G.R. No.

100311 May 18, 1993 From the decision dated March 20,
1989 in Criminal Case No. 7526
JUANITO LIM, petitioner, entitled "People of the
vs. Philippines vs. Juanito Lim," the
dispositive portion of which states:
THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. WHEREFORE, premises
considered, judgment is
Armando S. Kho for petitioner. hereby rendered finding
accused guilty beyond
MELO, J.: reasonable doubt of
violating PD 1612 (Anti-
What makes the case at bar an interesting subject Fencing Law) and
for study is the dearth of jurisprudence involving consequently, pursuant to
violations of the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 or Sec. 3 (a) of said PD 1612
Presidential Decree No. 1612. and the provisions of the
Indeterminate Sentence
Inasmuch as the appellant below was not able to
Law, he is hereby
overthrow the presumption of fencing embodied
sentenced to serve
under Section 5 of the law in point, his conviction
imprisonment ranging from
for the misdeed, as rendered by the trial court, was
8 years of Prision Mayoras
affirmed by respondent Court of Appeals, through
minimum to 14 years, 8
Justice Gloria Paras with whom Justices Elbinias
months and 1 day
and Abad Santos, Jr. concurred (p. 27, Rollo).
of reclusion temporal as
Hence, the petition before us which resolves on the maximum with the
ensuing backdrop culled from the text of the accessories of the law and
decision appealed from: to pay the private offended
party the sum of
P206,320.00 minus the
value of the spare parts
 recovered and in the the following spare parts
possession of Sgt. and item, to wit:
Dabaitan, without
however, subsidiary xxx xxx xxx
imprisonment in case of
insolvency. the said spare parts and
items being owned by and
SO ORDERED. belonging to one Loui
Anton Bond, well knowing
the accused appealed to this Court. that the same were stolen
or should be known to him
Juanito Lim, the accused, was charged to have been derived from
in an information with violation of PD the proceeds of the crime
1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) which was of Theft, but inspite of such
allegedly committed as follows: knowledge, accused
allowed the same to be
That on or about March, stored or kept in his
1986, in the City of bodega and subsequently
Cagayan de Oro, bought or disposed of the
Philippines, and within the nine (9) pieces of tires with
jurisdiction of this rims, to the damage and
Honorable Court, the prejudice of the offended
abovenamed accused, party Loui Anton Bond in
with intent to gain for the total amount of
himself or for another, did P206,320.00, Philippine
then and there willfully, Currency.
unlawfully and feloniously
receive, possess, keep Contrary to and in violation
and acquire, or deal with of P.D. 1612.
A plea of "not guilty" was entered by the truck because, according to him,
the accused upon the arraignment. he too had some lumber to load in
Barangay Taglimao; that Pabilona had
The evidence of the prosecution tried earlier given Sgt. Bacalso P600.00 for
to establish that Sergio Pabilona had truck rental (id., p. 6); that at about
vacated his house in Barangay 2:00 p.m. Pabilona, his men and their
Tiglimao, Cagayan de Oro City, military escort left Lapasan on board
because of the worsening communist the Mercedes Benz truck for Barangay
insurgency problem in that barangay, Taglimao, arriving thereat at about
of which he used to be the barangay 5:00 o'clock that same afternoon; that
captain; that he had taken temporary after they have rested for a while,
residence in Barangay Pagatpat, also Pabilona then ordered his men to
of Cagayan de Oro City (t.s.n., gather his belongings inside his house,
September 22, 1987, p. 1); that on or but he was stopped by Sgt. Bacalso
about noon of March 1, 1986, Pabilona who wanted that they first proceed to
and the eight men he had requested to the next barangay, Barangay Tuburan,
help him retrieve his belongings in his because his lumber were allegedly
house in Barangay Tiglimao, there; that Pabilona protested because
converged at the residence his Sgt. his request for military escort was only
Delfin Bacalso at Lapasan, Cagayan up to Barangay Taglimao; that he was
de Oro City; that Sgt. Bacalso and nine prevailed upon by Sgt. Bacalso to first
other constabulary soldiers, with the proceed to Barangay Tuburan
former as leader, were to escort (tsn., id., p. 7); that upon arriving in
Pabilona and his men in going to Barangay Tuburan, Sgt. Bacalso
Barangay Tiglimao; that Pabilona had ordered the men of Pabilona to
earlier requested for such a military proceed to the compound of ECG
escort (id., p. 5); that soon after, a Mining Corporation and to remove
Mercedes Benz truck, owned by from the heavy equipment found
accused Juanito Lim, arrived; that it therein their parts; that he also ordered
was Sgt. Bacalso who contracted for them to unload and to carry with them
the acetylene equipment owned by his "bodega" be closed; that Pabilona
accused-appellant Juanito Lim which and his men then rode on the truck
was covered by canvass on board the again and proceeded to barangay
truck; that as it was already dark, and Pagatpat where they unloaded the
afraid of being bitten by snakes, the personal belongings of Pabilona; that
men of Pabilona started removing the the following morning, the men of
parts of the heavy equipment only in Pabilona went to the house of Sgt.
the early morning the following day, Bacalso, as they were told by the latter
March 2, 1986; that their job having to do so, but Sgt. Bacalso was out of
been done, they brought the various his house; that while waiting for Sgt.
heavy equipment parts, among which Bacalso, the men of Pabilona saw the
were nine tires with rims, to the accused arrived at his "bodega" on
Mercedes Benz truck and loaded them board his yellow pick-up vehicle; that
thereon; that Pabilona, his men and they then saw the accused remove
their military escort repaired back to from his "bodega" the nine tires with
Barangay Taglimao and loaded the rims, load them on his yellow pick-up
personal belongings of Pabilona; that vehicle and then drive away; that soon
they then drove back to Lapasan, after, Sgt. Bacalso arrived, only to tell
stopping at the "bodega" of accused the men waiting for him that they have
Juanito Lim which was located a few nothing more to collect from him
meters away from the residence of because they already incurred an
Sgt. Bacalso; that long after their overdraft, so, the men left for their
arrival, accused Juanito Lim also respective homes; that at the time the
arrived on board his pick-up vehicle; heavy equipment was being
that Sgt. Bacalso then ordered the cannibalized, the President and
men of Pabilona to unload acetylene General Manager of BCG Mining
equipment and the various heavy Corporation, Loui Anton Bond, an
equipment parts and to deposit them Australian national, was being held
inside the "bodega" of accused Juanito captive by the New People's Army,
Lim, after which the latter ordered that however, after his release in June
1986, he immediately reported to the court in its Order dated May 3,
police authorities the thievery 1989. . . (pp. 27-30, Rollo.)
committed in his company's compound
in Barangay Tuburan; that he also Inculpation of petitioner was anchored on the
caused to be estimated by Engr. principal observation that the witnesses who
Kionisala the value of the items taken testified against him had no ulterior motive to
from the heavy equipment; that Engr. prevaricate which rendered their testimony worthy
Kionisala placed the total value of the of credence when juxtaposed with petitioner's
items taken at P470,310.00; and that defense of denial and alibi. Respondent court also
Sgt. Dabatian, of the Cagayan de Oro did not see it fit to reverse the court of origin just
City Police, conducted an because the witnesses against petitioner were not
investigation, which culminated in the included as co-defendants because as observed
filing of the instant case by the City also by the trial court, petitioner did not bother to
Fiscal against accused Juanito Lim for impugn the resolution of the inquest fiscal who
violation of Presidential Decree No. conducted the preliminary investigation.
1612.
On the absence of the so-called evidence to
Aside from denying the commission of indicate that it was petitioner who sold or disposed
the offense charged, the accused also of the spare parts recovered from a store named
set up the defense of alibi, which the Basic Diesel Parts, respondent court remarked:
lower court did not believe.
In the case at bar, the prosecution has
The trial court found the accused guilty duly proved that the appellant had
as charged and sentence him dealt with the stolen items and had
accordingly. possession of the same because the
said spare parts and tires which were
A reconsideration of the aforesaid the subject of thievery or robbery for
decision, which was sought by the they were removed from the heavy
accused, was denied by the lower equipment of Loui Bond, the private
complainant, without the latter's
knowledge and consent, were detach the spare parts from the heavy
unloaded from the truck of the equipment of the private complainant
appellant and kept in his bodega. And and the said acetylene equipment was
appellant was present during such also unloaded at the bodega of the
unloading and had even ordered the appellant; that the following morning
bodega closed after such unloading to after the said spare parts, acetylene
his bodega. equipment and tires were deposited in
his bodega, he brought out the said
Under such duly proven facts and tires from his bodega and loaded them
circumstances, there is the in his pick-up vehicle; and his bodega
presumption of fencing on the part of in near the house of Sgt. Bacalso. (p.
the appellant as provided in the 32, Rollo.)
aforequoted Sec. 5 of PD 1612.
With respect to petitioner's argument that the Anti-
The appellant has not destroyed the Fencing Law does not contemplate the inclusion of
aforesaid presumption. And the charge civil liability as part of the penalty for violation
against him was further strengthened thereof, respondent court opined that when he was
by the facts and circumstances that he instructed to pay the sum of P206,320.00 less the
owned the truck that transported the value of the spare parts recovered, such imposition
removed spare parts from barangay refers to his civil liability, in line with the penal
Tuburan to his bodega; that the said axiom that a person criminally liable is also civilly
vehicle which was allegedly hired to liable.
transport the belongings of Pabilona at
Barangay Taglimao to his place at Did respondent court err in upholding the judgment
Pagatpat did not immediately proceed of the trial court?
to Pagatpat to unload Pabilona's
things; instead, from Taglimao the In his efforts to impress an affirmative response to
truck proceeded immediately to the this basic query, petitioner formulates four
appellant's bodega; that he owned the propositions which all boil down to the ultimate
acetylene equipment that was used to
issue of proof beyond reasonable doubt to support Q. The NPA's told you
conviction. about the cannibalization
of your heavy
Petitioner entertains a different perception on the equipment(s) ?
alleged intrinsic substance of the People's
evidence by suggesting that the prosecution A. Correct, they told me
witnesses testified against him so that the private that my heavy
complainant would not press charges against the equipment(s) were
prosecution witnesses. It is difficult to grasp cannibalized. When I was
petitioner's logic along this line because if this were released and came back to
so, then, every accusing finger collectively pointed Cagayan de Oro City
towards a single individual will have to be and lots of people from the
construed as a mere ploy to save one's own skin Tuburan informed me that
against prosecution. Independently of petitioner's my heavy equipment(s)
cold aspersion and delusion of paranoia, the were cannibalized by Sgt.
pleadings submitted to this Court hardly support Bacalso and Barangay
his pretense. An unwarranted assumption Captain Pabilona. (TSN,
expressed by petitioner must perforce deserve 2/2/89, p. 9; Emphasis
scant consideration especially so when he candidly supplied)
admitted that he does not know Navarro, Bahian
and Pabilona who took the witness stand (p. but the foregoing open-court declaration does not
31, Rollo). exclude petitioner's culpability subsequent to the
loss of the heavy equipment. It may convey the
To bolster petitioner's claim that the prosecution message that it was Sgt. Bacalso and Barangay
witnesses were the perpetrators of the crime of Captain Pabilona who carted away the spare parts,
theft or robbery and are thus polluted, a portion of but it does not necessarily follow that petitioner did
private complainant Loui Anton Bond's statement not get his other end of the bargain, more so when
was even lifted from the stenographic notes: it was established that the things ripped off were
loaded on thence unloaded from his truck and kept
Court:
in his bodega whose door was even closed (Soriano vs. People, 88 Phil., 368 [1951];
thereafter per his instructions (p. 32, Rollo). 1 Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Eleventh Rev. Ed.,
1991, p. 45; 1 Aquino, Revised Penal Code, 1988
Further to the argument concerning the non- Ed., p. 197). And what was the external demeanor
inclusion of the prosecution witnesses as additional which petitioner showed from the which the trial
accused in the case for violation of the Anti- court and respondent court inferred animus
Fencing Law, it may be observed that this bare furandi? These circumstances were vividly spelled
assertion overlooks the fact that it is the fiscal, as in the body of the judgment which petitioner chose
a quasi-judicial officer, who assumes full discretion to blandly impugn and over which he remains
and control of the case and this faculty may not be indifferent even at this crucial stage. Withal, the
interfered with, for a prosecutor may not be sinister mental state is presumed from the
compelled by mandamus to file a criminal commission of an unlawful act in bringing out the
information where he is convinced that he does not tires from his bodega which were loaded on his
have the necessary evidence against an individual pick-up (People vs. Sia Teb Ban, 54 Phil., 52
(Section 5, Rule 110, Revised Rules on Criminal [1929]; 1 Reyes, supra at p. 46; Section 3(b), Rule
Procedure; Quizo vs. Sandiganbayan, 149 SCRA 131, Revised Rules on Evidence). At any
108 [1987]; 2 Regalado, Remedial Law rate, dolo is not required in crimes punished by a
Compendium, Sixth Rev. Ed., 1989, p. 195). Verily, special statute like the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979
the matter of prosecuting witnesses (Reyes vs. (U.S. vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128 [1909];
Camilon, 192 SCRA 445 [1990]; 1 Reyes, supra at p. 58) because it is the act
4 Herrera, Remedial Law, 1992 Ed., p. 39). alone, irrespective of the motives which constitutes
the offense (U.S. vs. Siy Cong Bieng, et al., 30
On the aspect of animus furandi, petitioner is of the Phil., 577 (1915); 1 Reyes, supra, at p. 59;
belief that this element was not clearly established 1 Aquino, supra, at p. 52). Verily, when it was
by the People's evidence and he, therefore, draws proved that petitioner committed the unlawful acts
the conclusion that respondent court seriously alleged in the information, it was properly
erred in presuming the existence of intent to gain. presumed that they were committed with full
Again, this supposition ignores the fact that intent knowledge and with criminal intent, and it was
to gain is a mental state, the existence of which is incumbent upon him to rebut such a presumption
demonstrated by the overt acts of a person a burden which petitioner regrettably failed to
discharge (United States vs. Tria, 17 Phil., 303 a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the
(1910); 1 Aquino, supra, at p. 45). Moreover, the value of the property involved is more
presumption of fencing under Section 5 of than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding
Presidential Decree No. 1612 that: 22,000 pesos; if the value of such
property exceeds the latter sum, the
Mere possession of any good, article, penalty provided in this paragraph
item, object, or anything of value which shall be imposed in its maximum
has been the subject of robbery or period, adding one year for each
thievery shall be prima facie evidence additional 10,000 pesos; but the total
of fencing. penalty which may be imposed shall
not exceed twenty years. In such
must be upheld in the light of petitioner's cases, the penalty shall be
shallow demurrer premised on a denial and termed reclusion temporal and the
abili, since a disputable presumption on this accessory penalty pertaining thereto
score is sufficient until overcome by contrary provided in the Revised Penal Code
evidence (Sibal and Salazar, Compendium shall also be imposed.
on Evidence, Second Ed., 1988, p. 290).
There is thus no ambiguity to speak of considering
Lastly, it is puerile for petitioner to contend that the that the message of the aforequoted section is too
order for him to pay the sum of P206,320.00, less clear to need clarification.
the value of the spare parts recovered in the
possession of Sgt. Pabatian, as civil indemnity is WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed
unauthorized under Presidential Decree No. 1612, and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated
because Section 3 (a) thereof includes the February 15, 1991 is hereby AFFIRMED.
accessory penalty pertaining thereto vis-a-
vis Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code: SO ORDERED.

Sec. 3. Penalties. Any person guilty