G.R. No. 137256-58 - People vs. Ernas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137256-58)

Key Dates

November 10, 1994 – Azajar purchases 44 Firestone tires
February 17, 1995 – Robbery of 38 tires from Azajar’s warehouse
February 24, 1995 – Private complainant discovers one stolen tire at Jong Marketing
February 27, 1995 – Buy-bust operation yields 13 stolen tires
May 25, 1995 – Information filed against Ong
January 6, 2006 – RTC conviction
August 18, 2009 – CA affirmation with modified penalty
April 10, 2013 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution
Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law)

Facts of the Theft and Initial Discovery

Francisco Azajar acquired forty-four Firestone T494 1100 by 20 by 14 truck tires in November 1994, as evidenced by Sales Invoice No. 4565 and an Inventory List. He stored them in a warehouse under the care of Jose Cabal. After selling six tires in January 1995, thirty-eight remained. On February 17, 1995, the warehouse gate was forcibly opened and all thirty-eight tires were stolen. Azajar and Cabal reported the robbery to the Southern Police District at Fort Bonifacio.

Discovery of Stolen Property at Petitioner’s Store

On February 24, 1995, Azajar found one of the stolen tires on display at Jong Marketing, owned by petitioner Jaime Ong. He recognized it by its chalk mark and serial number. Ong confirmed possession of more such tires. Azajar notified Chief Inspector Mariano Fegarido, prompting a police buy-bust operation.

Buy-Bust Operation and Arrest

On February 27, 1995, a buy-bust team led by SPO3 Guerrero and supervised by Senior Inspector Tan conducted the operation. Poseur-buyer Tito Atienza purchased one tire for ₱5,000. When petitioner’s helpers brought out twelve additional tires from an adjacent warehouse, Azajar positively identified them as stolen. Despite petitioner’s request to delay arrest until barangay and legal representatives arrived, the police eventually seized thirteen tires and arrested Ong that evening.

Petitioner’s Defense

Ong testified that he had been trading tires for twenty-four years and purchased the thirteen tires from a certain Ramon Go of Gold Link Hardware & General Merchandise on February 18, 1995, at ₱3,500 each. He presented a Sales Invoice dated February 18, 1995, and claimed he lacked knowledge that the tires were stolen.

Elements of the Crime of Fencing under P.D. 1612

A robbery or theft has been committed.
The accused, not a principal or accomplice in that crime, deals in the stolen property (e.g., buys, receives, possesses, sells).
The accused knew or should have known that the property was from robbery or theft.
There is intent to gain for oneself or another.

Application of Law to Facts

Robbery was proven by Azajar’s unrefuted testimony, supporting documentation, and police reports. Thirteen stolen tires were in Ong’s possession, establishing prima facie evidence of fencing. Ong admitted possession but offered only a disputed invoice as proof of legitimacy. As a seasoned tire dealer, he should have inquired into ownership and complied with P.D. 1612’s requirement for clearance when dealing in second-hand goods.

Presumptions and Rebuttal

Section 5 of P.D. 1612 presumes that possession of property known to be stolen constitutes fencing. Ong’s generalized d

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 137256-58)

Procedural History

Accused Jaime Ong y Ong was charged by Information dated 25 May 1995 with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) for receiving and acquiring thirteen (13) truck tires knowing them to be derived from robbery, valued at ₱65,975.00.
Upon arraignment, Ong pleaded not guilty; trial on the merits followed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Manila.
On 06 January 2006, the RTC found Ong guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to imprisonment of ten years and one day to sixteen years, with temporary disqualification.
Ong appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a Decision dated 18 August 2009, affirmed the conviction but modified the minimum term to six years of prision correccional.
Ong filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, which issued its Decision on 10 April 2013, resolving the present appeal.

Facts

Private complainant Francisco Azajar acquired forty-four Firestone truck tires (Model T494 1100 by 20 by 14 ply) on 10 November 1994, evidenced by Sales Invoice No. 4565 and an Inventory List, and marked them with chalk before storing them in a warehouse in Parañaque.
In January 1995, six tires were sold by Azajar; the remaining thirty-eight were stolen on 17 February 1995 after the warehouse gate was forcibly opened.
Azajar and warehouse caretaker Jose Cabal reported the robbery to the Southern Police District and conducted a canvass to locate the missing tires.
On 24 February 1995, Azajar discovered a Firestone truck tire bearing his chalk marks and serial number on display at Jong Marketing in Paco, Manila, owned by Ong, who admitted having more in stock.
Azajar alerted police; on 27 February 1995, a buy-bust team led by SPO3 Oscar Guerrero and supervised by Senior Inspector Noel Tan, with poseur-buyer Tito Atienza, recovered one tire in the initial purchase and twelve additional tires fetched from Ong’s warehouse beside his store.
Ong was arrested, and a total of thirteen tires were confiscated and identified by A