TL;DR
The Supreme Court upheld Benito Estrella’s conviction for fencing, which is buying or selling stolen goods. The Court ruled that possessing stolen items, in this case, specialized Skydrol hydraulic fluid belonging to Philippine Airlines, is strong initial evidence of fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612. Estrella couldn’t prove he legally acquired the fluid, and his defense of denial was weak against the evidence. This means if you’re caught with stolen goods and can’t prove legitimate ownership, you’re likely to be presumed a fence and face penalties, even if you weren’t the original thief.
Unpacking Unexplained Possession: Did Estrella Fence Stolen Airline Fluid?
This case, Benito Estrella y Gili v. People of the Philippines, revolves around the crime of fencing, specifically the illegal possession and attempted sale of Skydrol hydraulic fluid, a specialized substance used in aircraft. The central legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved that Estrella was guilty of fencing, and if the presumption of fencing based on possession was correctly applied. The case delves into the elements of fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612, known as the Anti-Fencing Law, and the evidentiary weight of possessing goods derived from theft or robbery.
The facts presented by the prosecution established that Philippine Airlines (PAL) noticed unusually high Skydrol consumption despite downsizing operations, leading to an investigation. It was discovered that Aerojam Supply and Trading, owned by Estrella, was selling Skydrol at a low price to Air Philippines. Crucially, PAL was identified as the sole importer and user of Skydrol in five-gallon pails in the Philippines, according to the manufacturer. Police surveillance caught Estrella delivering three pails of Skydrol to Air Philippines. He failed to present any documentation for the goods, claiming a certain “Jupel” had the papers, who never appeared. PAL confirmed the Skydrol was from their stock, identifiable by unique manufacturer lot numbers.
Estrella, in his defense, claimed to be a legitimate aviation parts salesman, sourcing Skydrol from International Business Aviation, Inc. (IBAI), which had supposedly closed down. He argued PAL wasn’t the only user of Skydrol and denied knowing the fluid was stolen. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) found him guilty, affirming the prosecution’s evidence and the presumption of fencing. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case, focusing on whether the lower courts erred in their factual findings and legal conclusions.
The Supreme Court emphasized that petitions under Rule 45 should only raise questions of law, not fact. It reiterated the principle of according finality to factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the appellate court. The Court highlighted the exceptions to this rule but found none applicable in Estrella’s case. Thus, the Court primarily focused on whether the elements of fencing were proven, accepting the factual basis established by the lower courts.
The decision meticulously dissected the elements of fencing as defined in Section 2 of PD 1612:
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. – x x x “Fencing” is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
The Court systematically addressed each element:
- Theft: PAL demonstrated unusual Skydrol consumption, suggesting theft.
- Possession of Stolen Goods: Estrella was caught possessing and attempting to sell the Skydrol pails.
- Knowledge of Illegal Source: Estrella failed to prove legitimate acquisition and couldn’t produce documentation or “Jupel.”
- Intent to Gain: Possession itself, combined with the attempted sale, indicated intent to profit.
A crucial aspect of the ruling is the application of the presumption of fencing under Section 5 of PD 1612:
SECTION 5. Presumption of Fencing. – Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
This presumption shifted the burden to Estrella to prove his innocence, which he failed to do. His denial and frame-up defense were deemed weak and unsubstantiated. The Court underscored that fencing is malum prohibitum, meaning intent is not a primary factor; the act itself of dealing with stolen goods is unlawful. Positive testimonies from prosecution witnesses, particularly PO3 Bolido and Yao, further weakened Estrella’s defense.
Regarding the penalty, the Court modified the RTC’s sentence to align with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, setting a minimum and maximum term within the range of prision mayor in its maximum period, considering the value of the stolen goods (P27,000.00). The Court also acknowledged the disparity in penalties between fencing and the underlying crimes of theft or robbery after Republic Act No. 10951 adjusted theft penalties but not fencing. However, it clarified that adjusting penalties is a legislative function, and the Court must apply the law as it stands, urging legislative review to address this incongruence.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that unexplained possession of stolen goods creates a strong presumption of fencing. It highlights the importance of due diligence in acquiring goods and the legal consequences of dealing with items from questionable sources. The case serves as a significant reminder of the reach of the Anti-Fencing Law and the evidentiary weight given to possession in prosecuting this crime.
FAQs
| What is ‘fencing’ in legal terms? | Fencing is the act of buying, selling, or dealing in stolen goods, with intent to gain, knowing or should have known they were stolen. |
| What law defines and penalizes fencing in the Philippines? | Presidential Decree No. 1612, also known as the Anti-Fencing Law, defines and penalizes the crime of fencing. |
| What is ‘prima facie’ evidence of fencing? | Under PD 1612, mere possession of stolen goods is considered ‘prima facie’ evidence, meaning it’s sufficient to presume fencing unless proven otherwise. |
| Did Estrella have to be the original thief to be guilty of fencing? | No. Fencing is a separate crime from theft or robbery. It punishes those who deal with stolen goods after the original crime. |
| What was Estrella’s main defense? | Estrella primarily claimed denial and frame-up, arguing he didn’t know the Skydrol was stolen and was unjustly accused. |
| Why was Estrella’s defense not successful? | His defense was weak because he failed to present evidence of legitimate acquisition, couldn’t produce his supposed supplier, and his claims were contradicted by prosecution witnesses and the presumption of fencing. |
| What is the practical implication of this case? | This case reinforces that possessing stolen goods without proof of legal acquisition can lead to a fencing conviction, even without direct proof of knowledge of the theft. It emphasizes the risk of dealing with goods from uncertain sources. |
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Estrella v. People, G.R. No. 212942, June 17, 2020
Leave a Reply