People v. Lim
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mariano Lim was charged with violating Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) for allegedly purchasing and receiving a Komatsu Road Grader for P400,000.00, knowing it was stolen. The grader was owned by the Second Rural Road Improvement Project (SRRIP) PMO-DPWH of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, and was allegedly stolen while undergoing repairs. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8 in Davao City, convicted Lim and sentenced him to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to eighteen (18) years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to indemnify the DPWH P100,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. Lim filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Lim assails his conviction, arguing that the crime of theft was not proven, that he was a purchaser in good faith and for value without intent to gain, that the Memorandum Receipt was insufficient proof of ownership, and that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that a crime of theft had been committed and the ownership of the Komatsu Road Grader by the DPWH. Whether petitioner Mariano Lim knew or should have known that the Komatsu Road Grader was derived from the proceeds of theft. Whether petitioner Mariano Lim was able to overcome the presumption under PD 1612. Whether Section 6 of PD 1612, requiring clearance/permit to sell used second-hand articles, is applicable to the petitioner. Whether the conviction violated petitioner's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and ACQUITTED petitioner Mariano Lim based on insufficiency of evidence and reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether theft was committed and ownership: The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that theft had been committed. The testimony of Engr. Gulmatico regarding the alleged theft was based on hearsay evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to conclusively establish the DPWH's ownership of the Komatsu Grader. While a Memorandum Receipt was presented, it did not state DPWH ownership and had blank portions regarding acquisition details. On the issue of petitioner's knowledge and intent: The Court ruled that petitioner was able to overcome the presumption under PD 1612 by presenting a duly notarized Affidavit of Ownership from Petronilo Banosing. A notarized document enjoys a presumption of regularity and is prima facie evidence of its truthfulness. The prosecution failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn this presumption. The Court also noted the disparity between the P400,000.00 paid by petitioner and the RTC's assessed value of P100,000.00, suggesting petitioner acted in good faith based on Banosing's representations. On the issue of overcoming the presumption under PD 1612: The Court ruled that petitioner was able to overcome the presumption under PD 1612 by presenting a duly notarized Affidavit of Ownership from Petronilo Banosing. A notarized document enjoys a presumption of regularity and is prima facie evidence of its truthfulness. The prosecution failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn this presumption. On the applicability of Section 6 of PD 1612: The Court found Section 6 of PD 1612 inapplicable to petitioner. This section requires clearance/permit to sell second-hand articles only if the entity is in the business of buying and selling, obtained the item from an unlicensed dealer, and intends to offer it for sale to the public. The prosecution failed to establish that petitioner was engaged in the business of selling the grader to the public. On the violation of the right to be informed of the accusation: The Court found that the conviction violated petitioner's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Information alleged that petitioner knew the grader was stolen. However, the RTC and CA convicted him on the ground that he should have known, which constituted a material variance between the allegation and the proof, prejudicing his substantial rights.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of fencing, including the commission of a prior crime of theft or robbery, the accused's knowledge that the property was derived from such crime, and intent to gain. Failure to establish any of these elements, particularly the theft and the accused's knowledge, warrants acquittal.