Lopez vs People, G.R. No.
249196, April 28, 2021
FACTS
Petitioner was charged with the crime of fencing - Rafael Mendoza averred that he saw his bicycle at the
corner of Katipunan and Ordonez Streets. He commanded the driver of said bicycle, Magno Lopez to halt
and asked him where he got the bicycle. Magno answered that the same was given to him by Dante
Lopez. They then went to the barangay for the blotter of the incident. At the barangay, it was agreed that
the subject vehicle be turned over to Mendoza, but the following day the same was taken back as
ordered by the barangay captain. - Mendoza alleged that the said vehicle was stolen from him, which
was reported in a police blotter the day after the incident. He insisted that he is the owner of the bicycle,
having bought the same abroad. - Jose Manalo Martinez corroborated Mendoza's allegations, averring
that he used to bike with Mendoza - According to the petitioner's brother, Magno, he met Mendoza
while riding his bike at Katipunan Extension near Ordoñez Street. Mendoza suddenly cut him off and
claimed the bike was his. So as to not prolong the argument, Magno invited Mendoza to the barangay.
Magno testified that he got the bike from Dante in 2002. He pointed out the handlebar and the front
fork of his bicycle as compared to those shown in the pictures are different. - Petitioner insisted that he
used to own the subject bicycle. He bought it from Bicycle Works and presented evidence of the
existence of said bicycle shop. He could not however present the receipt for the purchase since he
bought: it from Bicycle Works twenty (20) years ago. He also presented two (2) notarized affidavits from
Bicycle Works, one from its President, Leopoldo De Jesus (President), another from its Chief Mechanic,
Carmelito Gomez (Chief Mechanic) as proof
ISSUE
Whether or not Dante Lopez is guilty of violating the anti-fencing law
HELD
NO. - Fencing 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 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 essential elements of the crime of
fencing are: 1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed; 2. 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 said crime; 3. The accused knows
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 4. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for
himself or for another. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable
doubt the identity of the bicycle in issue. - Apart from the police blotter of the alleged robbery, no
evidence was presented to prove Mendoza's ownership of the bicycle in question. The photos presented
did not show any distinctive features to identify the bike. Worse, the evidence at hand did not establish
that the bicycle given by petitioner to Magno is the same bicycle stolen from Mendoza. - Indeed, the
features of the bicycle allegedly stolen from Mendoza and the one owned by Dante are principally
different from each other. - Prosecution failed to prove the remaining elements of fencing. There is no
evidence shown that petitioner is neither the principal nor an accomplice of the alleged thievery
reported by Mendoza, and that he possessed or disposed of the latter's alleged bicycle. No proof was
offered to show that petitioner had knowledge that the bicycle he gave to Magno was stolen, or that he
had intent to gain therefrom. It is necessary to remember that in all criminal prosecutions, the burden of
proof is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. - It has the
duty to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of
guilt for the said crime. - Accordingly, petitioner Dante Lopez y Atanacio is ACQUITTED of the crime of
violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612
