Dunlao, Sr. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ernestino P. Dunlao, Sr., a licensed scrap iron dealer, was accused of violating Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). The information alleged that on or about a week prior to October 25, 1986, in Davao City, petitioner, with intent to gain, unlawfully purchased and received dismantled farrowing crates and GI pipes valued at P20,000.00, knowing them to be stolen from Lourdes Farms, Inc. On October 25, 1986, employees of Lourdes Farms, accompanied by police officers, went to petitioner's premises to verify information about stolen items. They found farrowing crates and GI pipes inside the compound. After being informed that the items were stolen from Lourdes Farms, petitioner voluntarily surrendered them. Criminal Case No. 14655 was filed against petitioner. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 9, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the Anti-Fencing Law and sentenced him to imprisonment. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision. Hence, the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove two elements of the crime: the alleged purchase of the GI pipes and his knowledge that they were stolen. He also claimed he acted in good faith as a temporary custodian, having been merely offered the items for sale by unidentified men who unloaded them and failed to return. He further questioned the valuation of the stolen items.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that petitioner purchased the GI pipes and knew they were stolen, and whether petitioner's possession of the stolen items constituted fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612. Whether petitioner successfully rebutted the presumption of fencing. Whether petitioner's alleged good faith and lack of criminal intent negates the presumption of fencing. Whether the valuation of the stolen items was correctly determined.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of petitioner Ernestino P. Dunlao, Sr. for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. The Court ordered petitioner to pay Lourdes Farms, Inc. P20,000.00, minus the value of the recovered items, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Ratio Decidendi
On the elements of fencing, intent to gain, and presumption from possession: The Court reiterated that under Presidential Decree No. 1612, fencing is defined 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 other 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 Court clarified that for acts mala prohibita, such as violations of special laws like the Anti-Fencing Law, the intent of the offender is immaterial; the only inquiry is whether the law has been violated. Therefore, proof of purchase is not strictly required, as mere possession of the stolen articles is sufficient to give rise to a presumption of fencing. The overt acts of the petitioner, such as displaying the items for sale and taking them inside his compound for safekeeping without any agreement with the unloaders, were sufficient to infer intent to gain. On the presumption of fencing and its rebuttal: The Court affirmed 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 under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1612. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to rebut this presumption with sufficient and convincing evidence. The Court found petitioner's explanation—that unidentified men unloaded the pipes and left them temporarily—to be incredible and insufficient to overcome the presumption. His claim of good faith and acting as a temporary custodian was not substantiated by any credible evidence, especially considering he displayed the items and did not ascertain the identity of the persons who left them. On the alleged good faith and lack of criminal intent: The Court found petitioner's narrative of events to be inconsistent with common sense and sound business practices. The fact that he took possession of items unloaded by strangers without any agreement as to sale or compensation, and then displayed them, cast a "dubious aura of illegitimacy" over the transaction. His failure to identify the unloaders and his subsequent actions of bringing the items inside his compound for safekeeping, without any prior arrangement, further weakened his claim of good faith and lack of criminal intent. The Court emphasized that the law does not require proof of purchase, and mere possession is enough to raise the presumption of fencing. On the valuation of the stolen articles: The petitioner questioned the P20,000.00 valuation, claiming the pipes were worth only P200.00. The prosecution presented a witness who estimated the value at P59,000.00 based on the cost of materials and fabrication for approximately 50 crates. However, the trial court based its decision on the P20,000.00 alleged in the information. The Supreme Court found P20,000.00 to be a more realistic estimate, especially considering that the stolen items filled almost a dump truck, as testified by a prosecution witness. The petitioner's claim of P200.00 was deemed not credible in light of the volume of items recovered.
Main Doctrine
Mere possession of goods derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft, with intent to gain, constitutes fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612. The presumption of fencing arising from possession can only be rebutted by sufficient and convincing evidence, and a mere denial or unsubstantiated claim of good faith is insufficient.