Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40374:g-r-no-139250-august-15,-2000-gabriel-capili-v-court-of-appeals,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:21:00+00:00

Document:
GABRIEL CAPILI, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., Respondents.
On December 3, 1993, both accused entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged with the assistance of counsel. 4 Thereafter, trial ensued.
Christine Diokno testified that at 4:00 P.M. on November 4, 1993, when she went home from her office, she discovered that some of her (sic) items at (sic) her closet and the jewelries (sic) and money at (sic) her mother’s room were taken. Upon call, two Makati police responded and surveyed the room where the robbery took place. The police officer took her statement (Exhs. "F", "F-1" and "F-2") and then investigated the theft case. Police prepared the police report and concluded that Michael Manzo, her former houseboy, committed the offense so a case against Manzo was filed. She described all the properties that were taken as those reflected in the police report because according to her she gave the police a list of the items and is part of her statement (tsn, p. 11, May 11, 1994). Allegedly the value is about 3 Million pesos, some were of 20 years and some were of 30 years vintage, acquired by her parents since their wedding in 1945. Some from abroad, States or Hongkong acquired during trips.
That before the discovery of the incident her mother had the list of all the items by counting them physically because her mother used to check the jewelry every week in her presence. That all is worth three (3) Million Pesos because the jewelries (sic) were sometimes brought to a jeweler for a change or for removal of stones or replacement that is why she considered that all the jewelries (sic) were appraised. She does not know, however, what exactly were brought by her mother. That she was present during the last inventory of the items and the land titles by her mother, presenting the alleged inventory on August 1, 1993 (Exh. "S"), after her father died on July 15, 1993. While her mother was checking them, she was in the room writing the description of the jewelries (sic), the cost and date when bought. That the corresponding value stated came from her mother kept inside the vault.
That on November 2, 1993, she took out all the items because November 9 was her mother’s birthday and would like to select the items she and her mother were going to wear for the occasion then check the jewelries (sic) against the prepared list. The list included the items lost but did not include the box of memorabilia which was taken from her room. She claimed that the records including the receipts from where the list was taken were lost together with the jewelries (sic) that were taken.
He identified the pearl earring with copper (sic) with diamond (Exh. "A"). He likewise identified the old coin 4 pieces of dollars marked as Exhs. "B-1", "B-2", "B-3" and "B-4" ; "B-1", "B-2" dimes, "B-3" and "B-4" quarter cents; pendant with inscription Boy Recto, Exh. "C." He admitted that the statement marked as Exh. "D" and sub-markings is his.
Describing the contents of the bag, he said that there were more or less 20 pieces of rings, some with pearls and some with diamonds and birthstones; more or less 20 pairs of earrings, diamond with pearls; more or less 10 pieces of necklaces of plain gold with pendant with the replica of God and cast with diamond. There were Quartz watches; 3 pieces Bulova watches; 5 pieces of Seiko watches, Raymond Wiel. That per complainant’s information, all of them costs (sic) 3 Million Pesos which he merely gave to the accused without counting them. He however, claims that they will cost only one to two million pesos. Despite which value, he entrusted them to Boy Recto without counting the pieces.
Defense adopted Exhibit "B" as Exhibit "1" and sub-markings, Exhibit "D" as their Exhibit "2" and "2-a" .
That witness explained that only the fancy ones were returned to him.
That the P1,500.00 was given to him near the bus terminal at Sampaloc near UST and when the fancies (sic) were returned, which he came to know as such because he had it appraised in a pawnshop when they arrived from Roxas, Isabela. When the jewelries (sic) were returned contained in the bag, he accepted, opened (sic) for a couple of minutes without counting. That Emilio Benitez glanced on (sic) them because the bus was about leave. Recto gave the instruction that he can come back within two weeks because Boy Recto will pay.
The witness admitted that he is facing a charge of Qualified Theft in Makati pending before a court where he posted his bail. That he is testifying before this Court out of his own volition. He explained that they went to Isabela per instruction of Gabriel Capili that they should lie low because the police were hunting for them and that Emilio Benitez is from Roxas, Isabela.
After more or less two weeks when (sic) they arrived from Isabela, he was requested by Boy Recto (Gabriel Capili) to sign a blank document somewhere at Espana (Document Exh. "3" to "3-A"). He was not, however, forced. That upon arrival from Isabela, they went to the house of the accused then proceeded to wait at a hotel in Sta. Cruz. After three hours of waiting, the accused arrived and gave him P6,000.00 in the presence of Emilio Benitez without receipt. He declared that he himself is not sure whether all the jewelries (sic) inside the bag are (sic) genuine or not.
Having admitted to the police that he is Michael Manzo, he was asked where he brought the jewelries (sic) so he pointed to Boy Recto. He admitted to have signed a blank document, Exhibit "4" and "3", his signature, Exh. "4-1" and Exh. "3-A", but do (sic) not know where the originals were, but later said that the originals are in the hands of the police officers.
SPO3 Ernesto Ramirez testified that as police officer of Station 3, on November 27, 1993 he investigated Michael Manzo who was accused of Qualified Theft at Makati and who admitted to him having committed said offense and pointed to the house of Gabriel Capili at Sampaloc, Manila where he sold the jewelries (sic). Thereafter, he and his companions SPO2 Reyes, SPO3 Salalia and SPO3 Fuentes with Michael Manzo went to the place and saw the wife of Gabriel Capili wearing the pair of earrings, one of the jewelries (sic) stolen. They were allowed by Gabriel Capili to get (sic) inside the residence where Gabriel Capili showed him the signed document of Michael Manzo, Exh. "4" and said he returned the jewelries (sic). It was however, denied by Manzo although he admitted the signature. Gabriel Capili went with them to the police precinct where he (Gabriel Capili) was referred to the investigator and found (sic) from his pockets 4 pieces of coins. Allegedly while the wife was then being investigated, Manzo pointed to the earrings worn by the (sic) wife as part of those stolen properties. The same was taken by the investigator. He pointed to both accused inside the courtroom.
On November 15, Manzo and Emil called him up again asking if it was possible to see him which he positively answered. He went to UST somewhere near Mambusco station where he saw Emil with Michael Manzo about 5 meters from Emil standing talking to someone. He asked Emil if he was able to sell the jewelries (sic) and was answered "not yet." Emil was borrowing P700.00 but he has no such amount, so Emil gave him the jewelries (sic) formerly offered to him, the birthstone and watch allegedly as a gift from Michael Manzo. Emil informed him that he and Michael Manzo together with two others were going to Isabela so he gave the P700.00. After they (Emil and his friend) boarded the bus he went home.
After several days Pat. Ramirez arrived informing him that Michael Manzo sold him jewelries (sic). Invited (sic) he went to the police at the Hidalgo sub-station 3. Michael Manzo was not immediately investigated but Michael Manzo and Emil were incarcerated. After fifteen (15) minutes from the second floor he was brought to the ground floor inside the cell and detained for several days. He alleged that on the same day he was brought in a room at the second floor where he was mauled by Pat. Ramirez (sic) not convinced with what he said about the paper (Exh. "4"), he gave them then brought back to the cell. He told the police that the jewelries (sic) they are looking for are in the possession of Michael Manzo. He further claimed that Michael Manzo talked to a certain Go and pointed to some other buyers who were brought to the precinct. He, however, did not know if they were released. On November 27 when his wife visited him at 7:00 P.M. she was likewise incarcerated because Michael Manzo pointed to the earrings of his wife.
He further declared that prior to his wife’s arrival, policeman and Michael planned that when his wife arrived, Michael will point to her earrings, allegedly because Emil gave P500.00 to the police officer while planning to include his wife. His wife was then brought to the second floor but did not know what happened, thereafter was incarcerated.
That upon inquest, the Fiscal told the police that they should be released but were not and (sic) brought back to the cell. The following morning they were brought to the City Hall. There again, the Fiscal ordered that they be released but were not and (sic) brought back to the cell once more. On the third time when he was brought to the Fiscal, the latter allegedly told him that San Diego altered the testimony that is why they will be incarcerated.
He denied that Manzo signed Exh. "3" without any writing and pointed to the typewritten statement therein as his relaying that the same was thru Michael’s suggestion at the time when they were already quarreling while accusing Manzo to have stolen the properties subject matter of this case and even questioned that there is something wrongly written, the giving as a gift.
That although they did not know the accused Michael Manzo and did not know of any reason why he pointed to him and his wife as buyers of the jewelries (sic) worth 3 Million Pesos, he believed that it was because of the quarrel when he started accusing Manzo of stealing of which he was being blamed.
SPO1 Beinvenido Inot testified that he is a member of the National Police Force of Precinct 1, Olongapo City and that the accused Ferma Capili, wife of Gabriel, is his sister. He was asked by his sister to testify about the pair of earring (sic) that he gave Ferma on June 24, 1990, a U. S. Fancy jewel which was given by her sister from abroad. It has brillantitos which is the same as a base of the glass. The same was confiscated from Ferma by the police.
The accused shall be credited with the full extent of his preventive imprisonment in accordance with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
Since the claim of P3 Million has not been sufficiently proven but the agreed price between the seller and herein accused is only P50,000.00, the accused is hereby directed to indemnify the complainant Christine Diokno the sum of P50,000.00, less the value of the jewelries (sic) presented in Court, Exhibits "A" "B" and "C" and its sub-markings, to be returned to the owner upon proper receipt and photograph.
The bond posted by the accused for his provisional liberty is hereby cancelled.
The body of the accused is hereby committed to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, through the City Warden of Manila.
Considering that there is no evidence to show complicity and/or that Ferma Capili conspired and confederated with her husband Gabriel Capili, she is hereby acquitted from the offense charged in the Information.
The bond posted by the accused for her provisional liberty is hereby cancelled.
"WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court dated August 17, 1995 convicting the appellant for violation of P.D. 1612 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
The respondent through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that on April 25, 1997, it filed a Manifestation/Clarification modifying the recommendation it made in its appellee’s brief to the effect that a remand of the case would unduly delay the disposition of the case. Therefore, to expedite the final resolution of the case, the OSG recommended that as an alternative to a remand that the assessment and findings of the trial court on the value of the subject articles, which is P50,000.00 be adopted and used instead. 11 It is therefore the contention of the OSG that there is no merit in the petitioner’s claim that the OSG agreed to the remand of the case for further reception of evidence to determine the value of the stolen goods inasmuch as this would be prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner. The OSG also opines that the petitioner is not entitled to an acquittal since the value of the stolen property is not determinative of the guilt of the accused and is not an element of the crime but is only determinative of the penalty therefor.
At any rate, the law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by the accused as mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. 16 GABRIEL, who was in possession of at least two of the stolen items, has not rebutted this presumption.
We also disagree with the petitioner that the prosecution failed to prove the value of the stolen items.
Applying the foregoing, the petitioner should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of prision mayor maximum. The fact that the value of the fenced items exceeds P22,000.00 should not, like in cases of estafa, be considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty. 20 In the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, this should be imposed in its medium period which ranges from ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to eleven (11) years and four (4) months. Adding the additional two (2) year sentence, one for each P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty is anywhere within ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor to thirteen (13) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal21 . On the other hand, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower which is prision correccional maximum 22 which ranges from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals finding the petitioner, Gabriel Capili guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Presidential Decree 1612 otherwise known as the Anti-fencing law is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the petitioner is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to thirteen (13) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
1.	Twelfth Division composed of the ponente J. Presbiterio J. Velasco, Jr. and the members: J. Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Chairman) and J. B. A. Adefuin-De La Cruz concurring.
2.	Penned by Judge Romulo A. Lopez.
5.	Court of Appeals Decision, 2-10; Rollo, 25-33.
6.	RTC Decision, Record, 269-270.
7.	Court of Appeals Decision, Rollo, 43.
9.	Petition, 10, Rollo, 18.
11.	Comment, 6; Rollo, 61.
12. § 2a, P.D. 1612; Tan v. People, G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999, 6; Dunlao, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 788, 792 .
13.	Tan v. People, Supra, 7-8.
14.	TSN, May 11, 1994, 4-18.
15.	TSN, March 3, 1994, 2-8.
17.	People v. Sumalpong, 284 SCRA 464, 488 .
18.	ACT NO. 4103 as amended.
20.	People v. Gabres, 267 SCRA 581, 596 .
21. § 1 of ACT NO. 4103, Supra states that in cases when an additional year is added to the penalty, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal as in this case where the maximum penalty exceeds the range of prision mayor.
22.	People v. Javier, 112 SCRA 186, 193 ; People v. Gonzales, 73 PHIL. 549, 550-552 .

References: v. 
 Art. 29
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v.