Case Digest (G.R. No. 190475)
Facts:
Jaime Ong y Ong, petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 190475, April 10, 2013, Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.The criminal information filed on 25 May 1995 charged Jaime Ong y Ong with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612 (the Anti‑Fencing Law) for having received and sold truck tires alleged to be proceeds of robbery. The case proceeded to trial in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Manila, where Ong pleaded not guilty; after trial the RTC convicted him on 6 January 2006 and sentenced him to imprisonment of ten years and one day to sixteen years, with accessory penalty of temporary disqualification.
The instrumental facts as found by the prosecution and adopted by the courts below were: private complainant Francisco Azajar bought forty‑four (44) Firestone truck tires (supported by Sales Invoice No. 4565 dated 10 November 1994 and an inventory list) and stored them in a warehouse in Parañaque under the care of Jose Cabal. On 17 February 1995 thirty‑eight (38) tires were reported stolen after the warehouse gate was forcibly opened. During a canvass for the missing tires Azajar discovered on 24 February 1995 that tires matching his stock (by chalk markings and serial numbers) were displayed at Jong Marketing in Paco, Manila, owned and operated by Ong. A police buy‑bust operation was conducted on 27 February 1995: a poseur‑buyer purchased one tire, twelve more were brought out from Ong’s adjacent warehouse, and police ultimately confiscated thirteen (13) tires that Azajar identified as stolen.
Ong testified that he had been in the tire business for 24 years and claimed he bought the thirteen (13) tires from one Ramon Go of Gold Link Hardware on 18 February 1995 for P45,500, and that a sales invoice was issued to him (Exhibit 2‑A). He denied knowledge that the tires were stolen and asserted he lawfully bought them. The RTC held that possession of the thirteen (13) tires that corresponded to the serial numbers of those stolen established a prima facie case of fencing under P.D. 1612 which Ong failed to rebut; it convicted him. On appeal the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA‑G....(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the evidence sufficient to sustain Ong’s conviction for fencing under P.D. No. 1612?
- Did Ong successfully rebut the prima facie presumption of fencing by presenting a sales invoice and claiming he bought the tires from a third party?
- Was the penalty computation and the CA’s modification of t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)