DIZON-PAMINTUAN v.
PEOPLE been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
Facts: Teodoro Encarnacion, Undersecretary, DPWH testified
that when he arrived at his residence, he immediately
proceeded inside the house, leaving behind his driver and two
housemaids outside to pick-up his personal belongings from
his case. It was at this point that five unidentified masked
armed persons appeared from the grassy portion of the lot
beside the house and poked their guns to his driver and two
helpers and dragged them inside his house. They were made
to lie face down on the floor and thereafter, the robbers
ransacked the house and took away jewelries and other
personal properties including cash. After the intruders left the
house he reported the matter immediately to the police. He
was later told that some of the lost items were in Chinatown
area as tipped by the informer the police and an entrapment
was made with their participation. He and his wife posed as a
buyer and were able to recognize items of the jewelry stolen
displayed at the stall being tended by Norma Dizon Pamintuan.
The trial court held that the prosecution was able to prove by
evidence that the recovered items were part of the loot and
such recovered items belong to the spouses Encarnacion, the
herein private complainants. That the recovered items were
found in the possession of the accused and she was not able
to rebut the presumption though the evidence for the defense
alleged that the stall is owned by one Fredo. The CA affirmed
the decision of the trial court but set aside the penalty imposed.
Issue: WON the accused knew or should have known that the
items recovered from her were the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft.
Held: Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-
Fencing Law), is "the act of any person who, with intent to gain
for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep,
acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in
any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of
value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have
theft."
The accessory in the crimes of robbery and theft could be
prosecuted as such under the RPC or under P.D. No. 1612.
However, in the latter case, he ceases to be a mere accessory
but becomes a principal in the crime of fencing. The state may
thus choose to prosecute him either under the Revised Penal
Code or P.D. No. 1612, although the preference for the latter
would seem inevitable considering that fencing is
a malum prohibitum, and P.D. No. 1612 creates a presumption
of fencing and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value
of the property.
The elements of the crime of fencing are:
1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in
the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or
buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item,
object or anything of value, which has been derived from the
proceeds of the said crime;
3. The accused knows or should have known that the
said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived
from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for
himself or for another.
In the instant case, there is no doubt that the first, second, and
fourth elements were duly established. A robbery was
committed on 12 February 1988 in the house of the private
complainants who afterwards reported the incident to the
authorities and submitted a list of the lost items and sketches
of the jewelry that were later displayed for sale at a stall tended
to by the petitioner in Florentino Torres Street, Sta. Cruz,
Manila. The public display of the articles for sale clearly
manifested an intent to gain on the part of the petitioner.
Page 1 of 3
Since Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 expressly provides that
"[m]ere possession of any good, article, item, object, or
anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or
thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing," it follows that
the petitioner is presumed to have knowledge of the fact that
the items found in her possession were the proceeds of
robbery or theft. The presumption is reasonable for no other
natural or logical inference can arise from the established fact
of her possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft. This presumption does not offend the presumption of
innocence enshrined in the fundamental law.
The petitioner was unable to rebut the presumption under P.D.
No. 1612. She relied solely on the testimony of her brother
which was insufficient to overcome the presumption, and, on
the contrary, even disclosed that the petitioner was engaged in
the purchase and sale of jewelry and that she used to buy from
a certain Fredo.
Fredo was not presented as a witness and it was not
established that he was a licensed dealer or supplier of jewelry.
Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 provides that "all stores,
establishments or entitles dealing in the buy and sell of any
good, article, item, object or anything of value obtained from an
unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering the
same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or
permit from the station commander of the Integrated National
Police in the town or city where such store, establishment or
entity is located." Under the Rules and
Regulations promulgated to carry out the provisions of Section
6, an unlicensed dealer/supplier refers to any person,
partnership, firm, corporation, association or any other entity or
establishment not licensed by the government to engage in the
business of dealing in or supplying "used secondhand articles,"
which refers to any good, article, item, object or anything of
value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier,
regardless of whether the same has actually or in fact been
used.
PEOPLE v. DE GUZMAN
Facts:
In 1985, a robbery was committed in Quezon City where
jewelries worth millions were stolen. The said jewelries were
later found in the possession of a certain Danilo Alcantara in
his house in Antipolo, Rizal.
Subsequently, a Quezon City prosecutor filed an information
against Alcantara for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. The
criminal case was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City. Alcantara filed a motion to quash the said information on
the ground that the QC-RTC has no jurisdiction over the case.
Judge Jose De Guzman ruled in favor of Alcantara.
The Solicitor General argued that what the judge did was
wrong because the crime of fencing is a continuing crime; that
an ingredient of the crime, that is, the robbery, happened in
Quezon City, hence, Quezon City courts have jurisdiction over
the case.
Issue: Whether or not fencing is a continuing crime.
Held: No. A “continuing crime” is a single crime consisting of a
series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution or intent
not susceptible of division. In this case, there are actually two
separate crimes which are robbery and fencing. They are
independent of each other. The law on fencing does not
require the accused to have participated in the criminal design
to commit, or to have been in any wise involved in the
commission of, the crime of robbery or theft. Neither is the
crime of robbery or theft made to depend on an act of fencing
in order that it can be consummated. Alcantara should be
prosecuted in Antipolo because that’s where the crime of
fencing was allegedly committed.
Page 2 of 3
 FRANCISCO v. PEOPLE
Facts: Jovita Rodriguez hired Pacita Linghon as a household
helper. Sometime in October Pacita contacted his brother,
Macario, and asked him to sell some jewelries, which the latter
obliged and sold them to Ernesto. After sometime Jovita found
out that her jewelries were gone and accused Pacita for
stealing the same, which was then proved by the court. Later
on Jovita filed against Ernesto Francisco for violation of PD
1612 or Anti-Fencing Law.
Accused contends that he did not know Pacita and he only saw
her during the preliminary investigation, and that he never had
transactions with Macario. RTC ruled against him which was
affirmed by the CA.
Accused then petitioned that the court erred in proving him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that there was no
sufficient evidence to prove that he was liable for PD 1612.
Issues: Whether or not there is sufficient quantum of evidence
for the accused to be liable for PD 1612. Whether or not he is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling: Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. No. 1612
creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from evidence of
possession by the accused of any good, article, item, object or
anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or
theft, and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the
property.33 The stolen property subject of the charge is not
indispensable to prove fencing. It is merely corroborative of the
testimonies and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to
prove the crime of fencing.
We agree with the trial and appellate courts that the
prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of evidence, on
the basis of the testimony of Jovita, that Pacita stole the
subject jewelry from the locked cabinet in the main house of
her then employer. Jovita testified on her ownership of the
jewelry and the loss thereof, and narrated that Pacita had
access to the cabinet containing the pieces of jewelry.
It bears stressing that, in the absence of direct evidence that
the accused had knowledge that the jewelry was stolen, the
prosecution is burdened to prove facts and circumstances from
which it can be concluded that the accused should have known
that the property sold to him were stolen. This requirement
serves two basic purposes: (a) to prove one of the elements of
the crime of fencing; and, (b) to enable the trial court to
determine the imposable penalty for the crime, since the
penalty depends on the value of the property; otherwise, the
court will fix the value of the property at P5.00, conformably to
our ruling in People v. Dator.
In the absence of a conclusive or definite proof relative to their
value, this Court fixed the value of the bag and its contents at
P100.00 based on the attendant circumstances of the case.
More pertinently, in the case of People vs. Reyes, this Court
held that if there is no available evidence to prove the value of
the stolen property or that the prosecution failed to prove it, the
corresponding penalty to be imposed on the accused-appellant
should be the minimum penalty corresponding to theft involving
the value of P5.00.47
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is
GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR No. 19110 affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 22, is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime of violating
P.D. No. 1612 for the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
Page 3 of 3