6/12/2017 G.R.No.

190475

TodayisMonday,June12,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.190475April10,2013

JAIMEONGyONG,Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.

DECISION

SERENO,CJ.:

Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision1 dated 18 August 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which
affirmed the Decision2 dated 06 January 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Manila. The RTC
hadconvictedaccusedJaimeOngyOng(Ong)ofthecrimeofviolationofPresidentialDecreeNo.(P.O.)1612,
otherwiseknownas.theAntiFencingLaw.

OngwaschargedinanInformation3dated25May1995asfollows:

That on or about February 17, 1995, in the City of Manila, Philippines. the said accused, with intent of gain for
himself or for another. did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously receive and acquire from unknown
person involving thirteen (13) truck tires worth P65, 975.00, belonging to FRANCISCO AZAJAR Y LEE, and
thereaftersellingOne(1)trucktireknowingthesametohavebeenderivedfromthecrimeofrobbery.

CONTRARYTOLAW.

Uponarraignment,Ongenteredapleaof"notguilty."Trialonthemeritsensued,andtheRTCfoundhimguilty
beyondreasonabledoubtofviolationofP.D.1612.ThedispositiveportionofitsDecisionreads:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thisCourtfindsthattheprosecutionhasestablishedtheguiltoftheaccused
JAIMEONGyONGbeyondreasonabledoubtforviolationofPresidentialDecreeNo.1612alsoknownasAnti
Fencing Law and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 10 years and 1 day to 16 years
withaccessorypenaltyoftemporarydisqualification.

SOORDERED.4

Dissatisfiedwiththejudgment,OngappealedtotheCA.Afterareviewoftherecords,theRTCsfindingofguilt
wasaffirmedbytheappellatecourtinaDecisiondated18August2009.

OngthenfiledtheinstantappealbeforethisCourt.

TheFacts

Theversionoftheprosecution,whichwassupportedbytheCA,isasfollows:

Privatecomplainantwastheowneroffortyfour(44)Firestonetrucktires,describedasT4941100by20by14.
He acquired the same for the total amount of P223,401.81 from Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation, a
domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of Firestone tires. Private complainant's
acquisition was evidenced by Sales Invoice No. 4565 dated November 10, 1994 and an Inventory List
acknowledgingreceiptofthetiresspecificallydescribedbytheirserialnumbers.Privatecomplainantmarkedthe
tiresusingapieceofchalkbeforestoringtheminsidethewarehousein720SanJoseSt.,cornerSta.Catalina
St.,BarangaySanAntonioValley1,Sucat,Paraaque,ownedbyhisrelativeTeodyGuano.JoseCabal,Guano's
caretaker of the warehouse, was in charge of the tires. After appellant sold six (6) tires sometime in January
1995,thirtyeight(38)tiresremainedinsidethewarehouse.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_190475_2013.html 1/5
6/12/2017 G.R.No.190475

OnFebruary17,1995,privatecomplainantlearnedfromcaretakerJoseCabalthatallthirtyeight(38)trucktires
were stolen from the warehouse, the gate of which was forcibly opened. Private complainant, together with
caretakerCabal,reportedtherobberytotheSouthernPoliceDistrictatFortBonifacio.

Pending the police investigation, private complainant canvassed from numerous business establishments in an
attempttolocatethestolentires.OnFebruary24,1995,privatecomplainantchanceduponJong'sMarketing,a
storesellingtiresinPaco,Manila,ownedandoperatedbyappellant.Privatecomplainantinquiredifappellantwas
sellinganyModelT4941100by20by14plyFirestonetires,towhichthelatterrepliedintheaffirmative.Appellant
broughtoutatirefittingthedescription,whichprivatecomplainantrecognizedasoneofthetiresstolenfromhis
warehouse,basedonthechalkmarkingandtheserialnumberthereon.Privatecomplainantaskedappellantifhe
hadanymoreofsuchtiresinstock,whichwasagainansweredintheaffirmative.Privatecomplainantthenleftthe
storeandreportedthemattertoChiefInspectorMarianoFegaridooftheSouthernPoliceDistrict.

OnFebruary27,1995,theSouthernPoliceDistrictformedateamtoconductabuybustoperationonappellant's
storeinPaco,Manila.Theteamwascomposedofsix(6)members,ledbySPO3OscarGuerreroandsupervised
bySeniorInspectorNoelTan.Privatecomplainant'scompanionTitoAtienzawasappointedastheposeurbuyer.

On that same day of February 27, 1995, the buybust team, in coordination with the Western Police District,
proceededtoappellant'sstoreinPaco,Manila.Theteamarrivedthereatataround3:00intheafternoon.Poseur
buyerTitoAtienzaproceededtothestorewhiletherestoftheteampostedthemselvesacrossthestreet.Atienza
asked appellant if he had any T494 1100 by 20 by 14 Firestone truck tires available. The latter immediately
produced one tire from his display, which Atienza bought for P5,000.00. Atienza asked appellant if he had any
moreinstock.

Appellanttheninstructedhishelperstobringouttwelve(12)moretiresfromhiswarehouse,whichwaslocated
besidehisstore.Afterthetwelve(12)trucktireswerebroughtin,privatecomplainantenteredthestore,inspected
themandfoundthattheywerethesametireswhichwerestolenfromhim,basedontheirserialnumbers.Private
complainantthengavetheprearrangedsignaltothebuybustteamconfirmingthatthetiresinappellant'sshop
werethesametiresstolenfromthewarehouse.

After seeing private complainant give the prearranged signal, the buybust team went inside appellant's store.
However, appellant insisted that his arrest and the confiscation of the stolen truck tires be witnessed by
representativesfromthebarangayandhisownlawyer.Resultantly,itwasalreadypast10:00intheeveningwhen
appellant, together with the tires, was brought to the police station for investigation and inventory. Overall, the
buybust team was able to confiscate thirteen (13) tires, including the one initially bought by poseurbuyer Tito
Atienza.Thetireswereconfirmedbyprivatecomplainantasstolenfromhiswarehouse.5

For his part, accused Ong solely testified in his defense, alleging that he had been engaged in the business of
buying and selling tires for twentyfour (24) years and denying that he had any knowledge that he was selling
stolentiresinJongMarketing.Hefurtheraverredthaton18February1995,acertainRamonGo(Go)offeredto
sellthirteen(13)FirestonetrucktiresallegedlyfromDagatdagatan,CaloocanCity,forP3,500each.Ongbought
allthetiresforP45,500,forwhichhewasissuedaSalesInvoicedated18February1995andwiththeletterhead
GoldLinkHardware&GeneralMerchandise(GoldLink).6

Ongdisplayedone(1)ofthetiresinhisstoreandkeptallthetwelve(12)othersinhisbodega.Theposeurbuyer
bought the displayed tire in his store and came back to ask for more tires. Ten minutes later, policemen went
insidethestore,confiscatedthetires,arrestedOngandtoldhimthatthoseitemswerestolentires.7

TheRTCfoundthattheprosecutionhadsufficientlyestablishedthatallthirteen(13)tiresfoundinthepossession
ofOngconstitutedaprimafacieevidenceoffencing.Havingfailedtoovercomethepresumptionbymeredenials,
hewasfoundguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofviolationofP.D.1612.8

Onappeal,theCAaffirmedtheRTCsfindingswithmodificationbyreducingtheminimumpenaltyfromten(10)
yearsandone(1)daytosix(6)yearsofprisioncorrecional.9

OURRULING

ThePetitionhasnomerit.

FencingisdefinedinSection2(a)ofP.D.1612asthe"actofanypersonwho,withintenttogainforhimselforfor
another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any
mannerdealinanyarticle,item,objectoranythingofvaluewhichheknows,orshouldbeknowntohim,tohave
beenderivedfromtheproceedsofthecrimeofrobberyortheft."

Theessentialelementsofthecrimeoffencingareasfollows:(1)acrimeofrobberyorthefthasbeencommitted
(2)theaccused,whoisnotaprincipaloronaccompliceinthecommissionofthecrimeofrobberyortheft,buys,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_190475_2013.html 2/5
6/12/2017 G.R.No.190475

receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in
anyarticle,item,objectoranythingofvalue,whichhasbeenderivedfromtheproceedsofthecrimeofrobberyor
theft(3)theaccusedkneworshouldhaveknownthatthesaidarticle,item,objectoranythingofvaluehasbeen
derivedfromtheproceedsofthecrimeofrobberyortheftand(4)thereis,onthepartofoneaccused,intentto
gainforoneselforforanother.10

We agree with the RTC and the CA that the prosecution has met the requisite quantum of evidence in proving
thatalltheelementsoffencingarepresentinthiscase.

First,theownerofthetires,privatecomplainantFranciscoAzajar(Azajar),whosetestimonywascorroboratedby
JoseCabalthecaretakerofthewarehousewherethethirtyeight(38)tireswerestolentestifiedthatthecrime
of robbery had been committed on 17 February 1995. Azajar was able to prove ownership of the tires through
Sales Invoice No. 456511 dated 10 November 1994 and an Inventory List.12 Witnesses for the prosecution
likewisetestifiedthatrobberywasreportedasevidencedbytheirSinumpaangSalaysay13takenattheSouthern
PoliceDistrictatFortBonifacio.14ThereportledtotheconductofabuybustoperationatJongMarkerting,Paco,
Manilaon27February1995.

Second,althoughtherewasnoevidencetolinkOngastheperpetratoroftherobbery,heneverdeniedthefact
thatthirteen(13)tiresofAzajarwerecaughtinhispossession.ThefactsdonotestablishthatOngwasneithera
principal nor an accomplice in the crime of robbery, but thirteen (13) out of thirtyeight (38) missing tires were
found in his possession. This Court finds that the serial numbers of stolen tires corresponds to those found in
Ongspossession.15OnglikewiseadmittedthatheboughtthesaidtiresfromGoofGoldLinkinthetotalamount
of45,500wherehewasissuedSalesInvoiceNo.980.16

Third, the accused knew or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of value has been
derivedfromtheproceedsofthecrimeofrobberyortheft.Thewords"shouldknow"denotethefactthataperson
ofreasonableprudenceandintelligencewouldascertainthefactinperformanceofhisdutytoanotherorwould
governhisconductuponassumptionthatsuchfactexists.17Ong,whowasinthebusinessofbuyandselloftires
forthepasttwentyfour(24)years,18oughttohaveknowntheordinarycourseofbusinessinpurchasingfroman
unknownseller.Admittedly,GoapproachedOngandofferedtosellthethirteen(13)tiresandhedidnotevenask
for proof of ownership of the tires.19 The entire transaction, from the proposal to buy until the delivery of tires
happenedinjustoneday.20Hisexperiencefromthebusinessshouldhavegivenhimdoubtastothelegitimate
ownershipofthetiresconsideringthatitwashisfirsttimetotransactwithGoandthemanneritwassoldisasif
Gowasjustpeddlingthethirteen(13)tiresinthestreets.

InDelaTorrev.COMELEC,21thisCourthadenunciatedthat:

Circumstancesnormallyexisttoforewarn,forinstance,areasonablyvigilantbuyerthattheobjectofthesalemay
havebeenderivedfromtheproceedsofrobberyortheft.Suchcircumstancesincludethetimeandplaceofthe
sale,bothofwhichmaynotbeinaccordwiththeusualpracticesofcommerce.Thenatureandconditionofthe
goods sold, and the fact that the seller is not regularly engaged in the business of selling goods may likewise
suggesttheillegalityoftheirsource,andthereforeshouldcautionthebuyer.Thisjustifiesthepresumptionfound
inSection5ofP.D.No.1612that"merepossessionofanygoods,...,objectoranythingofvaluewhichhasbeen
thesubjectofrobberyorthieveryshallbeprimafacieevidenceoffencing"apresumptionthatis,accordingto
the Court, "reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise from the established fact of . . .
possessionoftheproceedsofthecrimeofrobberyortheft."xxx.22

Moreover, Ong knew the requirement of the law in selling second hand tires. Section 6 of P.D. 1612 requires
1 w p h i1

stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buying and selling of any good, article, item, object or anything
elseofvalueobtainedfromanunlicenseddealerorsupplierthereoftosecurethenecessaryclearanceorpermit
fromthestationcommanderoftheIntegratedNationalPoliceinthetownorcitywherethatstore,establishment
or entity is located before offering the item for sale to the public. In fact, Ong has practiced the procedure of
obtaining clearances from the police station for some used tires he wanted to resell but, in this particular
transaction,hewasremissinhisdutyasadiligentbusinessmanwhoshouldhaveexercisedprudence.

In his defense, Ong argued that he relied on the receipt issued to him by Go. Logically, and for all practical
1 w p h i1

purposes,theissuanceofasalesinvoiceorreceiptisproofofalegitimatetransactionandmayberaisedasa
defenseinthechargeoffencinghowever,thatdefenseisdisputable.23Inthiscase,thevalidityoftheissuance
of the receipt was disputed, and the prosecution was able to prove that Gold Link and its address were
fictitious.24Ongfailedtoovercometheevidencepresentedbytheprosecutionandtoprovethelegitimacyofthe
transaction.Thus,hewasunabletorebuttheprimafaciepresumptionunderSection5ofP.D.1612.

Finally, there was evident intent to gain for himself, considering that during the buybust operation, Ong was
actuallycaughtsellingthestolentiresinhisstore,JongMarketing.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_190475_2013.html 3/5
6/12/2017 G.R.No.190475

Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612 creates a prima fqcie presumption of fencing from evidence of
possessionbytheaccusedofanygood,article,item,objectoranythingofvalue,whichhasbeenthesubjectof
robberyortheftandprescribesahigherpenaltybasedonthevalueofthe25property.

TheRTCandtheCAcorrectlycomputedtheimposablepenaltybasedonP5,075 for each tire recovered, or in

thetotalamountofP65,975.RecordsshowthatAzajarhadpurchasedfortyfour(44)tiresfromPhiltreadinthe
total amount of P223,401.81.26 Section 3 (p) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court provides a disputable
presumption that private transactions have been fair and regular. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the
ordinary course of business is not overturned in the absence of the evidence challenging the regularity of the
transactionbetweenAzajar,andPhiltread.

Intine,afteracarefulperusaloftherecordsandtheevidenceadducedbytheparties,wedonotfindsufficient
basis to reverse the ruling of the CA affirming the trial court's conviction of Ong for violation of P.D. 1612 and
modifyingtheminimumpenaltyimposedbyreducingittosix(6)yearsofprisioncorreccional.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thePetitionisDENIEDforlackofmerit.Accordingly,theassailedDecisionof
theCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CRNo.30213isherebyAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

WECONCUR:

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes

1CADecisioninCAG.R.CRNo.30213pennedbyAssociateJusticeRamonR.Garciaandconcurredin
byAssociateJusticesPortiaAlinoHormachuelosandFernandaLampasPeraltarollo.pp.4158.
2RTCDecisioninCriminalCaseNo.143578pennedbyJudgeVicenteA.Hidalgo.id.at3240.

3Informationdated25May1995.id.at31.

4Id.at40.

5Idat.4346.

6Id.at46.

7Id.

8Id.at47.

9Id.at57.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_190475_2013.html 4/5
6/12/2017 G.R.No.190475
10Capiliv.CourtofAppeals,392Phil.577,592(2000)Tanv.People,372Phil.93,102103(1999)citing
DizonPamintuanv.People,G.R.No.111426,11July1994,234SCRA63,7172.

11Exhibit"A",recordsp.250.

12Exhibit"A1"and"A2",idat.251.

13SinumpaangSalaysaydated20February1995,Exhibit"Gand"I",id.at263,266.

14TSN23November1995,pp.2226.

15Exhibits"A1"and"A2"visvisExhibits"N1"and"N6."Records.pp.251and272.

16Exhibit"2A",id.at316.

17Tanv.People,supraat106.

18TSN14December2004,p.3.

19TSN28April2005,p.6.

20Id.at4.

21327Phil1144(1996).

22Id.at11541155.

23D.M.Consunji,Inc.v.Esguerra,328Phil.1168,1181(1996).

24TSN21June2001,pp.39Exhibit"M,"records,p.270.

25DizonPamintuanv.People,supraat72.

26Supranote6.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_190475_2013.html 5/5