GR 146584; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146584 ; July 12, 2004
ERNESTO FRANCISCO y SPENOCILLA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Ernesto Francisco was charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612). The prosecution alleged that in November 1991, he bought several pieces of jewelry from Pacita Linghon, a former housemaid of private complainant Jovita Rodriguez. The jewelry, which included a pair of earrings, a bracelet, and rings with a total alleged value of P655,000, had been stolen from Rodriguez’s locked cabinet. Pacita, through her brother Macario, sold the items to Francisco at his shop, which bore a “We buy gold” sign. Upon discovery of the theft, Rodriguez filed a complaint. Pacita, in a sworn statement, identified “Mang Erning” of Meycauayan as the buyer and later pointed to Francisco at his shop.
The defense presented a different account. Francisco testified that he was a legitimate jeweler who purchased the items from Macario Linghon, whom he had known for years as a fellow jeweler and gold supplier. He asserted he had no knowledge the items were stolen, as Macario presented them as his own property. The Regional Trial Court convicted Francisco, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of the crime of fencing, particularly that the accused knew or should have known the items he purchased were derived from the proceeds of theft or robbery.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED Ernesto Francisco. The Court emphasized that under P.D. No. 1612, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused bought or received stolen property but also that he knew or should have known of its illicit origin. This “should have known” element requires proof of facts and circumstances that would induce a reasonable man to believe the property was stolen. The prosecution failed to meet this burden.
The Court found no circumstantial evidence indicating Francisco’s guilty knowledge. The mere fact that he was in the business of buying gold and that the seller was not the registered owner is insufficient. Macario Linghon was known to Francisco as a fellow jeweler, and there was no evidence of suspiciously low purchase prices or clandestine manner of sale that should have alerted Francisco. The prosecution’s heavy reliance on Pacita’s extrajudicial confession was misplaced, as it was inadmissible against Francisco, being hearsay. Consequently, the element of scienter was not established beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.