Title
Masil y Aviar vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 241837
Decision Date
Jan 5, 2022
Petitioner convicted of Fencing under PD 1612 for possessing stolen jeepney parts, failing to prove legitimate acquisition; penalty modified per Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 241837)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Information filed: July 12, 2010 (alleging commission on or about July 10, 2007 as stated in the Information).
Arraignment: both accused pleaded not guilty.
RTC judgment convicting petitioner and co-accused: June 2, 2017.
CA Decision affirming conviction: June 13, 2018; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: August 17, 2018.
Supreme Court resolution on petition for review: January 5, 2022.
Applicable constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision in 2022 falls within post-1990 decisions).

Applicable Law and Legal Authorities Cited

Primary statute: Presidential Decree No. 1612 (PD 1612), the Anti‑Fencing Law of 1979.
Sentencing framework: Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) and the Revised Penal Code (RPC) nomenclature adopted by PD 1612.
Statutory update referenced: Republic Act No. 10951 (adjustment of property values and fines under the RPC) — noted as not applicable to PD 1612 adjustments.
Precedents cited in the decision: Estrella v. People; Tan v. People; Dizon‑Pamintuan v. People; People v. Judge De Guzman; Cahulogan v. People; Ong v. People; Capili v. CA; People v. Simon; Peralta v. People; Quimvel v. People; Dunlao v. People; People v. Orcullo; People v. Agcanas; Dela Torre v. COMELEC; and others as referenced in the record.

Facts as Found by the Prosecution and Trial Court

Nimfa reported the jeepney driven by Eugene as missing after Eugene failed to return the vehicle. She filed a theft report with PNP authorities. A tip on July 9, 2010 indicated a vehicle was being dismantled in Brgy. 180, Caloocan. Police apprehended Wilfredo while dismantling the jeepney and, upon confrontation, Wilfredo admitted selling parts to AE Junk Shop. A barangay tanod and police detained Eugene, who similarly admitted selling missing parts to petitioner’s junk shop. Police, guided by Wilfredo, recovered dismantled parts at petitioner’s shop — parts bearing markings previously placed by Nimfa’s husband allowing identification. The prosecution established that the vehicle had been stolen and cannibalized, and that parts were found in petitioner’s possession.

Defense at Trial

Petitioner denied prior acquaintance with Wilfredo and claimed he first met Wilfredo and the complainants at the police station on July 11, 2010; he admitted operating a junk shop since June 2010 and purchasing motor vehicle parts but denied criminal culpability. Petitioner did not introduce evidence showing inquiry into ownership when buying the parts or that the prosecution witnesses had ill motive.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed petitioner’s conviction for Fencing under PD 1612, i.e., whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all essential elements of the crime of fencing.

Statutory Definition and Elements of Fencing under PD 1612

PD 1612 defines fencing as the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or another, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, disposes of, or otherwise deals in articles or things of value which he knows or should have known to have been derived from proceeds of robbery or theft. The essential elements are: (a) a prior robbery or theft has occurred; (b) the accused, not a principal or accomplice in the underlying theft, possesses or deals in property derived from that theft; (c) the accused knew or should have known of the illicit origin of the property; and (d) there is intent to gain.

Supreme Court’s Findings on the Elements — Guilt Established

The Court concluded that the prosecution proved all elements beyond reasonable doubt. It relied on the following: (1) the underlying theft/cannibalization of the jeepney (with the driver convicted elsewhere of Qualified Theft); (2) Wilfredo was caught red-handed dismantling the jeepney and admitted selling parts to the petitioner; (3) Wilfredo led police to petitioner’s junk shop where identified parts were recovered; (4) parts bore marks placed by Nimfa’s husband allowing positive identification; and (5) petitioner admitted purchasing parts from Wilfredo and did not dispute recovery of the missing parts from his shop. The Court treated petitioner’s denials as unsubstantiated and accorded greater weight to the prosecution’s eyewitness and police testimony, consistent with established jurisprudence that positive, categorical identification prevails over mere denial or alibi when unsupported.

Knowledge and “Should Have Known” Standard Applied

The Court emphasized that fencing requires actual knowledge or that the accused “should have known” of the illicit provenance. The “should have known” standard is objective — what a reasonably prudent and intelligent person in the accused’s position ought to have ascertained. The Court found circumstances that would forewarn a prudent buyer: nature and condition of the goods, manner of sale, and lack of lawful provenance. As a junk shop operator, petitioner was expected to follow basic protocols (e.g., requesting proof of ownership or clearance) and, by failing to do so, could not escape the presumption that he should have known the parts were proceeds of theft.

Presumption of Fencing and Burden of Proof

Because fencing is malum prohibitum under PD 1612, mere possession of goods that have been the subject of robbery or theft gives rise to a prima facie presumption of fencing. The law does not require proof of purchase; possession alone suffices to trigger the presumption. The Court held that petitioner failed to rebut this presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

Assessment of Witness Credibility and Deference to Trial Court Findings

The Supreme Court accorded deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations, noting the RTC was best situated to evaluate witness demeanor and credibility. The CA’s affirmation of those factual findings was upheld because there was no clear showing that the courts below overlooked or misapplied material facts or circumstances that would warrant reversal.

Modification of Penalty — Legal Framework

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms