Dizon-Pamintuan vs.

People

G.R. No. 111426 July 11, 1994

Facts:

Teodoro Encarnacion, Undersecretary, Department of Public Works and Highways arrived at his
residence located at Better Living Subdivision, Parañaque at around 9:45 p.m. of 12 February 1988
coming from the Airport and immediately proceeded inside the house, leaving behind his driver and two
housemaids outside to pick-up his personal belongings from his case. 5 unidentified masked armed
persons appeared from the grassy portion of the lot beside the house and poked their guns to his driver
and two helpers and dragged them inside his house. The men pointed a gun at him and was made to lie
face down on the floor. Thereafter, the robbers ransacked the house and took away jewelries and other
personal properties including cash. After the intruders left the house he reported the matter immediately
to the police. He was then interviewed by the Parañaque police and was informed that an operation group
would be assigned to the case. He likewise reported the matter to the Western Police District on 15
February 1988. Two days later, a group of WPD operatives came over to his house and he was asked to
prepare a list of items of jewelry and other valuables that were lost including a sketch of distinctive items.
He was later told that some of the lost items were in Chinatown area as tipped by the informer the police
had dispatched. That an entrapment would be made with their participation, on 14 February 1988. As
such, they went to Camp Crame at around 9:00 a.m. and arrived at the vicinity of 733 Florentino Torres
Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila at about 10:00 a.m.; that he is with his wife posed as a buyer and were able to
recognize items of the jewelry stolen displayed at the stall being tended by Norma Dizon Pamintuan; the
pieces were: 1 earring and ring studded with diamonds worth P75,000 bought from estimator Nancy
Bacud, 1 set of earring diamond worth P15,000, and 1 gold chain with crucifix worth P3,000. Dizon-
Pamintuan was charged with violation of the Anti-Fencing Law (Criminal Case 88-64954). On the basis of
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Teodoro Encarnacion (one of the offended parties), Cp. Ignacio
Jao, Jr., and Pfc. Emmanuel Sanchez, both of the Western Police District, the trial court (Branch 20 of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila) promulgated on 16 November 1990 its decision, finding DizonPamintuan
guilty for violation of Presidential Decree 1612 beyond reasonable doubt, and sentenced her to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from 14 years of prison mayor to 18 years of reclusion temporal.
No civil liability was imposed in view of the recovery of the items. Dizon-Pamintuan then appealed her
conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA-GR CR 11024) where she raised two issues: (1) that the judgment
was based on a mere presumption, and (2) that the prosecution failed to show that the value of the
jewelry recovered is P93,000.00. On 29 March 1993, the Court of Appeals held that the guilt of Dizon-
Pamintuan was established beyond reasonabe doubt. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals was of the
opinion that there was not enough evidence to prove the value of the pieces of jewelry recovered, which
is essential to the imposition of the proper penalty under Section 3 of PD 1612. It opined that the trial
court erred in concluding that "the value of the recovered jewelries is P93,000.00 based on the bare
testimony of Teodoro Encarnacion and the self-serving list he submitted; and thus remanded the records
to the court of origin. Dizon-Pamintuan filed the petition for review.

Issue:

Whether the prosecution proved the existence of the third element in the crime of fencing, i.e. the
accused know or should have known that the items recovered from here were the proceeds of the crime
of robbery of theft.

Ruling:

Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law), 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."
Herein, there is no doubt that the first, second, and fourth elements were duly established. A robbery was
committed on 12 February 1988 in the house of Encarnacion who afterwards reported the incident to the
Parañaque Police, the Western Police District, the NBI, and the CIS, and submitted a list of the lost items
and sketches of the jewelry taken from them. Three of these items stolen, viz., (a) a pair of earrings and
ring studded with diamonds worth P75,000.00; (b) one set of earrings worth P15,000.00; and (c) a chain
with crucifix worth P3,000.00, were displayed for sale at a stall tended to by Dizon-Pamintuan in
Florentino Torres Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila. The public display of the articles for sale clearly manifested
an intent to gain on the part of Dizon-Pamintuan. As to the thrid element, one is deemed to know a
particular fact if he has the cognizance, consciousness or awareness thereof, of is aware of the existence
of something, or has the acquaintance with facts, or if he has something within the mind's grasp with
certitude and clarity. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense,
such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence unless he actually
believes that it does not exist. On the other hand, the words "should know" denote the fact that a person
of reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty to another or
would govern his conduct upon assumption that such fact exists. Knowledge refers to a mental state of
awareness about a fact. Since the court cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and state with certainty
what is contained therein, it must determine such knowledge with care from the overt acts of that person.
And given two equally plausible states of cognition or mental awareness, the court should choose the one
which sustains the constitutional presumption of innocence. Since Section 5 of PD 1612 expressly
provides that "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," it follows that Dizon-Pamintuan is
presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the items found in her possession were the proceeds of
robbery or theft. The presumption is reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise from the
established fact of her possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. This presumption does
not offend the presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law. Dizon-Pamintuan was unable
to rebut the presumption under PD 1612. She relied solely on the testimony of her brother which was
insufficient to overcome the presumption, and, on the contrary, even disclosed that Dizon-Pamintuan was
engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry and that she used to buy from a certain Fredo.