Title
Ong y Ong vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 190475
Decision Date
Apr 10, 2013
Jaime Ong y Ong convicted under Anti-Fencing Law for knowingly possessing and selling stolen truck tires; defense of legitimate purchase dismissed as sales invoice proven fictitious.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 190475)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Complainant’s Acquisition and Robbery
    • Private complainant Francisco Azajar purchased forty-four (44) Firestone truck tires (T494 1100 by 20 by 14) for ₱223,401.81 from Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation, evidenced by Sales Invoice No. 4565 (Nov. 10, 1994) and inventory list.
    • Tires were marked, stored in a Sucat, Parañaque warehouse under caretaker Jose Cabal. Six (6) tires were sold in January 1995; thirty-eight (38) remained.
    • On February 17, 1995, Cabal discovered the warehouse broken into and thirty-eight tires missing. The robbery was reported to the Southern Police District.
  • Discovery at Ong’s Store and Buy-Bust Operation
    • On February 24, 1995, Azajar found one marked stolen tire displayed at Jong’s Marketing in Paco, Manila, owned by Jaime Ong y Ong. He alerted police.
    • On February 27, 1995, a buy-bust team led by SPO3 Guerrero with poseur-buyer Tito Atienza purchased one tire (₱5,000), then recovered twelve (12) more from Ong’s adjacent warehouse upon Azajar’s signal. Thirteen (13) stolen tires were confiscated and Ong was arrested.
  • Accused’s Defense
    • Ong, a 24-year tire merchant, claimed he bought thirteen (13) Firestone truck tires from one Ramon Go for ₱45,500 on February 18, 1995, receiving a Sales Invoice from “Gold Link Hardware & General Merchandise.”
    • He denied knowledge of theft, displayed one tire in store and stored the rest in his bodega; he argued that the sale was legitimate and supported by the invoice.

Issues:

  • Whether the elements of fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612 were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Whether Ong knew or should have known the tires were stolen.
  • Whether Ong successfully rebutted the prima facie presumption of fencing.
  • Whether the penalty imposed was proper in view of the property’s value.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.