Case Digest (G.R. No. 212942)
Facts:
Benito Estrella y Gili, G.R. No. 212942, June 17, 2020, Supreme Court Second Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner, Benito Estrella y Gili, was charged by an Information dated June 29, 1999 with violating Presidential Decree No. 1612 (the Anti‑Fencing Law) for allegedly acquiring, possessing and attempting to sell three five‑gallon pails of Skydrol LD‑4 hydraulic fluid, bearing manufacturer lot number IAI/Y2.4/300/98USA/M‑4122, valued at about P27,000.00, knowing or having reason to know the items were derived from theft from Philippine Airlines (PAL).At trial petitioner pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented two witnesses: Elvis Yao (PAL’s Vice President for Fuel Management) who testified on PAL’s exclusive importation and ownership records for five‑gallon Skydrol, and Police Officer III Raul Bolido (PO3 Bolido) who described PNP‑CIDG surveillance operations on June 19 and 22, 1999, photographic identification of petitioner delivering the pails to Air Philippines, and petitioner’s arrest when he could not produce ownership documents and failed to produce an alleged source called “Jupel.” Documentary evidence introduced by the prosecution included a Solutia (manufacturer) certification, a Certificate of Analysis, bill of lading and sales invoices tying the subject lot numbers to PAL.
Petitioner testified that he operated Aerojam Supply and Trading selling aircraft parts and that he sourced Skydrol from other suppliers (IBAI/Avial), and offered a witness (Alvin Ygona) to show lot numbers may be shared among customers and distributors. He denied guilt and claimed frame‑up. Trial Branch 119, RTC, Pasay City found him guilty on February 15, 2010.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a decision promulgated November 20, 2013, affirmed the RTC’s conviction, holding petitioner knew or should have known the Skydrol was of illegal provenance and that his possession indicated intent to profit. The CA denied his motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 3, 2014. Petitioner filed a Petition...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May a petition under Rule 45 seek re‑examination of factual findings and witness credibility already resolved by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offense of Fencing under Section 2 of PD 1612 as to the three pails of Skydrol?
- Whether and how the penalty imposed should be adjusted, in light of PD 1612’s penalty scheme and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)