Ong vs. People

Mere possession of stolen goods constitutes prima facie evidence of fencing under P.D. 1612, which the accused must rebut with proof of a legitimate transaction; a sales invoice from a fictitious supplier is insufficient to overcome this presumption.

Francisco Azajar stored thirty-eight Firestone truck tires in a Parañaque warehouse. On February 17, 1995, the tires were stolen after the warehouse gate was forcibly opened. Azajar canvassed local establishments and, on February 24, 1995, discovered one of his stolen tires at Jong's Marketing in Paco, Manila, a store owned by Jaime Ong.

• The Theft and Discovery: Azajar proved ownership of 44 tires via Sales Invoice and Inventory List. After 6 were sold, 38 were stored. Caretaker Jose Cabal reported the 38 tires stolen on February 17, 1995. Azajar and Cabal reported the robbery to the Southern Police District. Azajar later found one tire at Ong's store, recognized by chalk marking and serial number, and reported the finding to Chief Inspector Mariano Fegarido.
• The Buy-Bust Operation: On February 27, 1995, a police team conducted a buy-bust. Poseur-buyer Tito Atienza bought one tire for ₱5,000. Ong then instructed helpers to bring out 12 more tires from his adjacent warehouse. Azajar entered, identified all 13 tires by serial number, and gave a pre-arranged signal. Police arrested Ong and confiscated the tires.
• The Defense's Version: Ong, a tire dealer for 24 years, claimed that on February 18, 1995, a certain Ramon Go offered 13 tires for ₱3,500 each. Ong bought them for ₱45,500 and received a Sales Invoice from Gold Link Hardware & General Merchandise. He displayed one tire and stored the rest, denying knowledge that they were stolen.

• Legitimate Transaction: Petitioner argued that he relied on the receipt issued by Ramon Go of Gold Link, proving a legitimate purchase.
• Lack of Knowledge: Petitioner maintained that he had no knowledge the tires were stolen, asserting he was a legitimate businessman acting in good faith.

• Prima Facie Presumption: Respondent countered that possession of stolen items raises a presumption of fencing under Section 5 of P.D. 1612.
• Failure of Diligence: Respondent argued that petitioner, a veteran tire dealer, failed to exercise prudence by not verifying Go's ownership or securing a police clearance as required by Section 6 of P.D. 1612.
• Fictitious Source: Respondent maintained that Gold Link and its address were proven fictitious, invalidating the receipt petitioner relied upon.

• Elements of Fencing: Whether the prosecution proved all the elements of fencing under P.D. 1612 beyond reasonable doubt.
• Rebuttal of Presumption: Whether the presentation of a sales invoice from a fictitious supplier is sufficient to rebut the prima facie presumption of fencing arising from possession of stolen goods.

• Elements of Fencing: All elements were established. Robbery was proven by Azajar's testimony and the police report. Petitioner possessed and sold items derived from it. Knowledge was inferred because petitioner, a 24-year veteran, should have known the tires were stolen given the suspicious one-day transaction with an unknown seller who was not regularly engaged in the business. Intent to gain was evident when petitioner sold the tire to the poseur-buyer.
• Rebuttal of Presumption: The presumption was not rebutted. A sales invoice is disputable proof of a legitimate transaction. The prosecution proved Gold Link was fictitious, rendering the invoice invalid. Petitioner's failure to ask for proof of ownership or secure a police clearance under Section 6 of P.D. 1612 demonstrated a lack of prudence, failing to overcome the prima facie presumption.

• Presumption of Fencing — Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or theft shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. Applied: Petitioner's possession of 13 stolen tires triggered the presumption, shifting the burden of evidence to him to prove legitimate acquisition, which he failed to do.
• Fencing as Malum Prohibitum — Fencing is malum prohibitum, penalized regardless of criminal intent, focusing on the prohibited act of dealing in stolen goods. Applied: P.D. 1612 creates a presumption from possession and prescribes penalty based on property value.

• "Circumstances normally exist to forewarn, for instance, a reasonably vigilant buyer that the object of the sale may have been derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft. Such circumstances include the time and place of the sale, both of which may not be in accord with the usual practices of commerce. The nature and condition of the goods sold, and the fact that the seller is not regularly engaged in the business of selling goods may likewise suggest the illegality of their source, and therefore should caution the buyer." — Rationalizes the presumption of fencing arising from possession of stolen items.
• "Logically, and for all practical purposes, the issuance of a sales invoice or receipt is proof of a legitimate transaction and may be raised as a defense in the charge of fencing; however, that defense is disputable." — Clarifies that a receipt alone does not automatically legitimize a fencing transaction.

• Dela Torre v. COMELEC, 327 Phil. 1144 (1996) — Followed. Circumstances such as time, place, and nature of sale should forewarn a vigilant buyer of illegality, justifying the prima facie presumption of fencing.
• Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, G.R. No. 111426 (1994) — Followed. Cited for the essential elements of fencing and the principle that fencing is malum prohibitum.
• D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Esguerra, 328 Phil. 1168 (1996) — Followed. Cited for the principle that a sales invoice/receipt, while proof of a legitimate transaction, is a disputable defense in fencing cases.

• P.D. 1612, Sec. 2(a) — Defines fencing as the act of buying, receiving, possessing, keeping, acquiring, concealing, selling, or disposing of any item derived from robbery or theft, with intent to gain, knowing or having reason to believe it was derived from such crimes. Applied as the statutory basis for conviction.
• P.D. 1612, Sec. 5 — Prescribes that mere possession of stolen goods shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. Applied to shift the burden to petitioner upon proof of possession of the stolen tires.
• P.D. 1612, Sec. 6 — Requires stores dealing in items from unlicensed dealers to secure clearance/permit from the police station commander before offering the items for sale. Applied to show petitioner's lack of diligence, as he had previously secured such clearances but failed to do so for this transaction.
• Rule 131, Sec. 3(p), Revised Rules of Court — Disputable presumption that private transactions have been fair and regular. Applied to uphold the valuation of the tires based on Azajar's purchase from Philtread.

Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Bienvenido L. Reyes