G.R. No. 139250 ; August 15, 2000
Gabriel Capili, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gabriel Capili and his wife were charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612). The information alleged that on or about November 5, 1993, they received, possessed, and disposed of assorted jewelry and old U.S. coins valued at ₱3,000,000.00, which they knew or should have known were derived from theft. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of the theft victim, Christine Diokno, and the principal thief, Michael Manzo.
Diokno testified that her house was robbed, and items belonging to her and her mother were stolen. Manzo, the former houseboy, admitted the theft and stated he sold the stolen items to Capili for ₱50,000.00. Manzo testified that he informed Capili the items were stolen and that he received partial payment. Some of the stolen items were later recovered from Capili and positively identified by Diokno during the police investigation and trial.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Gabriel Capili for violation of P.D. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law).

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction with modification on the penalty. The Court held that all elements of fencing under P.D. 1612 were proven beyond reasonable doubt. First, a crime of theft was conclusively established through Manzo’s judicial confession and Diokno’s testimony. Second, Capili bought, received, possessed, kept, and disposed of the stolen items, as evidenced by Manzo’s testimony and the recovery of items from Capili. Third, Capili knew or should have known the items were stolen, as Manzo explicitly informed him of their illicit origin. The defense of denial could not prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the principal thief.
Regarding the penalty, the Court modified the sentence. Under P.D. 1612, the penalty is prision mayor maximum if the value of the fenced items exceeds ₱22,000.00. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower in degree (prision correccional maximum), and the maximum term is prision mayor maximum, with an additional two years since the value (₱3,000,000.00) exceeded ₱22,000.00 by more than ₱20,000.00. The Supreme Court thus imposed an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to thirteen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum.