Violation of P.D. No.

1612 otherwise known as Anti-Fencing Law

(By Edson L. Vicente)

FACTS OF THE CASE

Sometimes of February 1988 five unidentified armed persons robbed the
jewelries and other personal properties including cash of the complainant
Teodoro Encarnacion. The said crime was immediately reported to the
Paranaque police and Western Police District.
On February 24, 1988, through an entrapment operation, the group of
WPD together with the spouses Encarnation were able to recover some of the
lost jewelries at the stall of the petitioner Norma Dizon-Pamintuan which
according to her owned by certain Fredo.
The trial court was convinced that the petitioner-accused Pamintuan
violates P.D. No. 1612 or Anti-Fencing Law. The court stressed that under
Section 5 thereof “Mere possession of any goods, article, item object, or anything
of value which has been the subject of robbery of thievery shall be prima facie
evidence of fencing.” As to the value of the said recovered jewelries, the
prosecution was able to show that the same is Php 93, 000. 00.
Subsequently, the petitioner-accused filed an appeal before the COA. The
former averred that the trial court erred in rendering judgement based on a
mere presumption and the prosecution failed to prove that the value of the
recovered jewelries is Php 93,000.00
The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court with
modification. The former found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the violation of P.D. No. 1612. According to the Court of Appeals, the
evidence has been established all the elements of the crime of fencing.
However, the appellate court found that the prosecution was not able to prove
that the value of the stollen properties is Php 93,000.00. Hence, the case was
ordered to remand in trial court to determine the correct value of the recovered
jewelries for the imposition of proper penalty.

ISSUES:
A. Whether or not public respondent Court of Appeals manifestly erred in
affirming the decision of the trial court?
 B. Whether or not public respondent Court of Appeals manifestly erred in
remanding the case to the court a quo for reception of evidence for the
purpose of determining the correct penalty to be imposed?

Answers:

A. The Supreme Court found the assertion of the petitioner-accused

Pamintuan UNMERITORIOUS.
Under Section 2 of P.D. no 1612, 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 or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal
in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be
known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft.” Based on the given definition, the elements of the crime of fencing are as
follows:
1. A crime of robbery of theft has been committed;
2. The accused, who is not a principal or 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 in 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. [emphasis mine]
In the case at bar, the Court was convinced that the first, second, and
third elements of the crime were duly established. The prosecution was able to
prove that robbery was committed and some of the stollen properties were
displayed for sale at a stall of Pamintuan which justified the intent to gain on
the part of the former.
To establish the subsistence of the third element, to wit “the accused
know or should have known that the items recovered from here were the
proceeds of the crime of robbery of theft,” The Court construed the words “to
know” and “should know.” The Court explained that “to know” refers to the
awareness of the person on the existence of the of an offense. The words
“should know” on the other hand implied “…that a person of reasonable
prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty
to another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such fact
exists.”
Furthermore, the Court stressed that under Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612
the possession of stolen property is prima facie evidence of fencing. The
presumption is reasonable for “no other natural or logical inference can arise
from the established fact of her possession of the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft. This presumption of law was not able invalidate by the
accused.” The Court maintained that this presumption of the law does not
violates the constitutional presumption of innocence. As the late Justice Cruz
explained that that the latter may be defeat by the “presumptions based on the
experience of human conduct.” In the light of foregoing, the presumption that
Pamintuan has knowledge of the fact that the jewelries recovered from her
possession were the proceeds of robbery was established. The testimony of the
former was insufficient to invalidate the presumption under P.D. No. 1612.
B. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court erred by remanding
the case to the trial court to determine the correct valuation of the
recovered articles.
The Court found that the testimony of the complainant Mr. Encarnation
and the valuation of the recovered jewelries established the actual value
thereof. Nevertheless, the Court asserted that the reasonable value of the
recovered earring, not a pair of earrings, must be Php 7,000.00 instead of Php
15,000.00. Thus, the total value of the pieces of jewelries in which part of the
proceeds of the robbery on February 12, 1988, would be Php 87,000.00.
Therefore, the Supreme Court sentenced the accused-appellant
Pamintuan of imprisonment of Ten (10) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor
maximum as minimum to Eighteen (18) years and Five (5) months of Reclusion
Temporal maximum as maximum, with the accessory penalties of the latter.

(NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No.

111426. July 11, 1994. Ponente, J. Davide)