelry taken from them (Exhibits "C" and "D"). such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence unless he actually believes that it does not exist.000. sells or disposes. consciousness or awareness thereof. This presumption does not offend the presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law. or is aware of the existence of something. Manila. and fourth elements were duly established.conceals. viz.00 (Exhibit "C-3"). Cruz.00 (Exhibit "C-2").000. the Western Police District. on the part of the accused. 18 Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness about a fact. the court should choose the one which sustains the constitutional presumption of innocence. object or anything of value. and (c) a chain with crucifix worth P3.. object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. (b) one set of earrings worth P15. or buys and sells. which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime. 17 On the other hand. article. Since the court cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and state with certainty what is contained therein. or if he has something within the mind's grasp with certitude and clarity. In the instant case. the NBI. The more crucial issue to be resolved is whether the prosecution proved the existence of the third element: that the accused knew or should have known that the items recovered from her were the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. or has the acquaintance with facts. the words "should know" denote the fact that a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty to another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such fact exists. 3. 20 In the early case of United States vs. (a) a pair of earrings and ring studded with diamonds worth P75. The public display of the articles for sale clearly manifested an intent to gain on the part of the petitioner. it must determine such knowledge with care from the overt acts of that person. or in any manner deals in any article.D." 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. second. intent to gain for himself or for another. Sta. were displayed for sale at a stall tended to by the petitioner in Florentino Torres Street. 21 this Court held: . object. 1612 expressly provides that "[m]ere possession of any good. item. Luling. Three of these items stolen. 19 Since Section 5 of P. item. A robbery was committed on 12 February 1988 in the house of the private complainants who afterwards reported the incident to the Parañaque Police. item. Failure on the part of the accused to explain his possession of stolen property may give rise to the reasonable presumption that it was he himself who had stolen it [U." which refers to any good. 1612. 1954]. and the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be purely arbitrary mandate" [1 Cooley. that no constitutional provision is violated by a statute providing that proof by the state of some material fact or facts shall constitute prima facieevidence of guilt. No. April 20. an unlicensed dealer/supplier refers to any person. Under our Revised Penal Code. 639]. Cruz said: Nevertheless. object or anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof. Justice Isagani A. regardless of whether the same has actually or in fact been used. 16 Phil. and. article. within certain well defined limitations. as 'the wicked flee when no man pursueth. partnership.S. 22 Mr. may lead to an inference of guilt. has a right to specify what act or acts shall constitute a crime. 1612 provides that "all stores. secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such store. for example. establishment or entity is located.D. the constitutional presumption of innocence may be overcome by contrary presumptions based on the experience of human conduct [People vs. item. 88 Ky. as well as in England. on the contrary. vs. the constitutional presumption will not apply as long as there is "some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed. and that then the burden is shifted to the defendant for the purpose of showing that such act or acts are innocent and are committed without unlawful intention. article. In the Philippine Islands no act is a crime unless it is made so by statute. Unexplained flight. the inability of an accountable officer to produce funds or property entrusted to him will be considered prima facieevidence that he has appropriated them to his personal use [Art. Labara. item. The petitioner was unable to rebut the presumption under P.D. 217]. association or any other entity or establishment not licensed by the government to engage in the business of dealing in or supplying "used secondhand articles.) In some of the States. Minor.. Espia.It has been frequently decided. corporation. in case of statutory crimes. as well as what proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt. establishments or entitles dealing in the buy and sell of any good. She relied solely on the testimony of her brother which was insufficient to overcome the presumption. 422." Under the Rules and Regulations 24 promulgated to carry out the provisions of Section 6. 506]. The state having the right to declare what acts are criminal. 23 Fredo was not presented as a witness and it was not established that he was a licensed dealer or supplier of jewelry. even disclosed that the petitioner was engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry and that she used to buy from a certain Fredo. there exist what are known as common law offenses. . but the righteous is as bold as a lion. object or anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier. (Commonwealth vs. No. and then to put upon the defendant the burden of showing that such act or acts are innocent and are not committed with any criminal intent or intention. firm. In his book on constitutional law. According to Cooley. Section 6 of P. shall before offering the same for sale to the public. which is within the range of reclusion temporalmaximum. (2) the first .000. There is double jeopardy when the following requisites concur: (1) the first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.000.000. though.D.000. 1612 provides that the penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon the accused if the value of the property involved is more than P12. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence law which allows the imposition of an indeterminate penalty which.00 c) one gold chain with crucifix (Exh." 26 a list of the items which were taken by the robbers on 12 February 1988. together with the corresponding valuation thereof.000.00 These findings are based on the testimony of Mr. the penalty of prision mayor should be imposed in its maximum period.00. The maximum penalty that can be imposed in this case would then be eighteen (18) years and five (5) months. "C-2") — P75. In such cases.00. as minimum to eighteen (18) years and five (5) months of reclusion temporal maximum asmaximum. however.000.00 but does not exceed P22.00 b) one set of earring (Exh. agree with the Court of Appeals that there is insufficient evidence to prove the actual value of the recovered articles. however. the total penalty which may be imposed. On cross-examination. with respect to offenses penalized by a special law. shall range from a minimum which shall not be lower than the minimum prescribed by the special law to a maximum which should not exceed the maximum provided therein. Section 3(a) of P." it would be reasonable to reduce the value from P15. 28 The cross-examination withheld any question on the gold chain with crucifix described in Exhibit "C-4.00. adding one year for each additional P10. In the light of the foregoing.000. the recovered articles had a total value of P93.00 to P7. the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the penalty imposed by the trial court and in remanding the case to the trial court for further reception of evidence to determine the actual value of the pieces of jewelry recovered from the petitioner and for the imposition of the appropriate penalty. of the admission that only one earring was recovered of the jewelry described in Exhibit "C-3.We do not.00 27 and that the value of the items described in Exhibit "C-3" is P15. the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.000. Mr. As found by the trial court. the petitioner can thus be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day ofprision mayor maximum. We do not agree with the petitioner's contention. broken down as follows: a) one earring and ring studded with diamonds (Exh. No. the total value of the pieces of jewelry displayed for sale by the petitioner and established to be part of the proceeds of the robbery on 12 February 1988 would be P87." In view. that a remand for further reception of evidence would place her in double jeopardy. Encarnacion re-affirmed his testimony on direct examination that the value of the pieces of jewelry described in Exhibit "C-2" is P75.000.000. Encarnacion 25 and on Exhibit "C.00. Accordingly. however. "C-3") — P15.00. shall not exceed twenty years. "C-4") — P3.000. although he admitted that only one earring — and not the pair — was recovered.500. with the accessory penalties corresponding to the latter. and if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum.00. Rollo. concurred in by Associate Justices Nathanael P. 13 People vs. 1. 57-59. . No. the instant petition is partly GRANTED by setting aside the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Bellosillo. CR No. 71. 10 Rollo. Cruz. Jr. 135. and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.R. 67-72. The decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED subject to the modification of the penalty which is hereby reduced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor maximum as minimum to Eighteen (18) years and Five (5) months of Reclusion Temporal maximum as maximum. 72. 12 Id. 88-64954 and orders the remand of the case for the trial court to receive evidence with respect to the correct value of the properties involved. 2 Original Records (OR). 77368. 23. 69-70. 54-64. Rollo. 3 RTC OR. 134. #Footnotes 1 Rollo. with the accessory penalties of the latter. 3 October 1988. Cañeba. 70-71. Rollo. De Pano.. Per Associate Justice Ma.R. 11024 insofar as it sets aside the penalty imposed by Branch 20 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Criminal Case No. SO ORDERED. Jr. Quiason and Kapunan. G. WHEREFORE. 6 TSN. JJ. 20-21. Hon. Abad Santos. 7 OR. 4 OR. 5 October 1993. Alicia Austria-Martinez.jeopardy must have validly been terminated.. Rollo. concur. 11 Id. 5 OR. 29 Such a concurrence would not occur assuming that the case was remanded to the trial court. Rollo. 61. 132-133. 130-135. de Guzman. 8 OR. and Quirino D. 63. 133-134. Per Judge Doroteo N. 9 Rollo.. 3-4. 2 February 1990. 16 Webster's Third New World International Dictionary. 1612. 79. 25 TSN. 1252. 22 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 1987 Constitution. 1993 ed. 728 [1916].. 1971 ed. taken from Reinstatement of Torts § 12. 20 Section 14(2). 18 Id.. 15-17. citing Model Penal Code. 27 TSN. Article III. P. 313.D. 24 It took effect on 15 June 1979. 17 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY. 872-873. 9 November 1988.14 Section 5. § 2. (6th ed.202. unabridged.. 3 October 1988. 2-4. RTC of Cebu. 873. Court of Appeals. 725. 28 Id. 19 Diong-an vs. 5. 15 Section 3. 213 SCRA 138 [1991]. No. 138 SCRA 39 [1985]. . 29 Gorion vs. Id. 26 OR. 21 34 Phil.. 23 TSN.). otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law. 139250 August 15. Philippines. DECISION GONZAGA-REYES. Gabriel Capili." affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court2 of the National Capital Judicial Region. 2000 GABRIEL CAPILI.S. dollar) all valued at P3. in an information that reads: "That on or about November 5.R. to wit: Assorted pieces of jewelry Several pieces of old coins (U. keep. possess. which they knew or should have known to have been derived from the proceeds of a (sic) crime of theft. Branch 34.000. conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other.00. in the City of Manila.: This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals1 in CA G.000. finding Gabriel Capili guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Presidential Decree 1612."3 . 1993.. vs. J. AL. ET.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G. CR No. the said accused. did then and there willfully and knowingly receive. Gabriel Capili y Recto (GABRIEL) together with his wife Ferma Capili y Inot were charged with violation of Presidential Decree 1612. respondents.R. petitioner. 19336 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. No. COURT OF APPEALS. et. Contrary to law. With intent to gain for themselves or for another. al. acquire and sell or dispose of the following. key chain and some custom jewelries (sic) and some other items.00 the second watch was (sic) cost P20. The police officer took her statement (Exhs. 1993. her former houseboy. trial ensued. While her mother was checking them. Recto. 1993 (Exh. however. On November 27. "C". Police prepared the police report and concluded that Michael Manzo. The trial court summarized the testimonies of the witnesses as follows: "x x x xxx xxx Christine Diokno testified that at 4:00 P. She described all the properties that were taken as those reflected in the police report because according to her she gave the police a list of the items and is part of her statement (tsn. the cost and date when bought. 1993. she said those are her properties and that the coins (sic) were acquired during the trips to the States. p.4 Thereafter. she discovered that some of her (sic) items at (sic) her closet and the jewelries (sic) and money at (sic) her mother’s room were taken. "B". who paid P1. what exactly were brought by her mother. May 11.000. She further relayed that the coins. some were of 20 years and some were of 30 years vintage. That Capili returned to him (Manzo) the memorabilia taken from her room consisting of (sic) school ring. She was shown by the police officer the items recovered from Gabriel Capili and his wife which she identified as her property.00 and P1. bracelets. Exh.000.000. "A". when she went home from her office. That before the discovery of the incident her mother had the list of all the items by counting them physically because her mother used to check the jewelry every week in her presence. she was in the room writing the description of the jewelries (sic). two Makati police responded and surveyed the room where the robbery took place. That she was present during the last inventory of the items and the land titles by her mother. Upon call. That all is worth three (3) Million Pesos because the jewelries (sic) were sometimes brought to a jeweler for a change or for removal of stones or replacement that is why she considered that all the jewelries (sic) were appraised.M. Allegedly the value is about 3 Million pesos.On December 3. That on November 2. "S"). Some from abroad. That the corresponding value stated came from her mother kept inside the vault. 1993.000. near Claro M. 1993. both accused entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged with the assistance of counsel. 1993. 1994). "F". She does not know.00 and the two cast rings about P80. after her father died on July 15. "A" came from a brooch owned by her mother. Kennedy dollar coins contained in a small box. acquired by her parents since their wedding in 1945.000. on November 4. presenting the alleged inventory on August 1.00. "F-1" and "F-2") and then investigated the theft case. The first was before he went to Isabela. She talked to Michael Manzo who admitted the commission of the stealing and that he sold the items to Gabriel Capili and his wife forP50. The chain with medal of our Lady was bought by her mother and was given to her together with other belongings. she took out all the items because November 9 was her mother’s birthday and would like to select the items she and her mother were going to wear for the .500. Shown with Exhs. Likewise Michael Manzo admitted that on two occasions Gabriel Capili returned some of the items. Then Manzo informed her that he sold those items returned to other buyers. 11. States or Hongkong acquired during trips. She kept John F.00 to P60.00. committed the offense so a case against Manzo was filed.000. Quiapo sub-station informed her that Michael Manzo was there. That three days before the apprehension Gabriel returned the Raymond Wiel watch and two cast rings with diamonds. The first ring is valued at P3.00 for the ring which police officer (sic) failed to recover because the stand was no longer there. opened (sic) for a couple of minutes without counting. he was caught by the police asking him where he brought the jewelries (sic). 3. Mrs. who was picked-up and brought to the station and investigated. She claimed that the records including the receipts from where the list was taken were lost together with the jewelries (sic) that were taken. when he was given another lawyer. "B-1". pendant with inscription Boy Recto. Exhibit "D" as their Exhibit "2" and "2-a". xxx xxx xxx To support the allegation in the Information Michael Manzo testified that after he asked his friend Emilio Benitez where he can sell his jewelries (sic) he was brought to Boy Recto’s (accused) house at 1260 Carola St. to whom he gave one bag of jewelries (sic) with the information that he stole them while he was a house boy. he entrusted them to Boy Recto without counting the pieces. That three days after he left the jewelries (sic) to (sic) Recto. WPD. Despite which value.000. When the jewelries (sic) were returned contained in the bag. he accepted. "D" and sub-markings is his. Isabela. so he pointed to Boy Recto. more or less 20 pairs of earrings. which he came to know as such because he had it appraised in a pawnshop when they arrived from Roxas. "B-3" and "B-4" quarter cents. He was paid P1.occasion then check the jewelries (sic) against the prepared list.500. That the P1. some with pearls and some with diamonds and birthstones. tsn. He left again and went back after two weeks and was paid again P6. 1994). He admitted that the statement marked as Exh. March 16.000. diamond with pearls. "B-3" and "B-4". they had drinking session somewhere at Recto. He left again but in his return he was not paid anymore. tsn. (p. he said that there were more or less 20 pieces of rings. he did not ask for the jewelries (sic). Raymond Wiel. Recto agreed to pay him P50.00 (p. Defense adopted Exhibit "B" as Exhibit "1" and sub-markings. Exh. 5 pieces of Seiko watches.. 6. Describing the contents of the bag. "C".00. That during the investigation. He left and went back after a week or on November 5. He identified the pearl earring with copper (sic) with diamond (Exh. police officers found pearls and old coins from Gabriel Capili. on which occasion.00 was given to him near the bus terminal at Sampaloc near UST and when the fancies (sic) were returned. When he visited his friend Emilio Benitez at the precinct. That . Sampaloc. The following day. 3 pieces Bulova watches. "B-2" dimes. The list included the items lost but did not include the box of memorabilia which was taken from her room. There were Quartz watches. having been charged with vagrancy.500. "B-2". as he needed the money. During the frisking and searching at the station. 1994) That witness explained that only the fancy ones were returned to him. He likewise identified the old coin 4 pieces of dollars marked as Exhs.00. That per complainant’s information. he stated that he told the accused to sell the jewelries (sic) he stole. March 3. Manila. "A"). He however. Ferma Capili was investigated at sub-station 3. all of them costs (sic) 3 Million Pesos which he merely gave to the accused without counting them. claims that they will cost only one to two million pesos. "B-1". more or less 10 pieces of necklaces of plain gold with pendant with the replica of God and cast with diamond. Quiapo. It was however. That during his investigation he recovered a necklace with pendant.Emilio Benitez glanced on (sic) them because the bus was about leave. on November 27.000. US dollar coins with different denominations and one pair of earrings (Exh. one of the jewelries (sic) stolen. SPO1 Eduardo San Diego also from Station 3. "3" to "3-A"). he was requested by Boy Recto (Gabriel Capili) to sign a blank document somewhere at Espana (Document Exh. He pointed to both accused inside the courtroom. Having admitted to the police that he is Michael Manzo. he was asked where he brought the jewelries (sic) so he pointed to Boy Recto.800. Isabela. but later said that the originals are in the hands of the police officers. they went to the house of the accused then proceeded to wait at a hotel in Sta. He declared that he himself is not sure whether all the jewelries (sic) inside the bag are (sic) genuine or not. That he is testifying before this Court out of his own volition. he and his companions SPO2 Reyes. Manzo pointed to the earrings worn by the (sic) wife as part of those stolen properties. "D" and "E" and sub-markings. He admitted to have signed a blank document. "4-1" and Exh. Exh. the accused arrived and gave him P6. 1993 he investigated Michael Manzo who was accused of Qualified Theft at Makati and who admitted to him having committed said offense and pointed to the house of Gabriel Capili at Sampaloc. They were allowed by Gabriel Capili to get (sic) inside the residence where Gabriel Capili showed him the signed document of Michael Manzo.00 in the presence of Emilio Benitez without receipt. his signature. Allegedly while the wife was then being investigated. however."3-A".000. "B" and "C"). Quiapo. After three hours of waiting. In their investigation they tried to recover the other items but failed because the establishment of the other buyer pointed to them by Michael Manzo was no longer existing. forced. but do (sic) not know where the originals were. The witness admitted that he is facing a charge of Qualified Theft in Makati pending before a court where he posted his bail. Thereafter. investigated the case of Qualified Theft that happened at the house of Cristine Diokno. denied by Manzo although he admitted the signature. 1993 selling junk foods (sic) when he was called by Emil. Cruz. After more or less two weeks when (sic) they arrived from Isabela. "4" and said he returned the jewelries (sic). He prepared the booking sheet and arrest report Exhs. "A". He was not. Exhibit "4" and "3". Recto gave the instruction that he can come back within two weeks because Boy Recto will pay. through the phone which number he gave to Emil when the . investigator. That upon arrival from Isabela.00 is not true. He explained that they went to Isabela per instruction of Gabriel Capili that they should lie low because the police were hunting for them and that Emilio Benitez is from Roxas. SPO3 Ernesto Ramirez testified that as police officer of Station 3. Manila. Exh. Gabriel Capili went with them to the police precinct where he (Gabriel Capili) was referred to the investigator and found (sic) from his pockets 4 pieces of coins.00 but paid only P1. xxx xxx xxx Gabriel Capili denied any knowledge about the charge against him and declared that what Michael Manzo stated in court that he agreed to pay P50. Both accused were positively identified by Michael Manzo so he took the latter’s statement. The same was taken by the investigator. companion of Michael Manzo. He was at home on November 10. SPO3 Salalia and SPO3 Fuentes with Michael Manzo went to the place and saw the wife of Gabriel Capili wearing the pair of earrings. Manila where he sold the jewelries (sic). did not know if they were released.000. he returned them but asked Manzo to sign Exh. one birthstone and an old coin with a price of P2. After fifteen (15) minutes from the second floor he was brought to the ground floor inside the cell and detained for several days. Michael Manzo went up the hotel while Emil went towards Aurora Boulevard walking carrying some items but did not know what happened. Ramirez (sic) not convinced with what he said about the paper (Exh. He asked Emil if he was able to sell the jewelries (sic) and was answered "not yet". Michael will point to her earrings. she was likewise incarcerated because Michael Manzo pointed to the earrings of his wife.M. he went inside the hotel and after inquiring from the counter where his companion was. he gave them then brought back to the cell. the original of which was given to the policeman and which was not returned to him. They parted ways and went home. the first time he saw the latter and showed him two (2) pieces of jewelry. He went to UST somewhere near Mambusco station where he saw Emil with Michael Manzo about 5 meters from Emil standing talking to someone. He declined because he cannot pay for it. Michael Manzo ordered the taxi cab to go back to Sta. On November 27 when his wife visited him at 7:00 P. allegedly because Emil gave P500. Michael Manzo asked him if he knew somebody who can buy. they went to Recto at (sic) a business establishment near the Galaxy Theater. On November 21. He further declared that prior to his wife’s arrival. After boarding the taxi they did not proceed immediately to the place. together with Michael Manzo.00. Emil informed him that he and Michael Manzo together with two others were going to Isabela so he gave the P700. After several days Pat. He.00. Emil arrived at 2:00 o’clock P. Michael Manzo was not immediately investigated but Michael Manzo and Emil were incarcerated. the birthstone and watch allegedly as a gift from Michael Manzo. Emil was borrowing P700. Fifteen minutes after the two women left. Invited (sic) he went to the police at the Hidalgo sub-station 3. Emil arrived and said he went to Cubao selling the jewelries (sic). Because of Manzo’s insistence. He said he has but hard to see because he seldom see the man already but was invited to see the person at Recto. He was offered to drink from almost dark until dawn asking him if he had already find (sic) his friend buyer. Emil asked him if he would like to buy jewelry to whom he relayed if he will see the jewelry. He alleged that on the same day he was brought in a room at the second floor where he was mauled by Pat. "4").M. He inquired from (sic) where the jewelries (sic) came from and was answered by Michael Manzo that it came from and (sic) being sold by his mother. He told the police that the jewelries (sic) they are looking for are in the possession of Michael Manzo. "4" and "4-A". Exhs. so Emil gave him the jewelries (sic) formerly offered to him. policeman and Michael planned that when his wife arrived.latter bought something on credit from him a week before that date. Michael Manzo handed to Emil something wrapped of which he was asked to appraise. Michael Manzo went down with two women companions. "3". brought to a place near the UST along Dapitan Street where he found Michael Manzo retrieving the gift given to him. On November 15. After they (Emil and his friend) boarded the bus he went home. He further claimed that Michael Manzo talked to a certain Go and pointed to some other buyers who were brought to the precinct. Mesa Love Hotel where he was told to wait. After one hour of waiting at the taxicab and worried about the taxi fare.00 but he has no such amount. he was fetched by Emil. They failed to return his P700. Ramirez arrived informing him that Michael Manzo sold him jewelries (sic). Manzo and Emil called him up again asking if it was possible to see him which he positively answered. Thereafter.00 to the . however.00 so he asked Manzo to sign another documents (sic). " (holding the pair of earrings marked as Exh. On the third time when he was brought to the Fiscal. sir. wife of Gabriel. 1994). Olongapo City and that the accused Ferma Capili. there is no reason why Benitez will approach him selling the property. he believed that it was because of the quarrel when he started accusing Manzo of stealing of which he was being blamed. 14. the same time he came to know Michael. hence. the Fiscal told the police that they should be released but were not and (sic) brought back to the cell. There again. S. a U. 8. the Fiscal said the policemen will take care of them. Fancy jewel which was given by her sister from abroad. 1993. "A-1". That on December 1. He admitted that only one of the coins belongs to him. Aug. Showing all the exhibits of the prosecution to the witness. in carrying dead body (sic) when MV Nucnucan sank in Cebu where the son of one he carried gave him coin. He likewise did not know of any reason why the police officer stated in their affidavit of arrest that the items "US Dollars" were recovered from him at the time of the investigation. p. the latter allegedly told him that San Diego altered the testimony that is why they will be incarcerated. is his sister. (tsn. The other coin belongs to him which he picked up in Cebu. It has brillantitos which is the same as a base of the glass. Nick Golahan. Alex Aguirre when he was still single. And later witness answered: "Ay ito pala. There is no quarrel with the police officers and so he has no knowledge why these people would like to implicate him and his wife. He now claims that the he came to know Emilio Benitez only on November 5. They did not execute any statement because according to him he was not given any chance. 1990.police officer while planning to include his wife. thereafter was incarcerated. He later claimed that the pair of earrings . Further stating that the same came from Pat. the Fiscal ordered that they be released but were not and (sic) brought back to the cell once more. That although they did not know the accused Michael Manzo and did not know of any reason why he pointed to him and his wife as buyers of the jewelries (sic) worth 3 Million Pesos. The following morning they were brought to the City Hall. 5. That the necklace with print Boy Recto on the pendant belongs to him and which was taken at the precinct from the dancer to whom he gave it. "B" is his acquired when he helped. That upon inquest. 1994). He denied that Manzo signed Exh. Exh. He was asked by his sister to testify about the pair of earring (sic) that he gave Ferma on June 24. "B-4") and his two (2) LRT coins are still missing so with P20. the Prosecutor ordered the police to release them and was present asking the Fiscal if he can be allowed to go home but since they did not have any document. "3" without any writing and pointed to the typewritten statement therein as his relaying that the same was thru Michael’s suggestion at the time when they were already quarreling while accusing Manzo to have stolen the properties subject matter of this case and even questioned that there is something wrongly written. He testified that the earrings of his wife was given by her brother and that the old coin. picked-up from Cebu (Exh.". the giving as a gift. The last time he saw the pair of earring was on the date his sister celebrated her birthday. at first he answered "There are no brillantitos pair of earrings. 22. tsn p. The same was confiscated from Ferma by the police. per order of Pat. Oct. His wife was then brought to the second floor but did not know what happened. Although he claimed that San Diego did not release them after the Fiscal’s order he did not file any action against San Diego. SPO1 Beinvenido Inot testified that he is a member of the National Police Force of Precinct 1.00 and two more Abraham Lincoln coins. 31-45). he is hereby sentenced to suffer eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium and to suffer the additional penalty of three years (one for every P10. to be returned to the owner upon proper receipt and photograph.000. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged the dispositive portion of the decision reads: "WHEREFORE.00. "B" and "C" and its sub-markings."6 GABRIEL appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the RTC the dispositive portion of its decision reads: . The body of the accused is hereby committed to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections.000. for violation of P. The accused shall be credited with the full extent of his preventive imprisonment in accordance with Art.000. further considering that the consideration of the purchase is P50. the trial court rendered its decision acquitting Ferma Capili but finding the accused.is actually for his wife sent by her sister abroad to Olongapo. through the City Warden of Manila. However. (Defense marked Exh. The bond posted by the accused for her provisional liberty is hereby cancelled. the accused is hereby directed to indemnify the complainant Christined Diokno the sum of P50. pp. despite the information of Ferma Capili that she was apprehended because of the pair of earrings he did not do anything because allegedly he was too busy and they have operation. SO ORDERED. she is hereby acquitted from the offense charged in the Information. Rollo. Muntinlupa. A of the same law which required that the penalty to be imposed shall be in the maximum period if the value of the property is more than P22. they saw each other two times and that they talked about those jewelries (sic) thru the phone at that time when the accused was apprehended and incarcerated. 1995. Gabriel Capili.00. He admitted that this is the first time he declared that the earrings came from him without executing any written statement.000. Without any mitigating or aggravating circumstances attendant to its commission. 1994."5 On August 17. 1612 in relation to Sec. Considering that there is no evidence to show complicity and/or that Ferma Capili conspired and confederated with her husband Gabriel Capili. adding one (1) year for its additional P10. 29 of the Revised Penal Code.00. Since the claim of P3 Million has not been sufficiently proven but the agreed price between the seller and herein accused is only P50.00. less the value of the jewelries (sic) presented in Court.D. Metro Manila. The bond posted by the accused for his provisional liberty is hereby cancelled.00. National Penitentiary. Exhibits "A". 1-15.000. "8") (Decision.000. He cannot remember having seen Ferma Capili on December 1993 to September 9. but granting the accused with the benefit of the indeterminate sentence law. "A-1" pair of earring (sic) as their Exh. finding the prosecution’s evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction beyond moral certainty. pp.00) and to further suffer the accessory penalty thereof. accused Gabriel Capili is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of said law. 3 par. the total penalty of which shall not exceed twenty (20) years. which is P50. the guilt of the petitioner has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 1997. The OSG also opines that the petitioner is not entitled to an acquittal since the value of the stolen property is not determinative of the guilt of the accused and is not an element of the crime but is only determinative of the penalty therefor. receives. conceals. object or anything of value which he knows. The petitioner also maintains that since the prosecution failed to prove the value of the stolen goods. acquire.10 The respondent through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that on April 25. there is no legal basis for him to suffer the entire penalty imposed by the trial court.00 be adopted and used instead. or shall buy and sell. the OSG recommended that as an alternative to a remand that the assessment and findings of the trial court on the value of the subject articles. or in any other manner deal in any article.D. hence this appeal where the accused assigns the following error: "THE COURT OF APPEALS IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT REMANDING THE CASE TO THE COURT A QUO FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS DESPITE OF (SIC) THE FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL CONSIDERING THAT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE FENCED ARTICLES WERE NOT CORRECTLY ESTABLISHED BY THE PROSECUTION. with intent to gain for himself or for another. to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. possess."WHEREFORE. Fencing is the act of any person who.D. keep. 12 The essential elements of the crime of fencing are: "1. keeps. Petitioner claims that the Office of the Solicitor General.11 It is therefore the contention of the OSG that there is no merit in the petitioner’s claim that the OSG agreed to the remand of the case for further reception of evidence to determine the value of the stolen goods inasmuch as this would be prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner. item. The petition is partly meritorious. in its appellee’s brief filed with the Court of Appeals. agrees that basis of the penalty for the offense of fencing is the value of the property actually involved and not the agreed selling price of the stolen item. possesses. or should be known to him. Therefore. acquires."7 Motion for reconsideration was denied8 . who is not a principal or an accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft. conceal. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed. it filed a Manifestation/Clarification modifying the recommendation it made in its appellee’s brief to the effect that a remand of the case would unduly delay the disposition of the case. 1612 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. buys. SO ORDERED. sell or dispose of. 1612) beyond reasonable doubt. to expedite the final resolution of the case. shall buy receive.000. sells or . 1995 convicting the appellant for violation of P. the decision of the trial court dated August 17. The petitioner therefore prays that the decision of the Court of Appeals be reversed and a new one be issued either acquitting the petitioner or remanding the case to the court a quo for further proceedings."9 The petitioner maintains that even for the sake of argument that the prosecution has established that the petitioner committed the crime of fencing (violation of P. 2. The accused. matching earrings and a brooch all set with diamonds and four solid gold watches. he delivered them to the petitioner.disposes. DIOKNO stated that the major items that were taken consisted of two diamond rings each having a diamond solitaire of three (3) carats each. Universal Geneve and a Gabriel Peregaux. He also established the fact that the petitioner agreed to pay fifty thousand (P50. has not rebutted this presumption. a Rolex. watches and money were stolen from her mother’s bedroom. At any rate. And that after stealing the jewelry. Michael Manzo (MANZO)."13 All these elements are present in the case at bench. Although DIOKNO’s testimony is hearsay and is inadmissible for purposes of determining the value of the stolen items inasmuch as her testimony was not based on her own personal .00) pesos. an emerald set consisting of an emerald ring set with diamonds with a pair of matching earrings. item. MANZO’s testimony proves the second. which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime. and 4. concluded that her houseboy. who was in possession of at least two of the stolen items. 3. item. We also disagree with the petitioner that the prosecution failed to prove the value of the stolen items. a gold chain with pendant (Exhibit "B") and old United States dollar coins (Exhibit "C"). The accused knows or should have known that the said article. a cameo set consisting of a ring. intent to gain for himself or for another. object or anything of value.000. Consequently. In her testimony. Consequently. a criminal case was filed against MANZO.5) carats. GABRIEL with the information that the jewelry was stolen and for the purpose of selling the same. In court. a pair of diamond earrings each having a diamond solitaire of two point five (2.000.15 MANZO testified that GABRIEL was not a participant in the theft of the jewelry and that he told GABRIEL that the jewelry was stolen. Piaget. There is on the part of the accused. or in any manner deals in any article. who admitted that he stole the jewelry from DIOKNO. a topaz set consisting of two rings with diamonds and one with rubies with a set of matching earrings. third and fourth elements of the crime of fencing. or buys and sells. her mother’s wedding band. The first element or the fact of theft was proved by prosecution witness. DIOKNO identified some of the recovered stolen items consisting of a set of pearl earrings with two small diamonds (Exhibit "A"). Christine Diokno (DIOKNO) who testified that several pieces of jewelry. three cultured pearl necklaces with matching cultured pearl earrings set with diamonds. She reported the theft to the police who after conducting an investigation. a South Sea pearl set consisting of a ring and two pairs of matching earrings also set with diamonds. the law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by the accused as mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. She alleged that the total value of the items amounted to approximately three million (P3.16 GABRIEL.00) pesos for the stolen jewelry which clearly manifests intent to gain on the part of the petitioner.000. a sapphire set consisting of two sapphire rings set with diamonds and matching earrings. object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.14 DIOKNO’s testimony is corroborated by MANZO. He identified GABRIEL in court as the person to whom he delivered the stolen jewelry. a diamond cross with twelve (12) half (1/2) carat diamond. committed the offense. Penalties – Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder indicated: a) The penalty of prision mayor. this should be imposed in its medium period which ranges from ten (10) years. in view of the attending circumstances. Besides. the petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals finding the petitioner.000.000.000. SO ORDERED.000 pesos. 3.00. Gabriel Capili guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Presidential Decree 1612 otherwise known as the Anti-fencing law is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the petitioner is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years.000 pesos. the penalty provided for in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period. the court shall sentence an accused to an indeterminate sentence. MANZO’s testimony remains unrebutted.17 We note however that the trial court was mistaken in imposing the penalty. could be properly imposed and the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense. The fact that the value of the fenced items exceeds P22.000. the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed. one for each P10. two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. the maximum of the indeterminate penalty is anywhere within ten (10) years. the court shall sentence an accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which.00 in excess of P22. two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correcional as minimum to thirteen (13) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. if the value of the property involved is more than 12. eight (8) months and one (1) day to eleven (11) years and four (4) months. said amount is presumed to be the value thereof as it is the only value established by the prosecution.19 Applying the foregoing. adding one year for each additional 10.00 and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. and if the offense is punished by any other law. Adding the additional two (2) year sentence.000 pesos but not exceeding 22. eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor to thirteen (13) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal21 . WHEREFORE. but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.00 should not.20 In the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. On the other hand.knowledge but on the appraisals made by jewelers and what her mother told her. the petitioner should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of prision mayor maximum. the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum.000. . A person found guilty of fencing property the value of which exceeds P22. In such cases. the valuation of the stolen items made by the trial court is a factual issue and factual findings of the trial court especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and generally should not be disturbed on appeal. MANZO established that he sold the stolen items to GABRIEL for P50. like in cases of estafa. the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower which is prision correcional maximum22 which ranges from four (4) years.00 is punished under Presidential Decree 1612 as follows: "Sec. be considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty." Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law18 . and Purisima JJ. vs. 284 SCRA 464. Vitug. 1994. concur. 134298. 43. No. Sr.Melo. Rollo. 61. Record. § 5. Court of Appeals Decision. Rollo. (Chairman). Ibid. Tan vs. Supra. August 26. 4103 as amended. 1999. P. and the members: J. Lopez. People. People.R. 2-8. Sumalpong. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 § 2a. § 1. Jr. B. 10. A. Adefuin-De La Cruz concurring. 44-45. 1. 1994. May 11. Rollo. Record. 13 Tan vs. March 3.488[1998]. TSN. 2-10. Rollo. Panganiban.D. 1612. 14 15 16 17 18 19 . 792 [1996]. Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Chairman) and J. P. G. Petition. Court of Appeals. 2 Penned by Judge Romulo A. Rollo.Dunlao.D. 1612. Presbiterio J. 25-33. Comment. Velasco. 6. RTC Decision. 269-270. People vs. 25. 4-18. Footnotes 1 Twelfth Division composed of the ponente J. 18. 260 SCRA 788. Court of Appeals Decision. ACT NO. Petition. TSN... Record. 7-8. 18-21. 6. 267 SCRA 581. . 21 § 1 of ACT NO. 596 [1997]. vs. 112 SCRA 186. 2004 ERNESTO FRANCISCO y SPENOCILLA. petitioner. Supra states that in cases when an additional year is added to the penalty. respondent. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 146584 July 12. 550-552 [1942]. Gonzales. 193 [1982]. 22 People vs. Javier. People vs. No. 549. Gabres.20 People vs.R. 4103.Arellano Law Foundation Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G. 73 PHIL. The Lawphil Project . the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal as in this case where the maximum penalty exceeds the range ofprision mayor. DECISION CALLEJO. unlawfully and feloniously buy. with intent to gain for himself. otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law. or should be known to him.000. Province of Bulacan. possess and acquire from one Pacita Linghon y Liza. 1612. and entered a plea of not guilty. and to pay the corresponding value of the subject pieces of jewelry. as minimum. with the accessory penalties corresponding to the latter.. Bulacan. belonging to Jovita Rodriguez y Cruz. Branch 22. the said accused Ernesto Francisco y Spenocilla. receive. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. to twenty (20) years ofreclusion temporal maximum. to wit: One (1) pair of earrings (Heart Shape) One (1) White Gold Bracelet One (1) Diamond Ring One (1) Ring with Diamond -----------P 400. The Case for the Prosecution .00 150. J. 1993.: This is an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. 19110 affirming the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos.000.00 100.00 5. No. Trial forthwith ensued. as maximum. to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. Contrary to law.00.D. SR.3 The petitioner was arraigned. did then and there wil[l]fully. CR No. sentencing him to suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum. the accusatory portion of which reads: That in or about the month of November 1991. which he knows. Philippines. finding petitioner Ernesto Francisco guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. The Indictment The petitioner was charged of violating P.000. not the owner. in the municipality of Meycauayan.000.R. 1612 under the Information filed on June 23.00 with the total value of P655. several pieces of jewelry.000. with the assistance of counsel. and one ring "with big and small stones" to "Mang Erning" of Meycauayan. Jr. she left the employ of the Rodriguez family. for investigation in connection with Jovita’s complaint.000.000. Jovita filed a complaint for theft against Pacita and her mother Adoracion Linghon with the Counter-Intelligence Group of the Philippine National Police in Camp Crame. Sometime in May 1991. and one ring with a small diamond stone worth P5. She and her husband." Macario entered the shop. Pacita arrived in Camp Crame without counsel and gave a sworn statement pointing to the petitioner as the person to whom she sold Jovita’s jewelry. The latter agreed and paid Macario the amount. She suspected that it was Pacita who stole her jewelry.8 which had a poster outside that said.000. Rodriguez Contractors. Jovita was asked to be a principal sponsor at a wedding. After these transactions. Quezon City. "We buy gold.4 She was engaged in business as a general contractor under the business name J. one (1) ring with a small diamond stone worth P5.5 Pacita swept and cleaned the room periodically.000.000. Jr. Jovita hid the key to the cabinet inside the room. She told Macario that a friend of hers owned the jewelry.000. Ernesto agreed to buy the jewelry for P25.7 Macario agreed. however. one white gold bracelet. Pacita gave a sworn statement to PO1 Roldan. 1992. viz: one (1) heart-shaped pair of earrings with diamond worth P400.000 to cover the cost of her father’s operation and for food. When asked about . while Pacita stayed outside.000. Meycauayan. Sometime in the third week of October 1991. Rizal.Jovita Rodriguez was a resident of Barangay Manggahan. occupied with her business ventures that she had little time to gather evidence and charge Pacita. invited Pacita and Adoracion to Camp Crame. She was shocked when she opened the locked cabinet containing her jewelry. On August 23. as one of their household helpers us sometime in February 1989. She also averred that Pacita had stolen the pieces of jewelry. He agreed. On August 19. who resided in Sitio Baloongan.000. admitting that she sold one pair of heart-shaped earrings with diamond. Among the pieces of jewelry missing were one pair of diamond heart-shaped earrings worthP400. Quezon City.000. Bulacan.000.C. He then went to the shop of petitioner Ernesto "Erning" Francisco located at Pacheco Street. of the Counter-Intelligence Group. Meycauayan. Pacita contacted her brother Macario. Macario Linghon was one of her workers. She stated that she owned several jewels. acquired several pieces of jewelry which were placed inside a locked cabinet in a locked room in their main house. and. Macario’s sister. Macario saw the petitioner in his shop for about five to six more times and received some amounts. and found that the box was empty. Calvario.. He also gave Macario P300 as a tip. one heart-shaped diamond ring. Macario offered to sell to Ernesto two rings and one bracelet. for the total price of P50. They hired Pacita Linghon. She was. Rizal. Barangay Paltok. one heartshaped diamond ring worth P100. one white gold bracelet with diamond stones worthP150. one (1) white gold bracelet with diamond stones worth P150. Bulacan. A team of police investigators. and paid the amount to Macario.10 Pacita asked Macario anew to sell a pair of earrings.6 and asked him to sell some pieces of jewelry. Rodriguez. The couple and their son resided inside a compound. Bulacan. the former Municipal Mayor of Rodriguez. Ernesto gave a P200 tip to Macario. one (1) heart-shaped ring with diamond worth P100.11 Sometime in November 1991.9 Sometime in November 1991. including PO1 Santiago Roldan. She noticed that the lock to the cabinet was not broken. He and a friend of his went to the shop of Ernesto and offered to sell to Ernesto the pair of earrings for P18. and that she and her mother Adoracion disposed of the same. 1992. and SPO1 Peralta executed a joint affidavit on their investigation. No. 1992.13 Nevertheless. In the meantime. On June 23. 92-13841.000 to the policemen as a bribe. PO1 Roldan.D. to the shop in Meycauayan. The cases were consolidated and jointly tried. Branch 76. docketed as Criminal Case No. the petitioner. assuring him that he would not be prosecuted for violation of P. 1993. 309 of the Revised Penal Code. The policemen alighted from their vehicle and invited the petitioner for questioning in Camp Crame. No. in Criminal Cases Nos. Macario agreed to testify against the petitioner. the petitioner was brought to the police station of Meycauayan. PO1 Roldan. No. on August 20. but the petitioner refused and demanded that the policemen first secure a warrant for his arrest should they insist on taking him with them.000 at his shop in Meycauayan. and sentencing her to suffer the indeterminate sentence of Nine (9) years and Four (4) months of prision mayor as . During the preliminary investigation. beyond reasonable doubt. 1612.D. When they were at the police station. 1612. Adoracion was also charged with violating P.the full name of the person to whom the jewelry was sold. Bulacan. No.12 They again invited the petitioner to go with them to Camp Crame. finding accused Pacita Linghon y Liza GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of theft. 1992. 1612. bracelet and two rings to the petitioner for P50. Meanwhile. Pacita pointed to the petitioner as the "Mang Erning" who had purchased the jewelry from her. she found the jewelry belonging to Jovita while she was cleaning the room in the house. Bulacan. as defined and penalized under Art. Jr." Pacita accompanied a group of five police officers. offered an amount of P5. Bulacan. 1612 was filed in the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan. Pacita replied that she knew him only as "Mang Erning. Bulacan.15 A criminal complaint against the petitioner for violation of P. an Information was filed by the Provincial Prosecutor with the RTC charging the petitioner with violating P.D. 2005. Rizal. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). 2005.D. Rizal.D.14 The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. and that she brought the jewelry home. Jr. Jovita succeeded in convincing Macario to testify against the petitioner. finding Pacita guilty of theft and Adoracion guilty of fencing under P. judgment was rendered by the RTC of San Mateo. Bulacan. On September 1. The decretal portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE. No. Upon his insistence. Case No.000. for them not to implicate him in the case. 1992 and 2005. Branch 76. as follows: 1. docketed as Criminal Case No. 308 in relation to Art. In Crim. and issued a warrant for his arrest. Jr. 1993. judgment is hereby rendered in these cases. charging the petitioner of buying stolen jewelry worth P655. premises considered. Pacita was charged with qualified theft in the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo. Jovita executed a sworn statement in the office of the police station of Meycauayan. According to Pacita. in the presence of SPO4 Valdez. Pacita and Macario testified that they sold a set of earrings.16 The court found probable cause against the petitioner. rejected the offer. which included SPO1 Dremio Peralta and PO1 Roldan. with the accessory penalties corresponding to the latter. and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment of Twelve (12) years of prision mayor.25 On November 29. Ordering the accused to pay to private complainant Jovita Rodriguez the corresponding value of the subject items of jewelries (sic): one (1) pair of earrings. SO ORDERED. Finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of Pres.300. He had a shop located at Pacheco Street. He. where he was thereafter invited to Camp Crame for investigation. where he bought and sold jewelry. Calvario. The petitioner then gave them his full name.22 The petitioner further testified that when the policemen in civilian clothes approached him in his shop. Eventually. he did not even know Jovita and met her only during the preliminary investigation of the case before the MTC of Meycauayan. No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor maximum. 1995. When he responded to the question. 2.23 When the policemen invited him for questioning. 1992.minimum to Eighteen (18) years. Two (2) months and Twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal as maximum. he refused at first. 1612. Decree No. as the sign in his shop carried such name. as maximum. and to pay the costs.17 The Case for the Petitioner The petitioner testified that he was a resident of Calvario.19 In fact. Meycauayan. Case No.18He did not transact with Pacita regarding Jovita’s missing jewels. He told them that he would go with them only if they had a warrant of arrest. Bulacan. 2. and claimed that he first saw her when she accompanied some policemen in civilian clothes to his shop.000. where the policemen insisted on bringing him to Camp Crame. finding accused Adoracion Linghon y Liza GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of PD 1612. heart shaped P400. to return to complainant Jovita Rodriguez the unrecovered stolen pieces of jewelry subject of this case and if restitution is not possible. denied knowing Pacita Linghon. and to pay the costs. as minimum. the policemen identified themselves as members of the police force. Bulacan. likewise.21 The petitioner also averred that he had no transaction with Macario of whatever nature. to indemnify the said complainant in the amount of P1.000. to 20 years of reclusion temporal maximum. the court rendered judgment finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating P.24 He denied ever offering any bribe to the policemen.D. judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1. to indemnify complainant Jovita Rodriguez in the amount ofP45.00 . In Crim. in view of the foregoing. he agreed to be interrogated at the municipal hall. they asked who "Mang Erning" was. otherwise known as the AntiFencing Law.20 He saw Pacita again only during the preliminary investigation of the case.00. Meycauayan. He had been in this business since 1980. Bulacan.00.000. The decretal portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE. 000.00 100. 2000.one (1) white gold bracelet one (1) diamond ring one (1) ring with diamond TOTAL VALUE 150.00 with 6% interest on all amounts due from the filing of the information on June 23. IV THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN BELIEVING THE TESTIMONY OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AS TO THE ALLEGED ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S OFFER OF BRIBE WITHOUT SHOW OF MONEY.27 On December 29. 1993 until said amounts have been fully paid.000.00 P655. II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.26 The petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals contending that: I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES ARE ALL HEARSAY EVIDENCE. III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN BELIEVING ON THE CONTRADICTING TESTIMONY (sic) OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES.00 5. SO ORDERED. petitioner Ernesto Francisco asserts that: .000.28 The Present Petition In the present recourse. V THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.000. the CA rendered judgment affirming the decision of the RTC. 32 Fencing is malum prohibitum. object or anything of value. article. The Court of Appeals erred in relying on the conflicting testimonies of prosecution witnesses. or in any manner deals in any article. or buys and sells. No. receives. should not be given credence and probative weight.D. buys.000. is inconsistent on substantial matters.. The OSG asserts that the petitioner must have been put on his guard when the subject pieces of jewelry worth P655. 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. on the part of the accused. item. Macario had no personal knowledge that the same belonged to Jovita.30 It contends that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses referred to by the petitioner were minor. (4) there is. It is merely . item.. keeps. are hearsay evidence. corroborated by the testimony of PO1 Roldan. He. and that he had the expertise to know the correct market price of the jewelry he purchased from Macario and Pacita. the third element was proven by evidence showing that the petitioner had been in the business of buying and selling jewelry for a long period of time. (2) the accused. and P.31 The Ruling of the Court The petition is meritorious. He avers that the prosecution failed to prove that Pacita stole the jewelry subject of the charge. conceals. Jr. item. The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed. sells or disposes. The petitioner avers that the testimony of Macario. possesses. hence. (3) the accused knew or should have shown that the said article. intent to gain for himself or for another. Jr. which are entitled to great respect and credit. and could not be made as a basis to disregard the trial court’s findings of facts. the second element was shown to exist with moral certainty via the testimony of Macario identifying the petitioner as the one who bought the subject pieces of jewelry. 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any good.000 were sold to him for only P50. the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime charged. posits that the prosecution failed to present Pacita as its witness to prove that she stole the pieces of jewelry and sold the same to him. It asserts that the first element was proved through Pacita’s conviction for theft in Criminal Case No. likewise. and that Macario sold the said pieces of jewelry to him. the principal witness of the prosecution. acquires. and.33 The stolen property subject of the charge is not indispensable to prove fencing. The appellant argues that assuming that Macario sold the subject jewelry to him. otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law. who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft. 2005. On the other hand.The Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s decision finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of the (sic) Presidential Decree No. and to adduce in evidence the jewelry allegedly sold to him. object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. and.29 The petitioner asserts that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt for the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. on his investigation of Jovita’s complaint for theft. 1612. which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. He contends that the testimonies of Macario and PO1 Roldan. all of which consisted of hearsay evidence. the joint affidavit of PO1 Roldan. and SPO1 Peralta on their investigation of the complaint of Jovita. the trial and appellate courts held that the prosecution proved the same beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of Jovita during the trial in Criminal Cases Nos.corroborative of the testimonies and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the crime of fencing. that on August 23. and. hence. stolen the jewelry. Jovita’s testimony in Criminal Cases Nos. We agree with the trial and appellate courts that the prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of evidence. is inadmissible in evidence against the latter to prove the truth of the said admission. indeed. 9213841 before the MTC of Meycauayan as shown by the transcripts of the stenographic notes taken during the proceedings. On the second element of the crime. However. likewise. the petitioner was not able to cross-examine Pacita. The testimony of PO1 Roldan. 1992 in Camp Crame. as the person who bought the subject jewelry from her. thus. Jovita testified on her ownership of the jewelry and the loss thereof. that Pacita had. Pacita pointed to the petitioner.34 Jovita did not reiterate her testimony in the said criminal cases during the trial in the court a quo. the supplemental sworn statement of Pacita on August 23. 1992. deprived of his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine a witness against him. that Pacita had confessed to her that she had sold four pieces of jewelry to the petitioner. The prosecution did not present Pacita as witness therein to testify on the admission she purportedly made to Jovita. that Pacita stole the subject jewelry from the locked cabinet in the main house of her then employer. while the latter was having a drinking spree. Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment of said case. on the basis of the testimony of Jovita. the testimonies of Pacita and her brother Macario during the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case No. However. the RTC decision in Criminal Cases Nos. Jr. is. 1992 and 2005. Jr. The rule is that the acts or declarations of a person are not admissible in evidence against a third party. 2005 was already final and executory when the trial court rendered its decision in the instant case. relating to said investigation. 2005 convicting Pacita of theft does not constitute proof against him in this case. It bears stressing that the petitioner was not a party in the said criminal cases. agree with the petitioner that the decision of the RTC of Rizal. and narrated that Pacita had access to the cabinet containing the pieces of jewelry. The well-entrenched rule is that only parties to a case are bound by a judgment of the trial court. that Pacita had confessed to Jovita that she sold some of the jewelry to the petitioner. It is. Jr. Branch 76. 1992 and 2005. 1992 and 2005. the testimony of Macario before the trial court.that Pacita pointed to the petitioner as the person to whom she sold the subject jewelry. however. The testimony of Pacita during the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. corroborative of the testimony of Macario. Third. Quezon City. likewise. it is inadmissible to prove the truth of Pacita’s declaration to the policemen. as well as her supplemental affidavit.. the testimony of PO1 Roldan. in Criminal Case No. inadmissible against the petitioner since Pacita did not testify in the court a quo. 9213841. The petitioner was. we find and so hold that – First.There is no showing that the said decision in Criminal Case No.35 Second. We. that the . is indeed admissible in evidence against the petitioner. such testimony is admissible only to prove such fact . 92-13841. you were "nalilito" but you gave the correct answer. the only evidence of the prosecution to prove that the petitioner purchased the jewelry from Macario and Pacita are the following: the testimony and affidavit of PO1 Roldan. he and Pacita sold a pair of earrings to the petitioner for P25. mali ang sabi mo. Macario testified that he and his sister Pacita went to the petitioner’s shop in Meycauayan. . you are not "nalilito" here but you gave the wrong answer. he and his sister Pacita sold two rings and one bracelet to the petitioner for P25. namely. 92-13841 that when he transacted with the petitioner for the second time. 92-13841 and his testimony in the court a quo were inconsistent.000. and only for P18. and not with his sister Pacita. only to change his testimony again. These admissions are buttressed by the records of the case. the testimony of Macario during the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case No. hence. On direct examination in the court a quo. contrary to his testimony on direct examination. it is required that such testimony must be credible and reliable. On the other hand. In fine. Macario declared that in October 1991.00. It must be stressed that the policemen had no personal knowledge of the said sale. and. On further cross-examination. bakit mali. one bracelet and a pair of earrings. the testimony of Macario during the preliminary investigation and trial in the court a quo. Indeed. Although the well-entrenched rule is that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient on which to anchor a judgment of conviction.000.000. Macario changed his testimony anew. barren of probative weight.. Macario testified during the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. Macario admitted that on October 10. 92-13841 is admissible in evidence against the petitioner since he testified for the prosecution and was cross-examined on his testimony during the preliminary investigation.000. Bulacan and sold the subject jewelry on both occasions. On redirect examination. He even admitted that some portions of his testimony on direct examination in the court a quo were inconsistent with his testimony on cross-examination and on re-direct examination. On cross-examination.36 In this case. He also testified that he and his sister sold the earrings in November 1991. a Because I am scare[d] here that’s why I gave the wrong answer. he and Pacita sold four (4) pieces of jewelry. the court made the following observations: Court q According to you. However. and.000 and not P25. not in November 1991.petitioner was the one who purchased the jewelry from her. more importantly. Macario admitted when he testified in the court a quo that his testimony during the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. Bakit ganoon. and declared that he sold the jewelry to the petitioner for P18. while in November 1991. Dito hindi ka naman nalilito. and declare that he sold the jewelry for P25. he was with a friend. sabi mo nalilito ka roon (sic) pero ang sagot mo pala tama.000. the petitioner was deprived of his right to cross-examine Pacita on the truth of what she told the policemen. Because of the contradicting accounts made by Macario.000. Thus. two rings. Hindi ka nalilito. Fourth. Macario testified that he and Pacita sold the earrings to the petitioner in May 1992. Pacita did not testify in the court a quo. during the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 1991. Bakit ka nalilito eh tama iyong P25. we find the testimony of Macario to be dubious. which show that such inconsistencies pertained to material points and not merely to minor matters. Jr. even Macario did not know that the jewelry was stolen. a I was confused. Rodriguez? A In 1992. Sir. he failed to inform the petitioner that the said jewelry was stolen.37 The testimonies of Macario are even contrary to the averments of the Information. owned by Jovita. Sir. Court Q How did you come to know of this "Mang Erning?" A Only at that time when we brought the jewels.38 Macario learned. there is no evidence on record that the petitioner knew that they were stolen. informed (sic) "Mang Erning" about it? Court Q No basis. Significantly. Q But previous to that. Following is the testimony of Macario: Atty. Lerio Q At that time you and your sister sold those jewels to "Mang Erning" did … do you know already [that] it was Mrs.q You better think about it. if at all. Q And who do you know was the owner of that jewels and that time you and your sister sold those jewels to "Mang Erning"? A According to my sister. Lerio Q When you learned that those jewels were owned by Mrs. I do not know. it is (sic) owned by a friend of hers. do you know him? A No. after the case against Pacita had already been filed in the trial court. Assuming. for the nonce. Atty. when my sister already had a case. However. that the jewelry was. that the petitioner purchased the said jewelry from Macario. . Rodriguez who is the owner of those jewels? A No. that the petitioner received the said jewelry from Pacita. did you. Rodriguez. He testified that his sister Pacita told him before he sold the jewelry to the petitioner that they belonged to a friend of hers. after all. when did you come to know that the jewels belong to Mrs. 00.000. diamond worthP150. [is] the same today? A No. The prosecution relied solely on the bare and uncorroborated testimony of Jovita. heart-shaped diamond worth P100. The price.000. will you tell this Court some of those jewels which you own? A I own several jewels and the one (sic) in question are: 1-pair of earrings.000. more or less.40 When asked by the trial court to declare the present market value of the stolen jewelry. Lerio Q Now again. is much bigger. all in all. Lerio Q Now. Jovita merely declared: Atty. can you explain [if] the market value.00. white gold full of stones. after knowing that these jewels are (sic) owned by Mrs. was there any occasion where you (sic) able to inform "Mang Erning" that those jewels were owned by Mrs.000. I have no more time.000 when the said pieces stolen from Jovita were alleged to be worth P655. diamond heart-shaped P400. if we will appraise now. when did you acquire those jewels if you can still remember? A I remember several years ago when my husband is (sic) alive.00.00. Rodriguez? A No more. Lerio Q After that.41 . Rodriguez.000.Q What did you do when you come (sic) to know about that? A I was not able to do anything but just to help my sister with her case and also to help the case of Mrs.00. Q So.000: Atty. Rodriguez. 1-ring. This is so because the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient competent evidence to prove the value of the said stolen articles. 1bracelet. Atty. So.39 The prosecution cannot even validly argue that the petitioner should have known which pieces of jewelry were stolen. considering that Macario was selling the same for P50. Court Q Please tell the court. that they were worth P655. that is (sic) the market value several years ago.000. [is] the market value of the jewels the same today? A No. 1-diamond ring with small stones worth P5. the jewelry is (sic) worthP665. Atty. .When required by the petitioner. Thus: Court Q You bought it from [a] private person? A Yes. 19110 affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos. CR No. Bernal Q What then is your proof that you bought these jewelries (sic) from a private person? Atty. (b) to enable the trial court to determine the imposable penalty for the crime. Lerio That was already answered. Paraiso.R. The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime of violating P. The value of jewelry is not a matter of public knowledge nor is it capable of unquestionable demonstration and in the absence of receipts or any other competent evidence besides the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution. This requirement serves two basic purposes: (a) to prove one of the elements of the crime of fencing. Jovita answered that she had no such receipts. since the penalty depends on the value of the property. Branch 22. in the absence of direct evidence that the accused had knowledge that the jewelry was stolen.42 In People v. 1612 for the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. through counsel.45 It bears stressing that. this Court held that if there is no available evidence to prove the value of the stolen property or that the prosecution failed to prove it.00. we cannot award the reparation for the stolen jewelry. Your Honor.00. More pertinently. the court will fix the value of the property at P5.47 IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING.43 we cited our ruling in People v.00 based on the attendant circumstances of the case. Dator:46 In the absence of a conclusive or definite proof relative to their value. Bulacan. Antonio Marcos. to bring to the court any receipts reflecting the price of the pieces of jewelry to show that she purchased the same. the prosecution is burdened to prove facts and circumstances from which it can be concluded that the accused should have known that the property sold to him were stolen. conformably to our ruling in People v. Marcos44 that an ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry.D. the petition is GRANTED. is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No. Your Honor. the corresponding penalty to be imposed on the accused-appellant should be the minimum penalty corresponding to theft involving the value of P5. nor may the courts take judicial notice of the value of the same: …[A]nd as we have ruled in the case of People vs. no receipt. and. an ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can only take judicial notice of the value of goods which are matters of public knowledge or are capable of unquestionable demonstration. She said. Reyes. in the case of People vs. otherwise. this Court fixed the value of the bag and its contents at P100. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Exhibit "A. Id. p. p. Austria-Martinez. 7. at 13-14. with Associate Justices Salome A. TSN. TSN. 3. at 9-10.. 4. Belmonte. Records. p. Id. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . Agnir. 10. 29 March 1995. Jr. concurring. Reyes. Adefuin-dela Cruz. 5. TSN." Presided by Judge Jose C. Id. p. 2 Penned by Judge Candido R. p." TSN. p. Jr. 20 May 1994. Footnotes 1 Penned by Associate Justice Bennie A. at 8. 4. Quisumbing. Exhibit "C. Montoya and Wenceslao I. Id. 6 July 1994. p. Puno. 19 October 1993. at 7.SO ORDERED. TSN. 2. 29 March 1995. (Chairman).. and Tinga. 5. JJ. 24 November 1993. 18 August 1993. TSN. p. TSN." Exhibit "F." Exhibit "D. concur. People vs. (Italics. at 10. Rollo. 338 SCRA 45 (2000). Court of Appeals. at 13. 20. at 58. p. 33 Dizon-Pamintuan v. TSN. 7. 13. at 8. 43-44. Id. Id. 319 SCRA 422 (1999). 451-452. 335 SCRA 1 (2000). 307 SCRA 471 (1999). TSN.20 Id. 18 August 1993. Id. pp. 234 SCRA 63 (1994). 313 SCRA 220 (1999) citing Dizon-Pamintuan v. Id. supra. Lotoc. 5-6. People. p. Tan v. at 54-55. TSN. p. Id. 20 May 1994. pp. Padilla v. pp. Records. 370 SCRA 208 (2001). p. pp. 29 March 1995. 19 October 1993. p. Section 28 of the Rules of Evidence. 12. p. 16. 359-360. CA Rollo. People vs. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 . Court of Appeals. People. TSN. Id. People. at 12. Araneta. 19 May 1995. at 125. Rule 130. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Capili v. TSN. Id. 1 August 1989. TSN. 7. at 24. ours) TSN. 6 July 1994. 344 SCRA 236 (2000). supra. People v. Ibid. 45 46 47 . Paraiso.44 308 SCRA 660 (1999).