FACTS:

Factually, the case involves the accused, Mel Dimat, who was charged with violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. It was alleged that Dimat sold a 1997 Nissan Safari to Sonia Delgado, which was later found to be stolen from its registered owner, Jose Mantequilla. The police officers discovered that the engine and chassis numbers of the Nissan Safari sold by Dimat to Delgado matched those of the stolen vehicle. Dimat claimed that he bought the Nissan Safari in good faith and for value from Manuel Tolentino, and he was not aware that it was stolen. Dimat was found guilty by the RTC and sentenced to imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision but modified the penalty imposed. This case presents the issue of whether Dimat knowingly sold the stolen Nissan Safari to Delgado for gain. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved that Dimat knew or should have known that the vehicle was derived from theft or robbery, based on the evidence presented.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that accused Dimat knowingly sold the stolen Nissan Safari to Sonia Delgado for gain.

RULING:

1. The Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals. The accused knew or should have known that the Nissan Safari he acquired and later sold to Delgado was derived from theft or robbery. Dimat's defense that he bought the vehicle in good faith is flawed as the vehicle he sold to Delgado had the same engine and chassis numbers as the stolen vehicle. The prosecution established that Dimat intended to gain from his act of selling the stolen vehicle. Even though Delgado could also be held liable for fencing, she was not accused in this case.

PRINCIPLES:

• The elements of "fencing" are: (1) a robbery or theft has been committed; (2) the accused buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes of, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article or object taken during the robbery or theft; (3) the accused knows or should have known that the thing derived from the crime; and (4) the accused intends by the deal he makes to gain for himself or for another.

• Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law is regarded as malum prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent. However, the prosecution must still prove that the accused knew or should have known that the property acquired or sold was derived from theft or robbery and that there was an intent to gain.