G.R. No. 190475 - Ong y Ong vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 190475)

Factual Background

FRANCISCO AZAJAR Y LEE, private complainant, purchased forty-four Firestone truck tires by Sales Invoice No. 4565 dated November 10, 1994 and stored them in a warehouse in Paranaque under the care of Jose Cabal, the caretaker. After six tires were sold, thirty-eight remained; on February 17, 1995 Cabal reported that those thirty-eight tires had been stolen from the warehouse by forcible entry. Azajar reported the robbery to the Southern Police District and later, while canvassing business establishments, found one of the missing tires displayed at Jong Marketing, a tire store in Paco, Manila, owned and operated by JAIME ONG Y ONG. Azajar identified the tire by a chalk mark and its serial number. A buy-bust operation coordinated by the Southern Police District and the Western Police District on February 27, 1995 resulted in the purchase of one tire and the confiscation of twelve additional tires from Ong’s warehouse beside his store, for a total of thirteen tires which Azajar confirmed as those stolen from his warehouse.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Information charged that on or about February 17, 1995 Ong received and acquired thirteen truck tires worth P65,975 belonging to Azajar, and thereafter sold one truck tire knowing it to have been derived from robbery. Ong pleaded not guilty and testified that he had bought the thirteen tires on February 18, 1995 from a certain Ramon Go of Gold Link Hardware & General Merchandise for P45,500 and that he did not know they were stolen. The Regional Trial Court found the prosecution proved the elements of fencing beyond reasonable doubt, found Ong guilty of violating P.D. 1612, and sentenced him to imprisonment of ten years and one day to sixteen years with temporary disqualification.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The Court of Appeals reviewed the records and affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty by reducing the minimum term to six years of prision correccional. The CA agreed with the RTC that the prosecution established ownership, robbery, possession by Ong of thirteen of the stolen tires, and Ong’s failure to rebut the statutory presumption of fencing.

Issues on Appeal

The central issues raised by petitioner included whether the prosecution proved the elements of fencing under P.D. 1612, particularly whether the prosecution established that a robbery or theft occurred, that the tires in Ong’s possession were derived from that robbery, and that Ong knew or should have known the tires were stolen; and whether Ong successfully rebutted the prima facie presumption of fencing by producing a sales invoice and asserting a bona fide purchase.

The Prosecution’s Case and Evidence

The prosecution relied on Azajar’s Sales Invoice No. 4565 and inventory list to prove ownership, the testimony of the warehouse caretaker and police Sinumpaang Salaysay to prove the robbery, and the buy-bust operation and matching serial numbers (Exhibits A-1 and A-2 vis-à-vis Exhibits N-1 and N-6) to show that thirteen of the stolen tires were in Ong’s possession. The prosecution further presented evidence disputing the legitimacy of the invoice Ong presented, showing Gold Link and its address to be fictitious.

Petitioner’s Contentions

JAIME ONG Y ONG maintained that he had been in the tire business for twenty-four years, that he purchased the thirteen tires from Ramon Go of Gold Link on February 18, 1995 for P45,500 and received a Sales Invoice No. 980, and that he had no knowledge the tires were stolen. Ong stressed that a sales invoice is ordinarily proof of a legitimate transaction and offered that invoice as his defense.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 30213. The Court agreed that the elements of fencing under P.D. 1612 were proven: that a robbery was committed, that Ong, not shown to be a principal or accomplice, possessed and sold articles derived from that robbery, that Ong knew or should have known of their illicit origin, and that Ong acted with intent to gain.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated the essential elements of fencing as stated in precedent authorities such as Capili v. Court of Appeals, Tan v. People, and Dizon-Pamintuan v. People. The Court found proof of robbery on February 17, 1995 and of ownership by Azajar through Sales Invoice No. 4565 and inventory documents. The presence of thirteen stolen tires in Ong’s possession constituted strong evidence of fencing under Section 5 of P.D. 1612, which creates a prima facie presumption that possession of goods known to be the subject of robbery or theft is evidence of fencing. The Court applied the standard that a seller in Ong’s position, who had twenty-four years’ experience in the tire trade, should have known the circumstances that would forewarn a reasonably vigilant buyer of the likely illicit origin of goods; the rapid one‑day transaction with an unknown seller and the lack of inquiry into proof of ownership were facts that should have caused Ong to doubt legitimacy, consistent with the doctrine in Dela Torre v. COMELEC. The Court further observed that a sales invoice or receipt is a disputable defense under Section 3(p) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court, and that the prosecution successf

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 190475)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Jaime Ong y Ong was the petitioner convicted for violation of P.D. 1612 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Manila.
People of the Philippines was the respondent who prosecuted the case for fencing of truck tires.
The RTC found Jaime Ong y Ong guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment of ten years and one day to sixteen years with the accessory penalty of temporary disqualification.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the minimum penalty to six years of prision correccional.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion penned by Sereno, C.J., denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 30213.

Key Factual Allegations

Francisco Azajar y Lee purchased forty-four Firestone truck tires from Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation for PHP 223,401.81 as evidenced by Sales Invoice No. 4565 dated November 10, 1994 and an inventory list.
The tires were stored in a warehouse in Sucat under the custody of caretaker Jose Cabal, and thirty-eight of the tires were reported stolen after a forced entry on February 17, 1995.
On February 24, 1995, Azajar found one tire matching his chalk markings and serial number on display at Jong Marketing, owned and operated by Jaime Ong y Ong.
A buy-bust operation on February 27, 1995 led to the purchase by poseur-buyer Tito Atienza of one tire for PHP 5,000 and the subsequent recovery of twelve more tires from Ong's warehouse, totaling thirteen tires confiscated.
Ong testified that he purchased thirteen tires from Ramon Go of Gold Link Hardware & General Merchandise on February 18, 1995 for PHP 3,500 each, with Sales Invoice No. 980, and that he displayed one tire and stored twelve in his bodega.
The prosecution presented evidence that Gold Link and its address were fictitious and that the serial numbers of the recovered tires corresponded to Azajar's inventory.

Issues Presented

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of fencing under P.D. 1612.
Whether the possession of thirteen tires constituted prima facie evidence of fencing that Ong successfully rebutted.
Whether the penalty imposed was correctly computed and properly modified by the Court of Appeals.

Contentions of the Parties

The People of the Philippines contended that a robbery was committed, that the serial numbers and markings identified the tires as those stolen from Azajar, and that Ong sold the tires to the poseur-buyer with intent to gain.
Jaime Ong y Ong contended that he bought the tires legitimately from Ramon Go and relied on Sales Invoice No. 980 as proof of a bona fide transaction, and denied knowledge that the tires were stolen.
The prosecution contended that the purported invoice was false because Gold Link and its address were fictitious, rendering Ong's defense insufficient to rebut the presumption of fencing.

Statutory Framework

P.D. 1612 defines fencing in Section 2(a) as buying, receiving, possessing, keeping, acquiring, concealing, selling, disposing of, or otherwise dealing in goods known or which should be known to be derived from robbery or