Case Summary (G.R. No. 212942)
Key Dates
• June 22, 1999 – Petitioner observed carrying three pails of Skydrol to Air Philippines.
• November 20, 2013 – Court of Appeals Decision affirming conviction.
• June 3, 2014 – Court of Appeals Resolution denying motion for reconsideration.
• June 17, 2020 – Supreme Court decision date (application of the 1987 Constitution).
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – basis for judicial review under Rule 45.
• Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law):
– Section 2 defines the crime of fencing.
– Section 3(a) prescribes penalties based on the value of the property.
– Section 5 presumes fencing from mere possession of stolen goods.
Facts
PAL noted an unusual spike in consumption of Skydrol despite reduced fleet size in 1998. Investigation pointed to Aerojam selling five-gallon pails at low prices to Air Philippines. PAL supplied PNP-CIDG with a sample pail bearing manufacturer and customer lot numbers. Surveillance on June 19 and 22, 1999, led to petitioner’s apprehension while delivering three pails of Skydrol. Petitioner failed to present documents proving lawful ownership, identifying instead an absent “Jupel.” PAL confirmed the pails belonged to its stock.
Procedural History
• Branch 119, Regional Trial Court (Pasay City) convicted petitioner of fencing under PD 1612 (February 15, 2010).
• Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction (November 20, 2013) and denied reconsideration (June 3, 2014).
• Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Issues
- Whether the CA correctly applied the presumption in Rule 45 limiting review to questions of law.
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of fencing under PD 1612.
- Whether petitioner’s defenses of fabricated evidence and frame-up warranted acquittal.
Rule 45 and Scope of Review
Rule 45 restricts Supreme Court review to questions of law. Factual findings of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, enjoy finality absent exceptional circumstances such as gross misapprehension or speculation. Petitioner’s allegations concern factual matters—fabricated evidence, coerced signatures, harassments—that do not raise pure legal questions; thus, the Court defers to the lower courts’ credibility assessments.
Elements of Fencing Under PD 1612
- A robbery or theft occurred.
- The accused, not a principal or accomplice, dealt in stolen property.
- The accused knew or should have known the property was derived from theft.
- The accused acted with intent to gain.
Proof of Theft and Ownership
• Yao’s testimony established PAL’s exclusive right to import five-gallon Skydrol pails.
• Solutia’s certification dated June 17, 1999 confirmed only PAL imported Skydrol in five-gallon packaging and never authorized Aerojam as reseller.
• Bill of Lading and Sales Invoice for January 1999 shipments to PAL, and matching lot numbers on confiscated pails, conclusively linked the goods to PAL’s property.
Possession and Presumption of Fencing
Under Section 5, mere possession of goods known to be stolen creates a prima facie presumption of fencing. PO3 Bolido’s detailed surveillance testimony and Yao’s identification of lot numbers established petitioner in possession of PAL’s stolen Skydrol. Petitioner’s failure to produce Jupel or supporting documentation reinforced the presumption.
Intent to Gain and Malum Prohibitum
Fencing is a malum prohibitum offense; once unlawful possession is shown, intent need not be separately proved. The presumption arising from possession sufficed, and petitioner’s denial and uncorroborated frame-up claim lacked the clear and convincing evidence required to re
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 212942)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed with the Supreme Court assailing:
• CA Decision dated November 20, 2013 affirming RTC Pasay City Decision of February 15, 2010
• CA Resolution dated June 3, 2014 denying Motion for Reconsideration - CA conviction for violation of PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) affirmed RTC conviction
- Supreme Court GR No. 212942, June 17, 2020 decision resolves only questions of law under Rule 45
Facts
- Information (June 29, 1999) charged petitioner with knowingly acquiring, possessing, selling or disposing of three five-gallon pails of Skydrol LD 4 hydraulic fluid valued at P27,000, knowing it was stolen from Philippine Airlines (PAL).
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty; trial on the merits ensued.
- Prosecution witnesses:
• Elvis Yao, VP for Fuel Management, PAL (exclusive importer of Skydrol five-gallon pails; noted unexplained high usage despite fleet downsizing; coordinated surveillance)
• PO3 Raul Bolido, PNP-CIDG (conducted surveillance on June 19 and 22, 1999; photographed petitioner delivering three pails to Air Philippines; unable to produce ownership documents) - Petitioner’s defense:
• Longtime aviation chemicals salesman through Aerojam Supply and Trading
• Alleged lawful source from International Business Aviation, Inc. (closed)
• Presentation of Alvin Ygona’s testimony on lot-number distribution by Solutia, Inc. brokers in Asia Pacific
• Claim of frame-up, denial of wrongdoing, forced signing of documents at Camp Crame - RTC found all elements of fencing under PD 1612 proven beyond reasonable doubt; sentenced petitioner to 10 years & 1 day to 10 years & 8 months prision mayor in its maximum period.
- CA affirmed, holding petitioner knew or should have known th