Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. !!

" Ma# $% &&"

'U(NITO )IM% Petitione*% +s. THE COURT O, (PPE()S% THE PEOP)E O, THE PHI)IPPINES% *espon-ents.
MELO, J.: ,acts. What makes the case at bar an interesting subject for study is the dearth of jurisprudence invo ving vio ations of the !nti"#encing La$ of %&'& or (residentia )ecree *o. %+%,. Juanito Lim, the accused, $as charged in an information $ith vio ation of () %+%, -!nti"#encing La$. $hich $as a eged y committed as fo o$s: /hat on or about March, %&0+, in the 1ity of 1agayan de Oro, (hi ippines, the accused $ith intent to gain for himse f $i fu y fe onious y ac2uire the fo o$ing spare parts and item, the said spare parts and items being o$ned by Loui !nton 3ond. 4no$ing that the same $ere sto en derived from the proceeds of the crime of /heft, but inspite this , accused a o$ed the same to be kept in his bodega and subse2uent y disposed nine -&. pieces of tires $ith rims, to the damage and prejudice of the offended party Loui !nton 3ond in the tota amount of (,5+,6,5.55 contrary to and in vio ation of (.). %+%,. !bout noon of March %, %&0+, (abi ona together $ith 7gt. 3aca so and nine other constabu ary so diers, $ith the former as eader, $ere to escort (abi ona and his men in going to 3arangay /ig imao8 after, a Mercedes 3en9 truck, o$ned by accused Juanito Lim, arrived8 that it $as 7gt. 3aca so $ho contracted for the truck because, according to him, he too had some umber to oad in 3arangay /ag imao8 after arrving there, (abi ona then ordered his men to gather his be ongings inside his house, but he $as stopped by 7gt. 3aca so $ho ordered the men of (abi ona to proceed to the compound of E1: Mining 1orporation and to remove from the heavy e2uipment found therein their parts8 then drove back to Lapasan, stopping at the ;bodega; of accused Juanito Lim. that the fo o$ing morning, the men of (abi ona $ent to the house of 7gt. 3aca so but he $as not there, they sa$ the accused arrived at his ;bodega; on board his ye o$ pick"up vehic e8 that they then sa$ the accused remove from his ;bodega; the nine tires $ith rims, oad them on his ye o$ pick"up vehic e and then drive a$ay. /hat at the time the heavy e2uipment $as being canniba i9ed, the (resident and :enera Manager of 31: Mining 1orporation, Loui !nton 3ond, an !ustra ian nationa , $as being he d captive by the *e$ (eop e<s !rmy, ho$ever, after his re ease in June %&0+, he immediate y reported to the po ice authorities va ue of the items taken at (='5,6%5.558 and that 7gt. )abatian, of the 1agayan de Oro 1ity (o ice, conducted an investigation, $hich cu minated in the fi ing of the instant case by the 1ity #isca against accused Juanito Lim for vio ation of (residentia )ecree *o. %+%,.

With respect to petitioner<s argument that the !nti"#encing La$ does not contemp ate the inc usion of civi iabi ity as part of the pena ty for vio ation thereof, respondent court opined that $hen he $as instructed to pay the sum of (,5+,6,5.55 ess the va ue of the spare parts recovered, such imposition refers to his civi iabi ity, in ine $ith the pena a>iom that a person crimina y iab e is a so civi y iab e.

Issue. %. Whether or not the respondent court err in upho ding the judgment of the tria court? ,. Whether or not the aspect of animus furandi $as c ear y estab ished by the (eop e<s evidence and the respondent court serious y erred in presuming the e>istence of intent to gain?

Rulin/. Witha , the sinister menta state is presumed from the commission of an un a$fu act in bringing out the tires from his bodega $hich $ere oaded on his pick"up. !t any rate, do o is not re2uired in crimes punished by a specia statute ike the !nti" #encing La$ of %&'& -Ma a (rohibita. because it is the act a one, irrespective of the motives $hich constitutes the offense @eri y, $hen it $as proved that petitioner committed the un a$fu acts a eged in the information, it $as proper y presumed that they $ere committed $ith fu kno$ edge and $ith crimina intent, and it $as incumbent upon him to rebut such a presumption " a burden $hich petitioner regrettab y fai ed to discharge. Moreover, the presumption of fencing under 7ection A of (residentia )ecree *o. %+%, that: 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. Last y, 71 contends that it is pueri e for petitioner to contend that the order for him to pay the sum of (,5+,6,5.55, ess the va ue of the spare parts recovered in the possession of 7gt. (abatian, as civi indemnity is unauthori9ed under (residentia )ecree *o. %+%,, because 7ection 6 -a. thereof inc udes the accessory pena ty pertaining thereto vis"a"vis !rtic e %5= of the Bevised (ena 1ode:

Sec. 3. Penalties. - Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder indicated a! "he penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than #$,%%% pesos but not e&ceeding $$,%%% pesos' if the value of such property e&ceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its ma&imum period, adding one year for each additional #%,%%% pesos' but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not e&ceed

twenty years. (n such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the )evised Penal *ode shall also be imposed.

/here is thus no ambiguity to speak of considering that the message of the afore2uoted section is too c ear to need c arification. WCEBE#OBE, the petition is hereby dismissed and the decision of the 1ourt of !ppea s dated #ebruary %A, %&&% is hereby !##DBME).