Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People [GR 111426, 11 July 1994] First Division, Davide Jr.

(J): 4
concur

Facts: Teodoro Encarnacion, Undersecretary, Department of Public Works and

Highways arrived at his residence located at Better Living Subdivision, Paraaque 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 Paraaque 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 Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 8 )
Narratives (Berne Guerrero) 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. Held: 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 Paraaque 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
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 9 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) 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.