People v. Ong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private complainant owned forty-four (44) Firestone truck tires. Thirty-eight (38) of these tires were stolen from a warehouse on February 17, 1995. The gate of the warehouse was forcibly opened. The private complainant reported the robbery to the police. While canvassing for the stolen tires, the private complainant found thirteen (13) such tires at Jong's Marketing, owned by accused Jaime Ong. The private complainant recognized one tire based on its chalk marking and serial number. Ong confirmed he had more tires in stock. A buy-bust operation was conducted on February 27, 1995, where twelve (12) more tires were recovered from Ong's store and bodega, in addition to the one initially bought. All thirteen (13) tires were confirmed as stolen. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Manila, convicted Jaime Ong y Ong (Ong) for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). The RTC sentenced him to imprisonment of 10 years and 1 day to 16 years. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision but modified the penalty, reducing the minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional. The Petition: Ong filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, assailing the decision of the CA.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for violation of P.D. 1612. Whether the accused knew or should have known that the tires in his possession were derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft. Whether the defense of relying on a sales invoice from an unknown seller is sufficient to rebut the presumption of fencing.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the conviction of Jaime Ong y Ong for violation of P.D. 1612, with the modified penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for violation of P.D. 1612: The Court held that all the elements of fencing were present. First, a crime of robbery was committed, evidenced by the report to the police and the testimony of the owner and warehouse caretaker. Second, thirteen (13) stolen tires were found in Ong's possession, and he failed to present evidence that he was not a principal or accomplice in the robbery. Third, the serial numbers of the stolen tires matched those found in Ong's possession. Fourth, Ong admitted to purchasing the tires from a certain Ramon Go of Gold Link Hardware & General Merchandise for ₱45,500.00, and a sales invoice was issued. The Court found that the prosecution met the quantum of evidence required. On whether the accused knew or should have known that the tires in his possession were derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft: The Court ruled that Ong knew or should have known that the tires were derived from the proceeds of crime. Ong, with twenty-four (24) years of experience in the tire business, should have been put on guard by the circumstances of the transaction. Ramon Go approached Ong to sell the tires, and Ong bought all thirteen (13) tires without asking for proof of ownership. The entire transaction, from proposal to delivery, occurred in a single day. The Court cited Dela Torre v. COMELEC to emphasize that circumstances like the time and place of sale, the nature of goods, and the seller's business engagement can alert a buyer to the illegality of the source. Furthermore, Ong was aware of the legal requirement to secure clearances from the police for reselling used tires from unlicensed dealers, a procedure he had followed previously but failed to do in this instance. This failure to exercise prudence and diligence indicated that he knew or should have known the illicit origin of the tires. On whether the defense of relying on a sales invoice from an unknown seller is sufficient to rebut the presumption of fencing: The Court found that Ong's defense of relying on the sales invoice issued by Ramon Go was disputable and insufficient to overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution. While a sales invoice may generally prove a legitimate transaction, its validity can be challenged. In this case, the prosecution successfully proved that "Gold Link and its address were fictitious." Ong failed to rebut the prima facie presumption of fencing under Section 5 of P.D. 1612, which states that mere possession of goods subject to robbery or theft is prima facie evidence of fencing. His failure to prove the legitimacy of the transaction and overcome this presumption led to his conviction.
Main Doctrine
The elements of fencing under P.D. 1612 are: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; (2) the accused, not being a principal or accomplice in the robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes of, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article of value derived from the crime; (3) the accused knew or should have known that the article was derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft; and (4) intent to gain. The presumption of fencing under Section 5 of P.D. 1612, which states that mere possession of goods subject to robbery or theft is prima facie evidence of fencing, is reasonable and can only be rebutted by evidence of legitimate acquisition.