Dizon-Pamintuan v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The petitioner, Norma Dizon-Pamintuan, was charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612). The prosecution alleged that she knowingly bought, possessed, and/or sold jewelry valued at P105,000.00, which were the proceeds of a robbery committed against Teodoro and Luzviminda Encarnacion. The robbery occurred on February 12, 1988, during which masked armed persons ransacked the Encarnacion residence and stole various personal properties, including jewelry. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 20, found the petitioner guilty of violating the Anti-Fencing Law and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years to nineteen (19) years of imprisonment. The trial court noted no civil liability due to the recovery of the stolen items. The petitioner appealed this conviction to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but set aside the imposed penalty, ordering the trial court to receive additional evidence solely for the purpose of determining the correct valuation of the jewelry to properly impose the penalty. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the appellate court erred in affirming the conviction despite the alleged disregard of applicable law and jurisprudence, and in remanding the case for the reception of evidence to determine the penalty. The Supreme Court is asked to rule on whether the petitioner's conviction is valid and whether the Court of Appeals correctly ordered a remand for further evidence on valuation.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding the petitioner guilty of violating the Anti-Fencing Law. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in remanding the case to the trial court for the reception of evidence on the correct valuation of the properties involved for the sole purpose of determining the proper penalty.
Ruling
The petition is partly granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside insofar as it ordered the remand of the case for reception of evidence on the valuation of the properties. The decision of the Regional Trial Court is affirmed, subject to the modification of the penalty imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of affirming the conviction for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law: The Court held that all elements of the crime of fencing were established. A robbery had been committed, and the petitioner was found in possession of items that were part of the loot, displaying them for sale, which indicated an intent to gain. Crucially, the Court invoked Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612, which provides a prima facie presumption of fencing from the mere possession of goods subject to robbery or theft. This presumption shifts the burden to the accused to rebut it. The petitioner failed to rebut this presumption, relying on the testimony of her brother, which was deemed insufficient. The Court emphasized that this presumption is reasonable and does not violate the constitutional presumption of innocence, as it is based on the experience of human conduct and has a rational connection to the ultimate fact presumed. The Court cited United States vs. Luling to support the validity of statutory presumptions that shift the burden of proof to the defendant. On the issue of remanding the case for reception of evidence on valuation: The Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals that there was insufficient evidence to prove the value of the recovered articles. The trial court's finding of P93,000.00 was based on the testimony of Mr. Encarnacion and Exhibit "C," a list of stolen items with their valuations. While the Court noted a discrepancy regarding one earring and adjusted the value accordingly, it found sufficient basis to determine the penalty. The Court recalculated the total value of the recovered jewelry to be P87,000.00. Based on this valuation, the Court applied Section 3(a) of P.D. No. 1612 to determine the penalty. The Court found that the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000.00 exceeding P22,000.00, was applicable, leading to a maximum penalty of eighteen (18) years and five (5) months of reclusion temporal maximum. Therefore, remanding the case for further reception of evidence on valuation was unnecessary and erroneous.
Main Doctrine
Mere possession of goods subject to robbery or theft is prima facie evidence of fencing under P.D. No. 1612, and this presumption does not offend the constitutional presumption of innocence. The prosecution need not present direct evidence of the accused's knowledge that the items were stolen; such knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances, particularly the possession and display for sale of the stolen items.