G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018. Ireneo Cahulogan, Petitioner, vs. People of The PHILIPPINES, Respondent

1/28/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018.*

IRENEO CAHULOGAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; An appeal in

criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of
the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the
appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.—
Time and again, it has been held that an appeal in criminal cases
opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the
reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the
appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. The
appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case
and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the
judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper
provision of the penal law.
Criminal Law; Fencing; Words and Phrases; Section 2 of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1612 defines Fencing as “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 other 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.”—Section 2 of PD 1612 defines Fencing as “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 other 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 same Section also states that
a Fence “includes any person, firm, association, corporation or
partnership or other organization who/which commits the act of
fencing.”
Same; Same; Elements of Fencing.—The essential elements of
the crime of fencing are as follows: (a) a crime of robbery or theft
has been committed; (b) the accused, who is not a principal or an
accomp-
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177476058d03f39f157003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.

87
VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 87

Cahulogan vs. People
lice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys,

receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys
and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything
of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft; (c) the accused knew or should have known that the said
article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and (d) there is, on the part of
one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another. Notably, Fencing is
a malum prohibitum, and PD 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of
Fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any good, article,
item, object or anything of value, which has been the subject of robbery or
theft; and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property.
Same; Same; Penalties; While the crime of Fencing is defined

and penalized by a special penal law, the penalty provided therein
is taken from the nomenclature in the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
—Notably, while the crime of Fencing is defined and penalized by
a special penal law, the penalty provided therein is taken from
the nomenclature in the Revised Penal Code (RPC). In Peralta v.
People, 838 SCRA 350 (2017), the Court discussed the proper
treatment of penalties found in special penal laws vis-à-vis Act
No. 4103, otherwise known as the “Indeterminate Sentence Law,”
viz.: Meanwhile, Sec. 1 of Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), provides that if the offense is
ostensibly punished under a special law, the minimum and
maximum prison term of the indeterminate sentence shall not be
beyond what the special law prescribed. Be that as it may, the
Court had clarified in the landmark ruling of People v. Simon that
the situation is different where although the offense is defined in
a special law, the penalty therefor is taken from the technical
nomenclature in the RPC. Under such circumstance, the legal
effects under the system of penalties native to the Code would
also necessarily apply to the special law. Otherwise stated, if the
special penal law adopts the nomenclature of the penalties under
the RPC, the ascertainment of the indeterminate sentence will be
based on the rules applied for those crimes punishable under the
RPC.
Same; Same; In Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 234 SCRA 63

(1994), where the Supreme Court (SC) held that while a Fence may
be prosecuted either as an accessory of Robbery/Theft or a
principal for

88
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fencing, there is a preference for the prosecution of the latter

as it provides for harsher penalties.—The Court notes that as may
be gleaned from its whereas clauses, PD 1612 was enacted in
order to provide harsher penalties to those who would acquire
properties which are proceeds of the crimes of Robbery or Theft,
who prior to the enactment of said law, were punished merely as
accessories after the fact of the said crimes. This rationale was
echoed in Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 234 SCRA 63 (1994), where
the Court held that while a Fence may be prosecuted either as an
accessory of Robbery/Theft or a principal for Fencing, there is a
preference for the prosecution of the latter as it provides for
harsher penalties.
Same; Same; Penalties; While Presidential Decree (PD) No.
1612 penalizes those who acquire properties which are proceeds of
Robbery or Theft, its prescribed penalties are similar to the latter
crime in that they are largely dependent on the value of the said
properties.—While PD 1612 penalizes those who acquire
properties which are proceeds of Robbery or Theft, its prescribed
penalties are similar to the latter crime in that they are largely
dependent on the value of the said properties. In fact, a reading of
Section 3 of PD 1612 and Article 309 of the RPC (which provides
for the prescribed penalties for the crime of Theft) reveals that
both provisions use the same graduations of property value to
determine the prescribed penalty; in particular, if the value: (a)
exceeds P22,000.00, with additional penalties for each additional
P10,000.00; (b) is more than P12,000.00 but not exceeding
P22,000.00; (c) is more than P6,000.00 but not exceeding
P12,000.00; (d) is more than P200.00 but not exceeding P6,000.00;
(e) is more than P50.00 but not exceeding P200.00; and (f) does
not exceed P5.00. However, with the recent enactment of Republic
Act No. 10951, which adjusted the values of the property and
damage on which various penalties are based, taking into
consideration the present value of money, as opposed to its
archaic values when the RPC was enacted in 1932, the graduation
of values in Article 309 was substantially amended, without any
concomitant adjustment for PD 1612. This development would

then result in instances where a Fence, which is theoretically a
mere accessory to the crime of Robbery/Theft, will be punished
more severely than the principal of such latter crimes. This
incongruence in penalties therefore, impels an adjustment of
penalties.

89
VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 89

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Adonis Gumahad for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1
filed by petitioner Ireneo Cahulogan (petitioner) assailing
the Decision2 dated November 6, 2015 and the Resolution3
dated June 8, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-
G.R. CR No. 01126-MIN, which affirmed the Judgment4
dated October 4, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of
Cagayan De Oro City, Misamis Oriental, Branch 41 (RTC)
in Crim. Case No. 2011-507, convicting petitioner of the
crime of Fencing, defined and penalized under Presidential
Decree No. (PD) 1612, otherwise known as the “Anti-
Fencing Law of 1979.”5

The Facts

On April 18, 2011, an Information6 was filed before the
RTC charging petitioner with the crime of Fencing, the
accusatory portion of which reads:
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 3-12.

2 Id., at pp. 16-30. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M.
Santos, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Henri Jean Paul
B. Inting, concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 39-41. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M.

Santos, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Edgardo T.
Lloren, concurring.
4 CA Rollo, pp. 28-34. Penned by Presiding Judge Jeoffre W. Acebido.
5 (March 2, 1979).
6 Records, p. 2.

90

That on or about January 14, 2011[,] at about 4:00 o’clock

[sic] in the afternoon, at Bugo, Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above named accused, without the knowledge
and consent of the owner thereof, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously buy, receive, possess,
keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or in any manner
deal, Two Hundred Ten (210) cases of Coca-Cola products
worth P52,476.00 owned by and belonging to the offended
party Johnson Tan which accused know, or should be
known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of Theft, to the damage and prejudice of said owner in
the aforesaid sum of P52,476.00.
Contrary to Presidential Decree No. 1612, otherwise
known as Anti-Fencing Law of 1979.7
The prosecution alleged that private complainant

Johnson Tan (Tan), a businessman engaged in transporting
Coca-Cola products, instructed his truck driver and helper,
Braulio Lopez (Lopez) and Loreto Lariosa (Lariosa), to
deliver 210 cases of Coca-Cola products (subject items)
worth P52,476.00 to Demins Store. The next day, Tan
discovered that contrary to his instructions, Lopez and
Lariosa delivered the subject items to petitioner’s store.
Tan then went to petitioner and informed him that the
delivery to his store was a mistake and that he was pulling
out the subject items. However, petitioner refused,
claiming that he bought the same from Lariosa for
P50,000.00, but could not present any receipt evidencing
such transaction. Tan insisted that he had the right to pull
out the subject items as Lariosa had no authority to sell the
same to petitioner, but the latter was adamant in retaining
such items. Fearing that his contract with Coca-Cola will
be terminated as a result of the wrongful delivery, and in

order to minimize losses, Tan negotiated with petitioner to
instead deliver to him P20,000.00 worth of empty bottles
with cases,
_______________
7 Id.

91
VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 91

as evidenced by their Agreement8 dated January 18, 2011.

Nonetheless, Tan felt aggrieved over the foregoing events,
thus, prompting him to secure an authorization to file cases
from Coca-Cola and charge petitioner with the crime of
Fencing. He also claimed to have charged Lariosa with the
crime of Theft but he had no update as to the status
thereof.9
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty,10 but
chose not to present any evidence in his defense. Rather, he
merely submitted his memorandum,11 maintaining that the
prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.12

The RTC’s Ruling

13
In a Judgment dated October 4, 2013, the RTC found
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment for the indeterminate period often
(10) years and one (1) day of prisión mayor, as minimum, to
fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.14
The RTC found that the prosecution had successfully
established the presence of all the elements of the crime of
Fencing, considering that Lariosa stole the subject items
from his employer, Tan, and that petitioner was found to be
in possession of the same. The RTC noted that under the
circumstances of the case, petitioner would have been
forewarned that the subject items came from an illegal
source since Lariosa: (a) sold to him the subject items at a
discount and without any
_______________
8 Id., at p. 17.
9 See Rollo, pp. 18-19 and CA Rollo, pp. 29-30.
10 Id., at p. 17 and id., at p. 29.
11 See Memorandum for the Accused dated June 18, 2013; Records, pp.
170-171.
12 See Rollo, p. 19 and CA Rollo, p. 30.
13 CA Rollo, pp. 28-34.
14 Id., at p. 34.

92

corresponding delivery and official receipts; and (b) did not

demand that such items be replaced by empty bottles, a
common practice in purchases of soft drink products.15
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed16 to the CA.

The CA’s Ruling

17
In a Decision dated November 6, 2015, the CA
affirmed petitioner’s conviction.18 It held that Lariosa’s act
of selling the subject items to petitioner without the
authority and consent from Tan clearly constituted theft.
As such, petitioner’s possession of the stolen items
constituted prima facie evidence of Fencing — a
presumption which he failed to rebut.19
Undaunted, petitioner moved for
20
reconsideration which was, however, denied in a
Resolution21 dated June 8, 2016; hence, this petition.

The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the
CA correctly upheld petitioner’s conviction for the crime of
Fencing.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is without merit.
_______________
15 Id., at pp. 30-33.

16 See Notice of Appeal dated October 17, 2013; Records, pp. 211-212.
17 Rollo, pp. 16-30.
18 Id., at p. 29.
19 Id., at pp. 20-29.
20 See motion for reconsideration dated January 12, 2016; id., at pp.
31-37.
21 Id., at pp. 39-41.

93
VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 93

“Time and again, it has been held that an appeal in

criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the
duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and
appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they
are assigned or unassigned. The appeal confers the
appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders
such court competent to examine records, revise the
judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the
proper provision of the penal law.”22
Guided by this consideration, the Court finds no reason
to overturn petitioner’s conviction for the crime of Fencing.
Section 2 of PD 1612 defines Fencing as “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 other 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.”23 The
same Section also states that a Fence “includes any person,
firm, association, corporation or partnership or other
organization who/which commits the act of fencing.”24
The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as
follows: (a) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
(b) the accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice in
the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys,
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or
disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any
article, item, object or anything of value, which has been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft;
(c) the accused knew or should have known that the said
article, item, object or anything of value has been derived
from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and (d)

there is, on the part of one accused,
_______________
22 See Rivac v. People, G.R. No. 224673, January 22, 2018, 852 SCRA
293.
23 See Section 2(a) of PD No. 1612.
24 See Section 2(b), id.

94

intent to gain for oneself or for another.25 Notably, Fencing

is a malum prohibitum, and PD 1612 creates a prima facie
presumption of Fencing from evidence of possession by the
accused of any good, article, item, object or anything of
value, which has been the subject of robbery or theft; and
prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the
property.26
In this case, the courts a quo correctly found that the
prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt
all the elements of the crime of Fencing, as it was shown
that: (a) Lariosa sold to petitioner the subject items
without authority and consent from his employer, Tan, for
his own personal gain, and abusing the trust and
confidence reposed upon him as a truck helper;27 (b)
petitioner bought the subject items from Lariosa and was
in possession of the same; (c) under the circumstances,
petitioner should have been forewarned that the subject
items came from an illegal source, as his transaction with
Lariosa did not have any accompanying delivery and
official receipts, and that the latter did not demand that
such items be replaced with empty bottles, contrary to
common practice among dealers of soft drinks;28 and (d)
peti-
_______________
25 Ong v. People, 708 Phil. 565, 571; 695 SCRA 588, 594 (2013), citing
Capili v. Court of Appeals, 392 Phil. 577, 592; 338 SCRA 45, 58 (2000).
26 Id., at p. 574; pp. 597-598, citing Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, G.R.
No. 111426, July 11, 1994, 234 SCRA 63, 72. See also Section 5 of PD 1612
which reads:
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.
27 In Lim v. People (G.R. No. 211977, October 12, 2016, 806 SCRA 1,
12), it has been held that conviction of a principal in the crime of theft is
not necessary for an accused to be found guilty of the crime of Fencing.
28 “[C]ircumstances normally exist to forewarn, for instance, a
reasonably vigilant buyer that the object of the sale may have been
derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft. Such circumstances

95
VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 95

tioner’s intent to gain was made evident by the fact that he

bought the subject items for just P50,000.00, lower than their
value in the amount of P52,476.00. “[T]he Court finds no reason to
deviate from the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by
the CA, as there is no indication that it overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied the surrounding facts and
circumstances of the case. In fact, the trial court was in the best
position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses
presented by both parties, and hence, due deference should be
accorded to the same.”29
Anent the proper penalty to be imposed on petitioner,
pertinent portions of Section 3 of PD 1612 read:
Section 3. Penalties.—Any person guilty of fencing

shall be punished as hereunder indicated:
a) The penalty of prisión mayor, if the value of the
property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not
exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property
exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding
one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total
_______________
include the time and place of the sale, both of which may not be in accord with the
usual practices of commerce. The nature and condition of the goods sold, and the
fact that the seller is not regularly engaged in the business of selling goods may
likewise suggest the illegality of their source, and therefore should caution the
buyer. This justifies the presumption found in Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 that
‘mere possession of any goods, . . ., object or anything of value which has been the
subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing’ — a
presumption that is, according to the Court, ‘reasonable for no other natural or
logical inference can arise from the established fact of. . . possession of the proceeds
of the crime of robbery or theft.’” (Ong v. People, supra note 25 at p. 573; p. 596,
citing Dela Torre v. Commission on Elections, 327 Phil. 1144, 1154-1155; 258
SCRA 483, 490-491 [1996])
29 See Peralta v. People, G.R. No. 221991, August 30, 2017, 838 SCRA
350, citing People v. Matibag, 757 Phil. 286, 293; 754 SCRA 529, 537
(2015).

96

penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In

such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the
accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal
Code shall also be imposed.
x x x x

Notably, while the crime of Fencing is defined and
penalized by a special penal law, the penalty provided
therein is taken from the nomenclature in the Revised
Penal Code (RPC). In Peralta v. People,30 the Court
discussed the proper treatment of penalties found in special
penal laws vis-à-vis Act No. 4103,31 otherwise known as the
“Indeterminate Sentence Law,” viz.:
Meanwhile, Sec. 1 of Act No. 4103, otherwise known as

the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), provides that if the
offense is ostensibly punished under a special law, the
minimum and maximum prison term of the indeterminate
sentence shall not be beyond what the special law
prescribed. Be that as it may, the Court had clarified in the
landmark ruling of People v. Simon that the situation is
different where although the offense is defined in a special
law, the penalty therefor is taken from the technical
nomenclature in the RPC. Under such circumstance, the
legal effects under the system of penalties native to the
Code would also necessarily apply to the special law.32
_______________
30 Id.
31 Entitled “AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND
PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO CREATE A BOARD OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO
PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES” (December 5, 1933).

32 See Peralta v. People, supra note 29, citing Quimvel v. People, G.R.
No. 214497, April 18, 2017, 823 SCRA 192.

97
VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 97

Otherwise stated, if the special penal law adopts the

nomenclature of the penalties under the RPC, the
ascertainment of the indeterminate sentence will be based
on the rules applied for those crimes punishable under the
RPC.33
Applying the foregoing and considering that there are
neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances present
in this case, the Court finds it proper to sentence petitioner
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate
period of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day
of prisión correccional, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years
of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
At this point, the Court notes that as may be gleaned
from its whereas clauses, PD 1612 was enacted in order to
provide harsher penalties to those who would acquire
properties which are proceeds of the crimes of Robbery or
Theft, who prior to the enactment of said law, were
punished merely as accessories after the fact of the said
crimes.34 This rationale was echoed in Dizon-Pamintuan v.
People35 where the Court held that while a Fence may be
prosecuted either as an accessory of Robbery/Theft or a
principal for Fencing, there is a
_______________
33 Id.; citing Mabunot v. People, G.R. No. 204659, September 19, 2016,
803 SCRA 349, 364.
34 The whereas clauses of PD 1612 read:
WHEREAS, reports from law enforcement agencies reveal that
there is rampant robbery and thievery of government and private
properties;
WHEREAS, such robbery and thievery have become profitable on the
part of the lawless elements because of the existence of ready buyers,
commonly known as fence, of stolen properties;
WHEREAS, under existing law, a fence can be prosecuted only as
an accessory after the fact and punished lightly;
WHEREAS, it is imperative to impose heavy penalties on persons
who profit by the effects of the crimes of robbery and theft.
35 Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, supra note 26.

98

preference for the prosecution of the latter as it provides for harsher

penalties:
Before P.D. No. 1612, a fence could only be prosecuted for

and held liable as an accessory, as the term is defined in
Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty applicable
to an accessory is obviously light under the rules prescribed
in Articles 53, 55, and 57 of the Revised Penal Code, subject
to the qualification set forth in Article 60 thereof. Noting,
however, the reports from law enforcement agencies that
“there is rampant robbery and thievery of government and
private properties” and that “such robbery and thievery
have become profitable on the part of the lawless elements
because of the existence of ready buyers, commonly known
as fence, of stolen properties,” P.D. No. 1612 was enacted to
“impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by the effects
of the crimes of robbery and theft.” Evidently, the accessory
in the crimes of robbery and theft could be prosecuted as
such under the Revised Penal Code or under P.D. No. 1612.
However, in the latter case, he ceases to be a mere accessory
but becomes a principal in the crime of fencing. Elsewise
stated, the crimes of robbery and theft, on the one hand,
and fencing, on the other, are separate and distinct offenses.
The state may thus choose to prosecute him either under
the Revised Penal Code or P.D. No. 1612, although the
preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering
that fencing is a malum prohibitum, and P.D. No. 1612
creates a presumption of fencing and prescribes a higher
penalty based on the value of the property.36
While PD 1612 penalizes those who acquire properties

which are proceeds of Robbery or Theft, its prescribed
penalties are similar to the latter crime in that they are
largely dependent on the value of the said properties. In
fact, a reading of Section 3 of PD 1612 and Article 309 of
the RPC (which provides for the prescribed penalties for
the crime of Theft)
_______________
36 Id., at pp. 71-72; citations omitted.

99
VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 99

reveals that both provisions use the same graduations of

property value to determine the prescribed penalty; in
particular, if the value: (a) exceeds P22,000.00, with
additional penalties for each additional P10,000.00; (b) is
more than P12,000.00 but not exceeding P22,000.00; (c) is
more than P6,000.00 but not exceeding P12,000.00; (d) is
more than P200.00 but not exceeding P6,000.00; (e) is more
than P50.00 but not exceeding P200.00; and (f) does not
exceed P5.00. However, with the recent enactment of
Republic Act No. 10951,37 which adjusted the values of the
property and damage on which various penalties are based,
taking into consideration the present value of money, as
opposed to its archaic values when the RPC was enacted in
1932,38 the graduation of values in Article 309 was
substantially amended, without any concomitant
adjustment for PD 1612. This development would then
result in instances where a Fence, which is theoretically a
mere accessory to the crime of Robbery/Theft, will be
punished more severely than the principal of such latter
crimes. This incongruence in penalties therefore, impels an
adjustment of penalties.
However, while it may be the most expeditious
approach, a short cut by judicial fiat is a dangerous
proposition, lest the Court dare trespass on prohibited
judicial legislation.39 As the Court remains mindful of the
fact that the determination of penalties is a policy matter
that belongs to the legislative branch of the government, it
finds it prudent to instead, furnish both Houses of
Congress, as well as the President of the Republic of the

Philippines, through the Department of Jus-
_______________
37 Entitled “AN ACT ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY

AND DAMAGE ON WHICH A PENALTY IS BASED, AND THE FINES IMPOSED UNDER THE
REVISED PENAL CODE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE
KN OWN AS ‘THE REVISED PENAL CODE,’ AS AMENDED” approved on August 29,

2017.
38 Supra note 22.
39 Corpuz v. People, 734 Phil. 353, 425; 724 SCRA 1, 67 (2014).

100

tice, pursuant to Article 540 of the RPC, copies of this ruling

in order to alert them on the aforestated incongruence of
penalties, all with the hope of arriving at the proper
solution to this predicament.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
November 6, 2015 and the Resolution dated June 8, 2016 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 01126-MIN finding
petitioner Ireneo Cahulogan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Fencing defined and penalized under Presidential
Decree No. 1612, otherwise known as the “Anti-Fencing Law,”
are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment for the indeterminate period of
four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prisión
correccional, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum.
Pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, let a
copy of this Decision be furnished the President of the
Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of
Justice, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
40 Article 5 of the RPC reads:

Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should
be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive
penalties.—Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem

proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the
proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that
said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive,
through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed
proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict
enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition
of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of
malice and the injury caused by the offense.

101
VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 101

Carpio** (Chairperson), Peralta, Caguioa and Reyes,

Jr., JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with

modification.
Notes.—Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612

creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from evidence
of possession by the accused of any good, article, item,
object or anything of value, which has been the subject of
robbery or theft; and prescribes a higher penalty based on
the value of the property. (Ong vs. People, 695 SCRA 588
[2013])
The prosecution’s failure to present a sufficient proof of
ownership of the grader despite the many opportunities it
had to do so places doubt on the Department of Public
Works and Highways’ (DPWH’s) claim of ownership. Thus,
it cannot be said that the first element of fencing had been
established. (Lim vs. People, 806 SCRA 1 [2016])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018. Ireneo Cahulogan, Petitioner, vs. People of The PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018. Ireneo Cahulogan, Petitioner, vs. People of The PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018. Ireneo Cahulogan, Petitioner, vs. People of The PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/28/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018.*

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; An appeal in

VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 87

lice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys,

Same; Same; Penalties; While the crime of Fencing is defined

Same; Same; In Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 234 SCRA 63

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fencing, there is a preference for the prosecution of the latter

concomitant adjustment for PD 1612. This development would

VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 89

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

1 Rollo, pp. 3-12.

3 Id., at pp. 39-41. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M.

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

That on or about January 14, 2011[,] at about 4:00 o’clock

The prosecution alleged that private complainant

be terminated as a result of the wrongful delivery, and in

VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 91

as evidenced by their Agreement8 dated January 18, 2011.

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

corresponding delivery and official receipts; and (b) did not

15 Id., at pp. 30-33.

VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 93

“Time and again, it has been held that an appeal in

from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and (d)

94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

intent to gain for oneself or for another.25 Notably, Fencing

VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 95

tioner’s intent to gain was made evident by the fact that he

Section 3. Penalties.—Any person guilty of fencing

96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In

Meanwhile, Sec. 1 of Act No. 4103, otherwise known as

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO CREATE A BOARD OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO

PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES” (December 5, 1933).

VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 97

Otherwise stated, if the special penal law adopts the

98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

preference for the prosecution of the latter as it provides for harsher

Before P.D. No. 1612, a fence could only be prosecuted for

While PD 1612 penalizes those who acquire properties

36 Id., at pp. 71-72; citations omitted.

VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 99

reveals that both provisions use the same graduations of

Congress, as well as the President of the Republic of the

37 Entitled “AN ACT ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY

KN OWN AS ‘THE REVISED PENAL CODE,’ AS AMENDED” approved on August 29,

100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tice, pursuant to Article 540 of the RPC, copies of this ruling

40 Article 5 of the RPC reads:

penalties.—Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem

VOL. 860, MARCH 21, 2018 101

Carpio** (Chairperson), Peralta, Caguioa and Reyes,

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with

Notes.—Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like