GR 134298; (August, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134298 , August 26, 1999
RAMON C. TAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Rosita Lim, proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries, discovered missing welding rods, propellers, and boat spare parts valued at approximately P48,000.00 after her employee, Manuelito Mendez, left in February 1991. An inventory confirmed the loss. Mendez was later arrested and admitted he and Gaudencio Dayop stole the items. Mendez pointed to petitioner Ramon C. Tan as the buyer who paid P13,000.00 for the stolen goods. An information was filed charging Tan with violating the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612) for knowingly receiving, keeping, acquiring, and possessing stolen spare parts valued at P48,130.00. At trial, the prosecution presented Lim, Victor Sy (who facilitated Mendez’s return), and Mendez. The defense presented Lim and Mendez as hostile witnesses and Tan himself. Tan denied knowing Mendez, buying the items, or being at his store at the time of the alleged delivery. The Regional Trial Court convicted Tan of fencing, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering him to indemnify Lim P18,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Tan appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully established the elements of fencing as against petitioner Ramon C. Tan.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and acquitted petitioner Ramon C. Tan. The prosecution failed to prove the elements of fencing beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, it did not establish that the items allegedly bought by Tan were the same items stolen from Lim. The evidence showed the stolen items were valued at P48,000.00, but the receipts presented by Lim for items allegedly purchased by Tan totaled only P18,000.00 and were under names other than her own (Asia Pacific and William Tan). The testimony of the confessed thief, Mendez, was deemed unreliable as it was uncorroborated and he was a self-confessed co-conspirator. The prosecution did not present the stolen items or satisfactorily prove they were the same items Tan allegedly possessed. Therefore, the element that the items were derived from the proceeds of the crime of theft was not proven. The presumption of fencing under P.D. No. 1612 could not apply due to this failure of proof. Petitioner was acquitted on reasonable doubt.