Ong vs.
People
G.R. No. 190475
April 10, 2013
FACTS:
Information: Charged with the crime of violation of Presidential Decree No.
(P.D.) 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law.
PROSECUTION:
Private complainant was the owner of forty-four (44) Firestone truck tires of
which 6 were sold and 38 tires remained inside the warehouse. Private
complainant marked the tires using a piece of chalk before storing them
inside the warehouse
All thirty-eight (38) truck tires were stolen from the warehouse, the gate of
which was forcibly opened. Private complainant, together with caretaker
Cabal, reported the robbery.
Private complainant chanced upon Jong's Marketing, a store selling tires in
Paco, Manila, owned and operated by appellant. Private complainant
inquired if appellant was selling any Model T494 1100 by 20 by 14 ply
Firestone tires, to which the latter replied in the affirmative. Appellant
brought out a tire fitting the description, which private complainant
recognized as one of the tires stolen from his warehouse, based on the chalk
marking and the serial number thereon. Private complainant then left the
store and reported the matter to the police. A buy-bust team was formed and
the appellant was arrested and the a total of 13 tires were confiscated.
DEFENSE:
The appelant alleged that he had been engaged in the business of buying and
selling tires for twenty-four (24) years and denying that he had any
knowledge that he was selling stolen tires in Jong Marketing.
RTC: The RTC found that the prosecution had sufficiently established that
all thirteen (13) tires found in the possession of Ong constituted a prima
facie evidence of fencing. He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of P.D. 1612.
CA: The CA affirmed the RTC's findings with modification by reducing the
minimum penalty from ten (10) years and one (1) day to six (6) years of
prision correcional.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation
of P.D. 1612 or Anti-Fencing Law.
RULING:
SC: Affirmed the conviction of the accused.
Fencing is defined in Section 2 (a) of P.D. 1612 as 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, to have been derived from the proceeds
of the crime of robbery or theft." The essential elements of the crime of
fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
(2) the accused, who is not a principal or on accomplice in the commission
of the crime of robber or theft, buys, receives, possesses, 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 crime of robbery or theft; (3) the accused knew or should
have known that the said article, item, object or anything of value has been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and (4) there is,
on the part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another.
The prosecution has met the requisite quantum of evidence in proving that
all the elements of fencing are present in this case: First, the owner of the
tires, private complainant Francisco Azajar (Azajar), whose testimony was
corroborated by Jose Cabal — the caretaker of the warehouse where the
thirty-eight (38) tires were stolen — testified that the crime of robbery had
been committed on 17 February 1995. Second, although there was no
evidence to link Ong as the perpetrator of the robbery, he never denied the
fact that thirteen (13) tires of Azajar were caught in his possession. The facts
do not establish that Ong was neither a principal nor an accomplice in the
crime of robbery, but thirteen (13) out of thirty-eight (38) missing tires were
found in his possession. Third, the accused knew or should have known that
the said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. 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. Finally, there was evident
intent to gain for himself, considering that during the buy-bust operation,
Ong was actually caught selling the stolen tires in his store, Jong Marketing.
In his defense, Ong argued that he relied on the receipt issued to him by Go.
Logically, and for all practical purposes, the issuance of a sales invoice or
receipt is proof of a legitimate transaction and may be raised as a defense in
the charge of fencing; however, that defense is disputable. 23 In this case,
the validity of the issuance of the receipt was disputed, and the prosecution
was able to prove that Gold Link and its address were fictitious. 24 Ong
failed to overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution and to prove
the legitimacy of the transaction. Thus, he was unable to rebut the prima
facie presumption under Section 5 of P.D.
Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612 creates a prima facie
presumption of fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any
good, article, item, object or anything of value, which has been the subject
of robbery or theft; and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the
property.
