Macario Linghon without knowledge went and sold to the shop of the petitioner Ernesto “Erning” Francisco the jewelries which was stolen by his sister Pacita Linghon to a certain Jovita Rodriguez. Sometime after the jewelries have been stolen, Jovita just discovered that the jewelries have been missing. She filed a complaint for theft against Pacita in the Counter Intelligence Group of the Philippine National Police in Camp Crame. Pacita was then invited for questioning and she then gave a sworn statement pointing to the petitioner as the person to whom she sold the stolen jewelries. Pacita was then charged with qualified theft in the Regional Trial Court and was then convicted guilty.
With the joint affidavit of investigation by the police, a sworn statement executed by Jovita charging the petitioner of buying stolen jewelry and Macario, prosecution witness; testifying against the petitioner, the court found a probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest for the petitioner.
Information was then filed by the Provincial Prosecutor with the RTC charging petitioner with violating against P.D. No. 1612 or the Anti-Fencing Law. The court held the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating P.D. No. 1612. Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the CA affirmed the RTC’s judgment. Petitioner then brought the case for appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that: 1. The Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s decision. 2. The Court of Appeals erred in relying on the conflicting testimonies of prosecution witnesses, all of which consisted of hearsay evidence.
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating P.D No. 1612 or the Anti-Fencing Law?
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime of violating P.D. No. 1612 for the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The stolen property subject of the charge is not indispensible to prove fencing. It is merely corroborative of the testimonies and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the crime of fencing and the testimony of a single witness must be credible and reliable. In this case, we find the testimony of Macario Linghon to be dubious; hence, barren of probative weight.
Case: Recebido vs. People
Caridad Dolor mortgaged a certain property to her cousin, Aniceto Recibido, but did not execute a document on the mortgage but instead gave petitioner a copy of the Deed of Sale of the said property. Caridad Dolor went to redeem the said property but the petitioner refused to allow her to redeem her property and claim that she had sold it to him the said property.
Caridad Dolor verified from the Office of the Assessor in Sorsogon that there exists on its file a Deed of Sale which was allegedly executed by her and that the property was registered in the petitioner’s name. A comparison of the signature of Dolor’s was made in other documents with that of in the said Deed of Sale and found that the signature was falsified. Dolor filed a complaint against the petitioner Anecito Recebido with the National Bureau of Investigation.
Then, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon filed the information indicting petitioner for Falsification of Public Document with the Trial Court. The trial court convicted the petitioner of the crime charged and sentenced him to an intermediate penalty and to pay a fine of Three Thousand Pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment. And to pay P5,000.00 for damages and to vacate the land in question.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court with the modification that the award for damages is deleted.
The petitioner then raised his case before the Supreme Court.