G.R. No. 212942 , June 17, 2020
Benito Estrella y Gili, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

An Information dated June 29, 1999, charged Benito Estrella y Gili (petitioner) with violating Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). The charge alleged that on or about June 22, 1999, in Pasay City, petitioner, with intent to gain, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously acquired, possessed, sold, and disposed of three pails of Skydrol LD 4 hydraulic fluid, knowing or should have known they were stolen, to the damage of Philippine Airlines (PAL). Petitioner pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution established that PAL was the sole importer of Skydrol hydraulic fluid in the Philippines, and the fluid was not available in the local market. PAL noticed unusually high usage of Skydrol despite downsizing its fleet. An investigation revealed that petitioner, through his business Aerojam Supply and Trading, was selling Skydrol to Air Philippines at a low price. Surveillance operations on June 19 and 22, 1999, conducted by the PNP-CIDG, photographed petitioner driving a jeep and apprehended him while he was about to deliver three pails of Skydrol to Air Philippines. Petitioner could not produce any documents for the merchandise. A PAL representative confirmed the Skydrol was part of PAL’s stock.
Petitioner testified he was a salesman of aircraft parts and obtained his Skydrol supply from International Business Aviation, Inc. (IBAI), which had since closed. He denied stealing the fluid and claimed other airlines also used Skydrol. A witness for petitioner, Alvin Ygona, testified that the manufacturer’s lot numbers on the pails were not exclusive to any single airline.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of fencing and sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the conviction of petitioner for violation of PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law); specifically, whether the prosecution proved all the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the petition raised factual issues, which are not proper in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, as only questions of law are allowed. The factual findings of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, are accorded finality and respect, as no exceptional circumstances warranted a deviation. The Court found no error in the lower courts’ appreciation of the evidence.
The prosecution successfully established all elements of fencing under PD 1612: (1) a crime of robbery or theft had been committed; (2) the accused bought, received, possessed, kept, acquired, concealed, sold, or disposed of the stolen articles; (3) the accused knew or should have known that the articles were the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and (4) there was intent on the part of the accused to gain for himself or another.
The evidence showed that the Skydrol was stolen from PAL (proceeds of theft). Petitioner was caught in possession of and attempting to sell the stolen articles. Given that PAL was the sole importer and the fluid was not locally available, petitioner knew or should have known the items were stolen, especially since he could not provide any documentation for them. His possession and attempted sale demonstrated an intent to gain. Petitioner’s defenses of denial and frame-up were deemed unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive evidence presented by the prosecution.