Case Summary (G.R. No. 249196)
Petitioner
Dante Lopez y Atanacio, charged with fencing a blue Araya mountain bike valued at ₱100,000.
Respondent
People of the Philippines.
Key Dates
- Theft reported: January 15, 2011
- Confrontation and barangay referral: February 23, 2014
- RTC Decision: June 27, 2017
- CA Decision: April 30, 2019
- CA Resolution: September 3, 2019
- SC Decision: April 28, 2021
Applicable Law
- Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law of 1979)
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (presumption of innocence; burden of proof)
Factual Background
Mendoza testified that his blue Araya mountain bike, worth ₱100,000, was stolen from his garage on January 15, 2011. On February 23, 2014, he saw a similarly described bike ridden by Magno Lopez at Katipunan Extension, Marikina. Mendoza and Magno proceeded to the barangay hall, where barangay officials agreed the bike be returned to Mendoza; the barangay captain then ordered its return to Magno the following day.
Prosecution’s Version
Mendoza maintained ownership based on a police blotter report. He identified the bicycle’s make, model and serial number from memory. José Manalo Martinez corroborated that he regularly biked with Mendoza and recognized the stolen bike.
Defense’s Version
Magno testified that the bike he rode was given by petitioner in 2002. He pointed out differences in the bike’s fork, handlebar, frame material and color compared to Mendoza’s description. Petitioner presented corporate documents of Bicycle Works (SEC registration, Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws) and notarized affidavits from its President and Chief Mechanic, asserting lawful purchase of the bicycle twenty years earlier.
RTC Findings
The Regional Trial Court credited Mendoza’s ownership and the police blotter, applied the presumption of fencing under Section 5 of PD 1612, and held that petitioner failed to rebut it. It convicted petitioner of fencing and imposed a penalty of seven to twelve years’ imprisonment.
CA Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to two months of arresto mayor, observing that Mendoza failed to prove the ₱100,000 valuation of the bicycle and thus applied the minimum penalty corresponding to a ₱5,000-or-below valuation.
Issue on Review
Whether the presumption of fencing under PD 1612, without proper factual foundation, may constitute sole basis for conviction; and whether petitioner’s affidavits from Bicycle Works deserved probative value.
Supreme Court Analysis
Relying on the 1987 Constitution’s guarantee of presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court found that the identity of the bicycle was not established. Photographs lacked distinguishing features, and discrepancies existed in color (silver vs. blue fork), frame material (magnesium vs. aluminum), and serial numbers (8303042 vs. A303042).
Presumption of Fencing and Its Rebuttal
Section 5 of PD 1612 creates a disputable pres
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 249196)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court under G.R. No. 249196, seeking to reverse:
- Decision dated 30 April 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41527
- Resolution dated 03 September 2019 of the same court
- Both CA rulings affirmed with modification the Decision of 27 June 2017 by the Regional Trial Court (Branch 263, Marikina City) in Criminal Case No. 14-15920-MK convicting petitioner for violation of PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law of 1979).
Antecedents
- Information charged petitioner on or about 23 February 2014 in Marikina City with unlawfully possessing a blue “Araya” mountain bike valued at ₱100,000, knowing it was the subject of robbery or thievery belonging to private complainant Rafael Mendoza y Dela Paz.
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty; pre-trial terminated and trial on the merits commenced.
Prosecution’s Version
- Rafael Mendoza testified he saw his stolen bicycle cornering Katipunan and Ordoñez Streets, stopped its rider Magno Lopez, and was told the bike was given by petitioner.
- Parties proceeded to the barangay, agreed on turnover of the bicycle to Mendoza, but the barangay captain had it returned the next day.
- Mendoza reported the original theft to police on 16 January 2011; Jose Manalo Martinez corroborated Mendoza’s ownership based on prior biking together.
Defense’s Version
- Magno Lopez, petitioner’s brother, claimed he acquired the bicycle from petitioner in 2002 and described model specifics differing from Mendoza’s description and photos.
- Petitioner presented evidence of purchase from Bicycle Works (SEC Registration, Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws) and two notarized affidavits from its President and Chief Mechanic as proof of prior ownership.
- No receipt was produced due to