G.R. No. 111343 - Dunlao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 111343)

Factual Background

The prosecution presented that petitioner was a duly licensed retailer and wholesaler of scrap iron. On October 25, 1986 at about 2:30 p.m., Fortunato Mariquit and Carlito Catog, both employees of Lourdes Farms, Inc., were instructed by its proprietor, Mrs. Lourdes Du, to go to petitioner’s premises, together with police officers Pfc. Epifanio Sesaldo and Pat. Alfredo Ancajas, to verify information that stolen farrowing crates and G.I. pipes from Lourdes Farms were located there.

Upon arrival, the group saw farrowing crates and pipes inside petitioner’s compound. They also found assorted lengths of G.I. pipes inside a cabinet in petitioner’s shop and another pile outside the shop but within the compound. After police operatives informed petitioner that the pipes belonged to Lourdes Farms and had been stolen, petitioner voluntarily surrendered the items. The items were then brought to the police station.

Filing, Arraignment, and Trial Court Proceedings

On February 16, 1987, Criminal Case No. 14655 was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 9, charging petitioner with violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. Petitioner was arraigned on March 13, 1987 and pleaded NOT GUILTY. After trial, on May 30, 1989, the trial court rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979. It imposed imprisonment of Six (6) Years, Eight (8) Months, One (1) Day as minimum to Seven (7) Years and Four (4) Months as maximum of Prision Mayor, together with the accessory penalties provided by law.

The Accusatory Information and the Statutory Framework

The information alleged that, about a week prior to October 25, 1986, in Davao City and within the court’s jurisdiction, petitioner, with intent to gain for himself, willfully and unlawfully purchased and received dismantled farrowing crates made of G.I. pipes valued at P20,000.00, knowing the items to be stolen, thereby committing fencing to the damage and prejudice of Lourdes Farms, Inc., represented by Lourdes Du.

The Supreme Court anchored its analysis on the definition of fencing under Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1612, which criminalizes acts such as buying, receiving, possessing, keeping, acquiring, concealing, selling, or disposing of, or dealing in, any article or object of value which the accused knows, or should be known, to have been derived from robbery or theft, when done with intent to gain for oneself or another. It also applied the statutory presumption under Sec. 5, Presumption of Fencing, which provides that mere possession of any article or item of value that has been the subject of robbery or thievery constitutes prima facie evidence of fencing.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

On appeal to the Court of Appeals and now before the Supreme Court, petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove at least two elements: first, that he purchased the G.I. pipes; and second, that he knew the items were stolen. He further asserted that, as a long-time licensed scrap metal businessman, he acted in good faith and without criminal intent because he merely acted as a temporary custodian of the items brought into his business establishment by unidentified men, whose departure he claimed was delayed until police operatives came a few days later.

Petitioner also contested the valuation of the stolen items. He insisted that the pipes were worth only P200.00, contrary to the P20,000.00 value alleged in the information and adopted by the trial court.

Appellate Outcome and Supreme Court Review

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conviction. On Supreme Court review, the Court reiterated that there was no dispute that the farrowing crates and assorted lengths of G.I. pipes were found in petitioner’s premises, and that positive identification by Fortunato Mariquit, an employee of Lourdes Farms, that the items were previously owned by the complainant company gave rise to the statutory presumption of fencing under Sec. 5 of P.D. 1612.

The central question therefore became whether petitioner rebutted the presumption with sufficient and convincing evidence.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Intent to Gain and Proof of Purchase

The Supreme Court held that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption. It rejected the argument that the prosecution was required to prove intent to gain as a prerequisite for conviction. The Court reasoned that crimes under special law such as P.D. 1612 do not require the same proof analysis as acts mala in se. It emphasized the legal distinction between acts mala in se and acts mala prohibita and explained that when an act is prohibited by positive law, the intent of the offender becomes immaterial.

In support, the Court relied on its earlier ruling in Lim v. Court of Appeals (222 SCRA 286, 287 [1993]), stating that a contention that intent to gain was not clearly established cannot prevail when the presumption applies and when the trial and appellate courts inferred animus furandi from the accused’s external acts. It further cited authorities explaining that in offenses punished by a special statute, dolo is not required, since the act itself, irrespective of motive, constitutes the offense.

The Court likewise rejected petitioner’s claim that the prosecution failed to prove purchase. It held that under P.D. 1612, proof of purchase is not necessary once the accused’s possession of the stolen articles is established, because mere possession under Sec. 5 already gives rise to a prima facie case of fencing. The burden then shifted to petitioner to overthrow the presumption, which he failed to do.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Failure to Overthrow the Presumption

The Court assessed petitioner’s rebuttal evidence and found it insufficient. It noted that petitioner’s defense consisted primarily of denial and an account that someone aboard a jeep unloaded the pipes in front of his establishment, left them temporarily, and did not return. Petitioner claimed he brought the pipes inside his compound “for safekeeping” because it was already around 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. and they were close to closing time.

The Supreme Court held that these assertions did not convincingly explain the circumstances. It pointed out that the stolen articles were found displayed on petitioner’s shelves inside his compound. It reasoned that when a store owner displays items, the conduct is generally consistent with an intention to sell. It also found it strange that petitioner did not ascertain the identity of the individuals who deposited the items with him.

The Court gave weight to the trial court’s observations concerning the “dubious aura of illegitimacy” in the transaction. It referenced the trial court’s findings that the manner by which the items were dumped on petitioner’s compound, the vagueness regarding an alleged future return for additional deliveries, petitioner’s act of voluntarily bringing the items inside his compound without any arrangement with the strangers, and the strangers’ failure to return after delivery, all reflected suspicious circumstances inconsistent with ordinary business practices. It emphasized that petitioner offered no proof of ownership by the persons who unloaded the items and then left without coming back, nor any credible explanation for why such items were subsequently cut into shorter pieces and distributed within the compound and in cabinets inside the building.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Value of the Stolen Items

Petitioner further attacked the valuation. The Court addressed the testimony of prosecution witness Carlito Catog, who claimed knowledge as a purchaser for Lourdes Farms and estimated the value of the G.I. pipes at P59,000.00, explaining the basis of the estimate using the pipe dimensions, the number of lengths per crate, fabrication costs, and the recovered n

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 111343)

The case involved a prosecution for Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (Presidential Decree No. 1612) against Ernestino P. Dunlao, Sr.
The prosecution stemmed from the presence of dismantled farrowing crates made of GI pipes and assorted lengths of GI pipes in the accused’s business premises in Davao City.
The Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 9 convicted the accused on the judgment rendered May 30, 1989.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction through a decision promulgated May 10, 1993.
The Supreme Court resolved the accused’s petition challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the valuation of the stolen items.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner was Ernestino P. Dunlao, Sr., the accused in Criminal Case No. 14655.
Respondents were the Honorable Court of Appeals, the People of the Philippines represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, and Lourdes Du.
The information charged petitioner with fencing under P.D. No. 1612 in a location and forum within Davao City and “within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.”
The petitioner was arraigned on March 13, 1987 and entered a plea of NOT GUILTY.
After conviction by the trial court, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction.
Petitioner then filed the present petition assailing the Court of Appeals’ affirmance.

Key Factual Allegations

The information alleged that, about a week prior to October 25, 1986, petitioner purchased and received dismantled farrowing crates made of GI pipes, valued at P20,000.00, and did so with intent to gain and with knowledge that the items were stolen.
The information alleged that the fencing caused damage to the owner Lourdes Farms, Inc., represented by Lourdes Du.
The trial record showed that petitioner operated a scrap iron business in Davao City under the business name “Dunlao Enterprise.”
On October 25, 1986 at about 2:30 p.m., employees of Lourdes Farms, including Fortunato Mariquit and Carlito Catog, were instructed by Lourdes Du to verify information that stolen farrowing crates and GI pipes were at petitioner’s premises.
The verification group proceeded with police officers Pfc. Epifanio Sesaldo and Pat. Alfredo Ancajas.
Upon arrival, the group found the farrowing crates and GI pipes inside petitioner’s compound.
The group also found assorted lengths of GI pipes inside a cabinet in petitioner’s shop and another pile outside the shop but still within the compound.
When police informed petitioner that the pipes were owned by Lourdes Farms and had been stolen, petitioner voluntarily surrendered the items.
The items were then brought to the police station.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court held the evidence sufficient to find petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Anti-Fencing Law of 1979.
The trial court sentenced petitioner to imprisonment of Six (6) Years, Eight (8) Months, One (1) Day as minimum to Seven (7) Years and Four (4) Months as maximum, as Prision Mayor, with the accessory penalties provided by law.
The decision reflected a view that petitioner’s explanation did not convincingly rebut the statutory presumption of fencing.
The trial court observed that the items were dumped by unidentified persons, that petitioner took initiative to bring and display the items inside his compound, and that petitioner failed to produce proof of ownership by the persons who unloaded the items.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment convicting petitioner for anti-fencing.
The affirmance necessarily sustained the trial court’s conclusion that the presumption of fencing stood and was not overcome.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that at least two elements were not proven: (a) the alleged purchase and (b) petitioner’s knowledge that the items were stolen.
Petitioner contended that his status as a duly licensed scrap metal businessman for more than fifteen (15) years showed good faith and the absence of criminal intent.
Petitioner claimed he merely acted as a temporary custodian after well-dressed men allegedly offered the items for sale, but did not return until police arrived a few days later.
Petitioner challenged the valuation of the stolen properties, insisting the pipes were worth only P200.00 rather than P20,000.00 as stated in the information.
Implicitly, petitioner also challenged the evidentiary weight of the statutory presumption arising from possession.

Statutory Framework

Presidential Decree No. 1612 defined fencing as the act of any person who, with intent to gain, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes of, or in any other manner deals in any article or thing of value which the person knows, or should be known to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
The law provided a presumption of fencing in Section 5: “Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value whi