People v. Cahulogan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Johnson Tan (Tan), a businessman transporting Coca-Cola products, instructed his truck driver, Braulio Lopez (Lopez), and helper, Loreto Lariosa (Lariosa), to deliver 210 cases of Coca-Cola products worth ₱52,476.00 to Demins Store. The following day, Tan discovered that the products were delivered to petitioner Ireneo Cahulogan's (petitioner) store instead. Tan confronted petitioner, informing him of the mistake and his intention to retrieve the items. Petitioner refused, claiming he purchased the items from Lariosa for ₱50,000.00, but could not produce a receipt. Tan asserted Lariosa's lack of authority to sell the items, but petitioner remained adamant. To mitigate losses and prevent termination of his contract with Coca-Cola, Tan agreed to accept ₱20,000.00 worth of empty bottles with cases from petitioner, as evidenced by an Agreement dated January 18, 2011. Tan subsequently filed a case for Fencing against petitioner. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan De Oro City, Branch 41, convicted petitioner of Fencing and sentenced him to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The RTC found that Lariosa stole the items and petitioner possessed them, and that circumstances such as the discounted price, lack of receipt, and absence of a request for replacement bottles should have forewarned petitioner of the illegal source of the goods. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner assails the CA's decision, questioning his conviction for Fencing.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld petitioner's conviction for the crime of Fencing.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated November 6, 2015 and the Resolution dated June 8, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 01126-MIN, affirming petitioner Ireneo Cahulogan's conviction for the crime of Fencing defined and penalized under Presidential Decree No. 1612, are affirmed with modification. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for the indeterminate period of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Conviction for Fencing: The Court affirmed petitioner's conviction for Fencing. The elements of the crime were established: (a) a theft was committed by Lariosa, who sold the subject items without his employer's authority for his own gain; (b) petitioner bought and possessed the subject items; (c) circumstances, such as the sale at a discount without a receipt and the absence of a demand for replacement bottles (a common practice), should have forewarned petitioner that the items were of illegal origin; and (d) petitioner's intent to gain was evident from his purchase of the items for ₱50,000.00, which was less than their actual value of ₱52,476.00. The Court reiterated that fencing is a malum prohibitum and PD 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from evidence of possession of stolen goods, a presumption that petitioner failed to rebut. The Court also noted that conviction of the principal in the crime of theft is not necessary for an accused to be found guilty of fencing. The factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, were given due deference as there was no indication of any overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances. The Court found no reason to deviate from these findings, emphasizing that the trial court was in the best position to assess witness credibility.
Main Doctrine
The elements of Fencing under PD 1612 are: (a) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; (b) the accused, not being a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes of, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft; (c) the accused knew or should have known that the article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft; and (d) there is intent to gain for oneself or for another. Fencing is a malum prohibitum, and PD 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of Fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any good, article, item, object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or theft.