GR 100311; (May, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 100311 May 18, 1993
JUANITO LIM, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Juanito Lim was charged with violating Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). The information alleged that on or about March 1986, in Cagayan de Oro City, he willfully and feloniously received, possessed, kept, acquired, or dealt with various spare parts and items, including nine tires with rims, owned by Loui Anton Bond, knowing they were stolen. The prosecution evidence established that on March 1, 1986, Sergio Pabilona, with a military escort led by Sgt. Delfin Bacalso, used a Mercedes Benz truck owned by Lim to retrieve Pabilona’s belongings. Instead of proceeding directly, Sgt. Bacalso directed the group to the compound of ECG Mining Corporation in Barangay Tuburan, where they removed parts from heavy equipment using acetylene equipment owned by Lim. The stolen parts, including the nine tires with rims, were transported back and unloaded at Lim’s bodega near Sgt. Bacalso’s residence. Lim arrived, ordered the bodega closed, and the following morning was seen removing the nine tires with rims from his bodega and loading them onto his pick-up vehicle. Loui Anton Bond, the owner, reported the theft after his release from captivity. The trial court convicted Lim of fencing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the presumption of fencing under Section 5 of P.D. 1612 was not overthrown by Lim’s defense of denial and alibi.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner Juanito Lim for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612).
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Lim committed the acts constituting fencing. The presumption of fencing under Section 5 of P.D. 1612, which provides that mere possession of stolen goods is prima facie evidence of fencing, was applicable and was not rebutted by Lim’s denial and alibi. The Court further ruled that criminal intent (dolo) is not required for crimes punished by a special statute like the Anti-Fencing Law; the commission of the unlawful act itself constitutes the offense. The imposition of civil liability (payment of P206,320.00 minus the value of recovered parts) was proper under Section 3(a) of P.D. 1612 in relation to the accessory penalties of the Revised Penal Code.