CAPILI V CA

Facts:
Gabriel Capili y Recto (GABRIEL) together with his wife Ferma Capili y Inot were charged with
violation of Presidential Decree 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, in an information
that reads:
That on or about November 5, 1993, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other. With intent to gain for
themselves or for another, did then and there willfully and knowingly receive, possess, keep,
acquire and sell or dispose of the following, to wit:
Assorted pieces of jewelry
Several pieces of old coins (U.S. dollar)
all valued at P3,000,000.00, which they knew or should have known to
have been derived from the proceeds of a (sic) crime of theft.
Manzo alleges that prosecution failed to prove the value of stolen items.
Issue: W/N Manzo was guilty of the Anti-fencing law
Held: Yes.
Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy,
receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other
manner deal any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to
him, to have been derived from the proceeds the crime of robbery or theft.
Elements:
1.
A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
-The first element or the fact of theft was proved by prosecution
witness, Christine Diokno (DIOKNO) who testified that several pieces of jewelry, watches and
money were stolen from her mothers bedroom. She reported the theft to the police who after
conducting an investigation, concluded that her houseboy, Michael Manzo (MANZO), committed
the offense. Consequently, a criminal case was filed against MANZO.
-DIOKNOs testimony is corroborated by MANZO, who admitted that he stole the jewelry
from DIOKNO. And that after stealing the jewelry, he delivered them to the petitioner, GABRIEL
with the information that the jewelry was stolen and for the purpose of selling the same. He
identified GABRIEL in court as the person to whom he delivered the stolen jewelry. MANZO
testified that GABRIEL was not a participant in the theft of the jewelry and that he told GABRIEL
that the jewelry was stolen.
2.
The accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice in the commission of the crime
of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or
buys and sells, or in any manner deals any article, item, object or anything of value, which has
been derived from the proceeds of the said crime;
3.
The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
4.

There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.

At any rate, the law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by the accused as
mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. Gabriel, who was in
possession of at least two of the stolen items, has not rebutted this presumption.