THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 118590. July 30, 1996]

D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., petitioner, vs. RAMON S. ESGUERRA, in i! "#$#"i%y
#! Un&'(!'"('%#(y o) %' D'$#(%*'n% o) Ju!%i"', +ROS+ERO ,.
SEMANA, in i! "#$#"i%y #! %' In-'!%i.#%in. A!!%. Ci%y +(o!'"u%o( o)
/u'0on Ci%y, EDUARDO 1. C2ING, #n& S$ou!'! AN32ON4 #n&
CECI1IA C. SA4, respondents.
5#"%!6
Upon inventory, petitioner discovered that there was systematic pilferage of
company properties y stoc! cler!s and drivers for almost a year amo"nting to #not
less than$ %&,'((,((()(() The pilfered materials were diverted and sold to
hardware stores in *"ao, +"e,on *ity, identified as the -* Ind"strial Sales and
the Seato Trading *ompany, Inc), owned y private respondents, *hing and
Spo"ses Say, respectively)
%"rs"ant to search warrants, a search was cond"cted in the premises of
.d"ardo *hing and in the premises of the San /"an .nterprises0Seato Trading
Inc) Sei,ed from *hing were 1 pieces of phenolic plywood, and from the Spo"ses
Say, &2' pieces of s"ch plywood with an estimated aggregate val"e of
%2,(((,((()(( which were later identified y petitioner corporation as among those
stolen0pilfered from its wareho"se in *ainta, Ri,al)
3fter investigation, the N4I filed a complaint with the +"e,on %rosec"tor5s
Office recommending the prosec"tion of private respondent .d"ardo 6) *hing and
private respondents 3nthony Say and *ecilia Say for violation of %)D) 2&27,
otherwise !nown as the 3nti89encing 6aw on different dates) 4oth complaints were
later consolidated and assigned to p"lic respondent 3sst) *ity %rosec"tor Semana
for preliminary investigation) The N4I also recommended the prosec"tion of several
employees of the petitioner for :"alified theft)
S"se:"ently the investigating prosec"tor in his Resol"tion recommended
dismissal of the case against private respondents for the reason that respondents
didn5t have a reason to e s"spicio"s that the ply woods were allegedly a s";ect of
thievery since they o"ght it from a legitimate "siness enterprise and were iss"ed
with the proper receipts ma!ing their transaction legitimate) This recommendation
was approved y the 3sst) *ity %rosec"tor <erona to which petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration which was denied)
%etitioner filed a petition for review with the Department of /"stice which was
denied on Octoer 2=, 2>>? y respondent Undersecretary) Hence, this petition)
ISSUE6
@hether or not private respondents !now or sho"ld they have !nown that the
phenolic plywood were the s";ects or proceeds of crimeA @hether grave a"se of
discretion was committed y the respondent Investigating %rosec"tor in dismissing,
and y the Undersecretary of /"stice in "pholding the dismissal of the anti8fencing
case against private respondents)
2E1D6
%etitioner retorted that, contrary to the contention of the Solicitor <eneral and
private respondents, mere possession y private respondents of the stolen phenolic
plywood constit"ted prima facie evidence of fencing, according to Section ' of %)D)
2&27) 9"rther, the sales invoices presented y respondent Spo"ses Say did not
eBc"lpate them eca"se s"ch invoices cannot overcome the pres"mption in Section
')
%etitioner5s position is clearly "ntenale and cannot e s"stained) In Dizon-
Pamintuan vs. People, we disc"ssed the elements of the crime of fencingC
#D2E 3 crime of roery or theft has een committedF
D7E The acc"sed, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of
the crime of roery or theft, "ys, receives, possesses, !eeps, ac:"ires,
conceals, sells, or disposes or "ys and sells, or in any manner deals in any
article, item, o;ect or anything of val"e, which has een derived from the
proceeds of the said crimeF
D1E The acc"sed !nows or sho"ld have !nown that the said article, item,
o;ect or anything of val"e has een derived from the proceeds of the
crime of roery or theftF and
D?E There is, on the part of acc"sed, intent to gain for himself or for
another)$
In the instant case, the first and second elements were d"ly
estalished) +"alified theft had een committed) +"antities of phenolic plywood
were stolen and were discovered in the premises of private respondents) The
:"estion is whether the third element eBists) Did private respondents !now or
sho"ld they have !nown that the phenolic plywood were the s";ects or proceeds of
crimeA
Dizon-Pamintuan
G72H
gives "s the g"idelinesC
#One is deemed to !now a partic"lar fact if he has the cogni,ance, conscio"sness or
awareness thereof, or is aware of the eBistence of something, or has the
ac:"aintance with facts, or if he has something within the mind5s grasp with
certit"de and clarity) @hen !nowledge of the eBistence of a partic"lar fact is an
element of an offense, s"ch !nowledge is estalished if a person is aware of a high
proaility of its eBistence "nless he act"ally elieves that it does not eBists) On
the other hand, the words #sho"ld !now$ denote the fact that a person of
reasonale pr"dence and intelligence wo"ld ascertain the fact in performance of his
d"ty to another or wo"ld govern his cond"ct "pon ass"mption that s"ch fact
eBists) Inowledge refers to a mental state of awareness ao"t a fact) Since the
co"rt cannot penetrate the mind of an acc"sed and state with certainty what is
contained therein, it m"st determine s"ch !nowledge with care from the overt acts
of that person) 3nd given two e:"ally pla"sile states of cognition or mental
awareness, the co"rt sho"ld choose the one which s"stains the constit"tional
pres"mption of innocence)
Since Section ' of %)D) 2&27 eBpressly provides that JGmHere possession of any
good, article, item, o;ect, or anything of val"e which has een the s";ect of
roery or thievery shall e prima facie evidence of fencing,5 it follows that the
petitioner is pres"med to have !nowledge of the fact that the items fo"nd in her
possession were the proceeds of roery or theft) The pres"mption is reasonale
for no other nat"ral or logical inference can arise from the estalished fact of her
possession of the proceeds of the crime of roery or theft) B B B)$
In the aforementioned case, the acc"sed was "nale to re"t the prima
facie pres"mption y failing to present her s"pplier0dealer, who allegedly was the
so"rce of the stolen ;ewelryF neither did she estalish that the latter was a licensed
s"pplier0dealer of ;ewelry)
G77H
This is not so in the case at ar) It is "ncontested that private respondents
presented sales receipts covering their p"rchases of the s";ect phenolic
plywood) In respondent *hing5s case, he alleges that he p"rchased the phenolic
plywood from agents of %aramo"nt Ind"strial which is a !nown hardware store in
*aloocan *ity and that his p"rchases were covered y receipts)
G71H
On the other
hand, the Spo"ses Say li!ewise claim that they o"ght the plywood from -*
Ind"strial Sales which is a registered "siness estalishment licensed to sell
constr"ction materials and that their p"rchases too were covered y receipts)
G7?H
Th"s, the prima facie pres"mption was s"ccessf"lly disp"ted) The logical
inference follows that private respondents had no reason to s"spect that said
plywoods were the proceeds of :"alified theft or any other crime) 3dmittedly, there
is no ;"rispr"dence to the effect that a receipt is a s"fficient defense against
charges of fencing) 4"t logically, and for all practical p"rposes, s"ch receipt is
proof 88 altho"gh disp"tale 88 that the transaction in :"estion is aove8oard and
legitimate) 3sent other evidence, the pres"mption of innocence remains) Th"s,
grave a"se of discretion cannot e s"ccessf"lly imp"ted "pon p"lic respondents)
3t the ris! of eing repetitio"s, we reiterate that p"lic respondents had s"fficient
and s"stantial asis for the dismissal of the complaint as against private
respondents)