Case Summary (G.R. No. 111426)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Robbery occurred: February 12, 1988.
Recovery of jewelry and arrest/investigation: February 24, 1988.
Trial court decision (Branch 20, RTC Manila): promulgated November 16, 1990, convicting petitioner and imposing an indeterminate penalty (14 years prision mayor to 19 years reclusion temporal).
Court of Appeals decision (CA‑G.R. CR No. 11024): March 29, 1993 — affirmed conviction but set aside penalty and remanded to receive further evidence on valuation.
Supreme Court review by petition for certiorari under Rule 45, resulting in decision modifying the penalty and resolving the remand issue.
Facts Found by the Trial Court
On the night of February 12, 1988, masked armed men robbed the Encarnacion household and took jewelry and other property. The Encarnacions reported and documented the losses, submitting lists and sketches of the stolen jewelry. On February 24, 1988, posing as buyers and accompanied by WPD operatives, the Encarnacions identified several recovered items displayed at a stall in Sta. Cruz, Manila tended by the petitioner. The items identified and admitted to have been surrendered by the petitioner included: an earring and a ring studded with diamonds (Exh. C‑2), a set of diamond earrings (Exh. C‑3), and a gold chain with crucifix (Exh. C‑4). The petitioner allegedly admitted acquiring the items but claimed she did not know they were stolen; she surrendered them to the Encarnacions. The petitioner’s defense offered only her brother’s testimony, alleging police removal of items from a showcase and that a certain Fredo owned the stall.
Procedural History and Issues on Appeal
Petitioner was convicted by the RTC of violating P.D. No. 1612. On appeal, the petitioner argued (1) conviction rested on mere presumption and (2) prosecution failed to prove the value of the jewelry (essential for penalty determination). The Court of Appeals affirmed guilt, relying on evidence and statutory presumption, but found the record insufficient to establish valuation for penalty and remanded to the trial court to receive additional evidence on the correct valuation. The petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court contesting the CA’s affirmation of guilt and its remand order.
Elements of Fencing Under P.D. No. 1612 and Their Application
The Supreme Court reiterated the statutory elements of fencing: (1) a robbery or theft has been committed; (2) the accused, not a participant, buys/receives/possesses/keeps/acquires/conceals/sells/disposes or otherwise deals in an article derived from such crime; (3) the accused knows or should have known the item was derived from robbery/theft; and (4) intent to gain for self or another. The Court found elements (1), (2), and (4) were satisfied by the evidence: the robbery was proven, the items were displayed for sale by the petitioner at her stall (manifesting intent to gain), and the items matched those listed by the complainants as stolen.
Presumption of Fencing, Knowledge, and Burden to Rebut
Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 establishes a disputable presumption: mere possession of goods that were the subject of robbery or thievery is prima facie evidence of fencing. The Supreme Court explained the legal meaning of “knowledge” and “should be known,” and recognized that when knowledge is an element, the law may reasonably presume knowledge from possession where there is a rational connection. The Court held the statutory presumption does not violate the constitutional presumption of innocence under Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution, citing precedent and doctrinal authorities. The petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption: defense evidence consisted only of the brother’s testimony, which did not establish lawful ownership or licensed supply, and even indicated the petitioner engaged in buying and selling jewelry, including purchasing from a person named Fredo who was not produced as a witness or shown to be a licensed dealer under the implementing rules.
Valuation of Recovered Jewelry — Trial Court Findings and CA’s View
The trial court found the total value of the recovered items to be P93,000, based on the complainant’s testimony and Exhibit C (inventory with valuations): P75,000 (earring and ring, C‑2), P15,000 (set of earrings, C‑3), P3,000 (chain with crucifix, C‑4). The Court of Appeals, however, considered the valuation evidence insufficient and remanded for additional proof on the correct valuation because the trial court relied primarily on the complainant’s testimony and list.
Supreme Court’s Valuation Analysis and Adjustment
The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals on the insufficiency of valuation evidence. It carefully reviewed trial testimony and exhibits, noting that the complainant re‑affirmed valuations on cross‑examination but admitted only one earring (and not a pair) from one of the items was recovered. Given that admission, the Court deemed it reasonable to halve the P15,000 valuation for the set of earrings to P7,500. Accordingly, the Court recalculated the total value of the items positively identified as proceeds of the robbery to P87,000 (P75,000 + P7,500 + P3,000).
Penalty Scheme Under P.D. No. 1612 and Sentence Computation
Section 3(a) of P.D. No. 1612 prescribes penalties that increase with the value of the property. The Supreme Court applied the statute and the Indeterminate Sentence Law’s rules for converting fixed penalties into indeterminate ranges for special‑law offenses. Using the adjusted total value of P87,000, the Court computed the appropriate maximum and minimum under the statute and the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Court concluded the proper indeterminate sentence range is from 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 accessory penalties c
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 111426)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals decision dated 29 March 1993 in CA-G.R. CR No. 11024.
- The Court of Appeals had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (Branch 20, Manila) decision finding petitioner guilty of violating the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612) but set aside the penalty imposed and remanded the case to the trial court to receive additional evidence to determine the correct valuation of the jewelry for penalty purposes.
- The trial court had rendered a decision on 16 November 1990 in Criminal Case No. 88-64954 convicting petitioner Norma Dizon-Pamintuan and sentencing her to suffer an indeterminate penalty from 14 years prision mayor to 19 years reclusion temporal; the trial court found no civil liability in view of recovery of the items.
- This petition sought to set aside the Court of Appeals’ modification (remand for valuation evidence) and to reinstate/maintain the trial court’s original penalty.
Case Caption and Identifiers
- G.R. No. 111426; First Division; Decision promulgated 11 July 1994.
- Reported at 304 Phil. 219.
- Trial Judge: Doroteo N. Caneba (Branch 20, RTC Manila).
- Court of Appeals opinion by Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria‑Martinez, concurred in by Associate Justices Nathanael P. De Pano, Jr. and Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr.
- Supreme Court opinion delivered by Justice Davide, Jr.; Justices Cruz (Chairman), Bellosillo, Quiason, and Kapunan concurred.
Factual Background
- On or about 12 February 1988, five unidentified masked armed persons allegedly robbed the residence of Teodoro and Luzviminda Encarnacion in Better Living Subdivision, Parañaque, taking jewelries and other personal properties including cash.
- The robbery was reported immediately to the police; the complainants prepared a list and sketches of lost jewelry and submitted same to police (Exhibit "C" and related sub-exhibits).
- An informer tipped police that some lost items were in the Chinatown area; an entrapment operation was arranged.
- On 24 February 1988, spouses Encarnacion, accompanied by WPD operatives, went to a stall at 733 Florentino Torres Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, where the spouses recognized jewelry displayed in a showcase being tended by Norma Dizon‑Pamintuan.
- Items recognized and identified as part of the loot included: (a) one earring and a ring studded with diamonds (Exh. "C-2") valued at P75,000, (b) one set of earrings (diamond studded) (Exh. "C-3") valued at P15,000, and (c) one gold chain with crucifix (Exh. "C-4") valued at P3,000, as reflected on Exhibit "C".
- Police took the display case and brought the accused to the WPD station for investigation; Encarnacion testified that petitioner admitted obtaining the items but claimed she did not know they were stolen and surrendered the items to Encarnacion’s wife.
Criminal Information and Charge
- Information charged violation of Anti‑Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612) alleging that between 12–24 February 1988 petitioner, with intent to gain, knowingly bought, kept in possession, sold or disposed of specified jewelries valued at P105,000 which she knew or should have known were derived from proceeds of robbery committed by Joselito Sacdalan Salinas against Teodoro and Luzviminda Encarnacion.
Prosecution Evidence Presented at Trial
- Testimony of private complainant Teodoro Encarnacion describing the robbery, filing of reports, preparation of lists and sketches (Exh. "C", "C-1" to "C-4", and "D"), and identification of recovered jewelry at petitioner’s stall.
- Testimony of Corporal Ignacio Jao, Jr. (WPD) who accompanied the Encarnacions to the stall, observed identification of items in the display window, and participated in removal of the display to the WPD station.
- Testimony of Pfc. Emmanuel Sanchez (WPD) who was present during identification and early part of the investigation at WPD station.
Defense Version at Trial
- Testimony of Rosito Dizon‑Pamintuan (petitioner’s brother) that on 24 February 1988 he and petitioner waited for a vacancy at a carinderia on Florentino Torres Street; Cpl. Jao allegedly told petitioner to get jewelry from inside the display window, petitioner asked to wait for "Fredo" (owner of stall) but when Fredo did not come the police opened the display window and removed contents; petitioner and display stall were taken to police headquarters and after investigation petitioner was sent home.
- No testimony from Fredo or any supplier was presented.
Trial Court Decision (16 November 1990)
- Found the prosecution proved petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of P.D. No. 1612.
- Adopted prosecution summary of evidence and concluded recovered items were part of the loot and belonged to spouses Encarnacion.
- Relied on Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612: "Mere possession of any goods, article, item object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing."
- Found the presumption unrebutted; distinguished ownership and possession; accepted prosecution valuation of recovered items as P93,000.
- Sentence imposed: indeterminate penalty from 14 years prision mayor to 19 years reclusion temporal; no civil liability ordered in view of recovery of items; costs imposed.
Issues Raised on Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- (1) Whether the judgment was based on a mere presumption.
- (2) Whether the prosecution failed to prove that the value of the jewelry recovered was P93,000 (i.e., sufficiency of valuation evidence for penalty determination).
Court of Appeals Ruling (29 March 1993)
- Affirmed conviction: held all elements of fencing under P.D. No. 1612 proven by positive and convincing evidence — (a) robbery committed, (b) accused (not a participant) in possession/display for sale of items, (c) knowledge or should have known the items derived from robbery (invoking Section 5 presumption), and (d) intent to gain shown by public display for sale.
- Found, however, insufficient evidence to prove the value of recovered jewelry necessary to determine proper penalty unde