Francisco vs People

G.R. NO. 146584 | July 12, 2004

Doctrine: The stolen property subject of the charge is not
indispensable to prove fencing. It is merely corroborative of the
testimonies and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to
prove the crime of fencing.

Facts: Jovita Rodriguez and her husband, the mayor of

Rodriguez, Rizal, acquired several pieces of jewelry. Their
housekeeper stole the jewelries and sold them in the shop of
the accused, Ernest Francisco.

When Jovita found out that the jewelries were gone, she filed a
complaint for qualified theft against her housekeeper, Pacita.
Francisco was also charged with violation of the Anti-Fencing
Law (PD 1612). The complaint and Information were filed solely
based on the testimony of Macario, the person whom Pacita
entrusted the selling of the jewelries.
(Pacita-> Macario (agent)-> Francisco)

Issue: Is the stolen property indispensable to prove fencing?

Held: No. Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. No. 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, and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the
property. The stolen property subject of the charge is not
indispensable to prove fencing. It is merely corroborative of the
testimonies and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to
prove the crime of fencing.