In Jaime Ong y Ong v. People, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jaime Ong for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612, the Anti-Fencing Law. The Court emphasized that individuals in the business of buying and selling goods must exercise due diligence in ascertaining the source and legitimacy of their merchandise; failure to do so can result in a conviction for fencing, especially when possessing goods from robbery or theft. This ruling serves as a stern reminder to business owners to ensure their transactions are above board, lest they face severe legal repercussions.

“Should Have Known Better”: The Case of the Curious Tires and the Anti-Fencing Law

The case revolves around the theft of thirty-eight (38) Firestone truck tires from a warehouse owned by Francisco Azajar. Following the theft, Azajar discovered thirteen (13) of his tires in the possession of Jaime Ong, who operated a tire store. Ong claimed he purchased the tires from a certain Ramon Go, presenting a sales invoice as proof. However, the prosecution argued that Ong should have known the tires were stolen, given the circumstances of the purchase. The core legal question is whether Ong, as a businessman, exercised the due diligence required to avoid violating the Anti-Fencing Law.

To properly understand the ruling, a review of Presidential Decree No. 1612, or the Anti-Fencing Law, is essential. Section 2(a) of P.D. 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 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 essential elements of fencing, which the prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, are: (1) a crime of robbery or theft occurred; (2) the accused, not a principal or accomplice, bought, received, possessed, or dealt in items from the crime; (3) the accused knew or should have known the items were derived from the crime; and (4) the accused intended to gain from the transaction. In this case, the prosecution successfully established these elements.

The Court found that the first element was met, as Azajar and Cabal, the caretaker, testified to the robbery. Azajar substantiated his ownership with Sales Invoice No. 4565 and an Inventory List. The second element was also evident: Ong possessed thirteen (13) of Azajar’s tires, which were identified by their serial numbers. Ong’s defense hinged on his claim that he bought the tires from Go and had a receipt to prove it.

The critical point of contention was whether Ong knew or should have known that the tires were stolen. The Supreme Court emphasized the phrase “should know,” clarifying that it implies a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain the facts before acting. Given Ong’s twenty-four years in the tire business, he was expected to exercise a higher degree of diligence when purchasing from an unfamiliar seller like Go. The court noted Ong’s failure to ask for proof of ownership and the unusual speed of the transaction raised red flags that a more cautious businessman would have noticed. The entire transaction, from the offer to the delivery, happened in a single day, a circumstance that should have aroused suspicion.

The Supreme Court cited Dela Torre v. COMELEC to support its reasoning:

[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 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.”xxx.

Moreover, the court highlighted that Ong, being in the business of selling tires, was aware of the requirement to secure clearances from the police for reselling used tires. His failure to do so in this transaction further indicated a lack of due diligence. The sales invoice Ong presented was also deemed disputable, as the prosecution proved that Gold Link, the alleged seller, was fictitious.

Thus, Ong failed to overcome the prima facie presumption of fencing established under Section 5 of P.D. 1612, which states 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.” Finally, the court found clear intent to gain, as Ong was caught selling the stolen tires in his store during the buy-bust operation.

The court thus upheld the penalty computed by the lower courts based on the value of the tires, amounting to P65,975. The ruling emphasizes the importance of due diligence in business transactions and reinforces the Anti-Fencing Law’s objective to deter the disposal of stolen goods.

FAQs

What is the Anti-Fencing Law?	The Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612) penalizes individuals who knowingly deal with items derived from robbery or theft, aiming to prevent the circulation of stolen goods. It requires individuals to exercise caution and diligence when purchasing goods from unfamiliar sources.
What are the elements of fencing?	The elements are: (1) a crime of robbery or theft; (2) the accused bought, received, possessed, etc., items from the crime; (3) the accused knew or should have known the items were stolen; and (4) intent to gain. All elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
What does “should know” mean under the Anti-Fencing Law?	“Should know” implies that a reasonable and prudent person, under similar circumstances, would have been aware that the goods were derived from a crime. This standard considers the individual’s profession, experience, and the nature of the transaction.
What is the significance of possessing stolen goods?	Possession of goods that were the subject of robbery or theft creates a prima facie presumption of fencing under Section 5 of P.D. 1612. This presumption shifts the burden to the possessor to prove they acquired the goods legitimately and without knowledge of their illicit origin.
How did the court assess the credibility of the sales invoice presented by Ong?	The court found the sales invoice disputable because the prosecution proved that the alleged seller, Gold Link, was a fictitious entity. This undermined Ong’s claim of legitimate purchase and supported the conclusion that he was dealing in stolen goods.
What factors contributed to the court’s conclusion that Ong was guilty of fencing?	Factors included Ong’s failure to ask for proof of ownership, the unusually quick transaction, his awareness of the need for police clearances for used tires, and the fictitious nature of the sales invoice. These elements, combined with the possession of stolen tires, led to his conviction.
Can a sales receipt always be used as a valid defense?	While a sales receipt can serve as evidence of a legitimate transaction, its validity can be challenged. The court assesses the credibility of the receipt and the circumstances surrounding its issuance to determine its probative value.
What was the final decision of the Supreme Court in this case?	The Supreme Court denied Ong’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which upheld the trial court’s conviction for violating the Anti-Fencing Law. The minimum penalty was reduced to six years of prision correccional.

The Ong v. People case serves as a reminder that businesses must exercise due diligence and prudence in their transactions. Failing to do so can lead to serious legal consequences under the Anti-Fencing Law. This case underscores the importance of verifying the legitimacy of suppliers and goods to avoid inadvertently dealing with stolen property.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.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: Jaime Ong y Ong v. People, G.R. No. 190475, April 10, 2013