Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 210 views

    Estrella V People

    Uploaded by

    Gieldan Bulalacao
    1) Petitioner Benito Estrella was charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law for possessing hydraulic fluid stolen from Philippine Airlines. Surveillance footage and testimony showed Estrella transporting and attempting to sell the fluid. 2) The Supreme Court upheld Estrella's conviction, finding that the prosecution had proven all elements of the crime of Fencing: that a theft occurred, Estrella possessed the stolen goods knowing they were stolen, and intended to profit from their sale. 3) Mere possession of goods stolen in a robbery or theft creates a presumption of Fencing under the law. As Estrella could not prove lawful ownership, the court found he had committed the crime of Fencing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Estrella V People

    Uploaded by

    Gieldan Bulalacao
    210 views2 pages
    1) Petitioner Benito Estrella was charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law for possessing hydraulic fluid stolen from Philippine Airlines. Surveillance footage and testimony showed Estrella transporting and attempting to sell the fluid. 2) The Supreme Court upheld Estrella's conviction, finding that the prosecution had proven all elements of the crime of Fencing: that a theft occurred, Estrella possessed the stolen goods knowing they were stolen, and intended to profit from their sale. 3) Mere possession of goods stolen in a robbery or theft creates a presumption of Fencing under the law. As Estrella could not prove lawful ownership, the court found he had committed the crime of Fencing.

    Original Title

    Estrella v People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner Benito Estrella was charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law for possessing hydraulic fluid stolen from Philippine Airlines. Surveillance footage and testimony showed Estrella transporting and attempting to sell the fluid. 2) The Supreme Court upheld Estrella's conviction, finding that the prosecution had proven all elements of the crime of Fencing: that a theft occurred, Estrella possessed the stolen goods knowing they were stolen, and intended to profit from their sale. 3) Mere possession of goods stolen in a robbery or theft creates a presumption of Fencing under the law. As Estrella could not prove lawful ownership, the court found he had committed the crime of Fencing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    210 views2 pages

    Estrella V People

    Uploaded by

    Gieldan Bulalacao
    1) Petitioner Benito Estrella was charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law for possessing hydraulic fluid stolen from Philippine Airlines. Surveillance footage and testimony showed Estrella transporting and attempting to sell the fluid. 2) The Supreme Court upheld Estrella's conviction, finding that the prosecution had proven all elements of the crime of Fencing: that a theft occurred, Estrella possessed the stolen goods knowing they were stolen, and intended to profit from their sale. 3) Mere possession of goods stolen in a robbery or theft creates a presumption of Fencing under the law. As Estrella could not prove lawful ownership, the court found he had committed the crime of Fencing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Facts:

    Petitioner Benito Estrella (Estrella) was charged for violating PD 1612, or the Anti-
    Fencing Law.
    Philippine Airlines (PAL) is an importer of the fast fluid system, Skydrol Hydraulic Fluid
    (Skydrol), from its manufacturer Solutia, Inc. (Solutia) based in the United States. According to
    PAL, Skydrol is not available in the local market. PAL's Maintenance and Engineering
    Management Information noticed that its acquisition and use of Skydrol remained unusually high
    despite the downsizing of its operations. Upon investigation, Elvis Yao (Yao), Vice President for
    Fuel Management of (PAL) found that Aerojam Supply and Trading (Aerojam), owned by
    Estrella and his wife, Melinda, was selling 5 gallons of Skydrol to Air Philippines at a low price.
    On June 19 and 22, 1999, PNP-CIDG conducted a surveillance operation. They received an
    information that Skydrol was to be delivered in the premises of the Air Philippines on board a
    jeep. PO3 Bolido took photographs of the jeep and its driver, who turned out to be Estrella. On
    June 22, 1999, the police operatives apprehended Estrella, who was about to deliver three
    pails of Skydrol to Air Philippines. When asked to present documents for the merchandise he
    was carrying, Estrella could not produce any. He pointed to a certain JUPEL as having custody
    of the documents, but the latter did not appear. Yao confirmed that the pails of Skydrol found in
    Estrella’s possession were part of PAL's stock.
    The RTC found Estrella guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Fencing under
    PD 1612. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
    Issue:
    Whether the CA erred in sustaining the conviction of petitioner.
    Ruling:
    The Supreme Court held in the negative.
    Under Section 2 of PD 1612, Fencing is defined 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 law on Fencing does not require the accused to have participated in the
    criminal design to commit, or to have been in any wise involved in the commission of,
    the crime of robbery or theft. The essential elements of the offense are:
    1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
    2. The accused, who is not a principal or 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.
    The RTC and CA correctly found that the prosecution was able to establish beyond
    reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense of Fencing.
    First, the occurrence of theft was duly established by the prosecution. Yao testified that
    despite the downsizing of PAL's operation, there was still unusual upward movement of PAL's
    Skydrol consumption.
    Second, Estrella was caught in possession and in the process of disposing pails of
    Skydrol to Air Philippines by PO3 Bolido and his team. Through the manufacturer lot number
    indicated in the 3 pails of Skydrol confiscated from the Estrella's possession, and the supporting
    documents embodying the specific pails of hydraulic fluid sold to PAL, the ownership of the 3
    pails hydraulic fluid was proven to belong to PAL and not to any other airline. Yao's claim that
    PAL owned the 3 pails of Skydrol confiscated from Estrella and it was supported by Solutia's
    Letter/Certification.
    Third, for failing to prove ownership of the Skydrol confiscated from him, Estrella should
    have known that the 3 Skydrol pails were derived from an illegal source. Estrella failed to
    present his alleged supplier, JUPEL and the pertinent documents proving that their transaction
    was legal.
    Lastly, RTC and CA did not err in finding the Estrella’s intent to gain. There is no
    question that the pails of Skydrol Hydraulic Fluid were found in possession of Estrella. The
    positive identification by PO3 Bolido and Yao that the petitioner was caught in possession of the
    subject pails of skydrol, and the pieces of evidence pointing to PAL as the owner of these pails
    of hydraulic fluid gave rise to a presumption of Fencing under the law. Section 5 of PD 1612
    states:
    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.
    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.

    You might also like