G.R. No. 249196, April 28, 2021
Dante Lopez y Atanacio, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Dante Lopez y Atanacio was charged with violation of the Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612). The Information alleged that on or about February 23, 2014, in Marikina City, he possessed a blue Mountain Bike with frame name “ARAYA,” valued at P100,000.00, which he knew or should have known to have been the subject of robbery or thievery, belonging to private complainant Rafael Mendoza. Mendoza claimed the bicycle was stolen from him on January 15, 2011, and he reported it in a police blotter. On February 23, 2014, Mendoza saw the bicycle being ridden by Magno Lopez (petitioner’s brother), who stated he received it from the petitioner. The bicycle was temporarily turned over to Mendoza but was later taken back by barangay order. The defense asserted that petitioner owned the bicycle, having purchased it from Bicycle Works around 1997 or 2002, and presented notarized affidavits from the shop’s president and chief mechanic. Magno Lopez testified the bicycle he was riding had different features (e.g., handlebar and front fork) from the one shown in Mendoza’s pictures. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted petitioner, ruling Mendoza’s ownership was established by the police blotter and shifting the burden to petitioner to overcome the presumption of fencing. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to two months of arresto mayor, finding the value of the bicycle was not proven.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of fencing.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decisions of the lower courts and ACQUITTED petitioner Dante Lopez y Atanacio. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the bicycle in issue beyond reasonable doubt. The essential elements of fencing, particularly that the article was derived from robbery or theft, were not proven. The police blotter alone was insufficient to prove Mendoza’s ownership or that the bicycle possessed by petitioner was the same one stolen. The evidence showed material differences between the bicycles: the stolen bicycle had a magnesium frame and an aluminum/silver fork, while petitioner’s bicycle had an aluminum frame and a blue fork. The presumption of fencing under Section 5 of PD 1612 cannot arise without first establishing the factual foundation that the property was stolen. The prosecution’s case rested merely on the disputable presumption, which cannot be the sole basis for a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution did not discharge its burden of proving guilt with moral certainty; thus, acquittal is warranted.