FACTS:

Apologies for the confusion. Unfortunately, without the case title or any specific information, I am unable to proceed with the requested task. Please provide the necessary details so that I can assist you in writing the partial digest.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there is enough evidence to prove the value of the jewelry recovered, which is essential to the imposition of the proper penalty under Section 3 of PD No. 1612.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the trial court and remanding the case for reception of evidence for the purpose of determining the correct penalty to be imposed.

3. Whether the presumption in Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612, that possession of stolen goods is prima facie evidence of fencing, violates the presumption of innocence.

4. Whether the petitioner was able to rebut the presumption under P.D. No. 1612.

5. What penalty should be imposed on the accused considering the value of the stolen property?

6. Can the case be remanded to the trial court without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy?

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals opined that there was not enough evidence to prove the value of the jewelry recovered, thus the value of the recovered jewelries should be determined through the reception of evidence.

2. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court but set aside the penalty imposed and ordered the trial court to receive evidence with respect to the correct valuation of the properties involved in the case for the sole purpose of determining the proper penalty to be imposed.

3. The presumption in Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612, that possession of stolen goods is prima facie evidence of fencing, does not violate the presumption of innocence. The presumption is reasonable and based on the natural or logical inference that can arise from the established fact of possession of the proceeds of the crime.

4. The petitioner was unable to rebut the presumption under P.D. No. 1612. Her reliance on the testimony of her brother was insufficient to overcome the presumption, and even disclosed that she was engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry.

5. The penalty to be imposed on the accused is an indeterminate penalty ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum as the minimum to eighteen (18) years and five (5) months of reclusion temporal maximum as the maximum, with the accessory penalties corresponding to the latter.

6. The case can be remanded to the trial court without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy.

PRINCIPLES:

• Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of PD No. 1612, is 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 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 crimes of robbery and theft, on the one hand, and fencing, on the other, are separate and distinct offenses. The state may choose to prosecute a fence either under the Revised Penal Code or PD No. 1612.

• The elements of the crime of fencing 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 of any article, item, object, or anything of value 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.

• Knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.

• The presumption of innocence may be overcome by contrary presumptions based on the experience of human conduct.

• Unexplained flight and failure to explain possession of stolen property may give rise to a reasonable presumption of guilt.

• The inability of an accountable officer to produce funds or property entrusted to him is prima facie evidence of appropriation.

• The constitutional presumption of innocence may not apply if there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed.

• Possession of stolen goods is prima facie evidence of fencing under Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612.

• The presumption under P.D. No. 1612 does not violate the presumption of innocence.

• To rebut the presumption under P.D. No. 1612, the accused must present evidence that contradicts or overcomes the inference of guilt arising from possession of stolen goods.

• Section 3(a) of P.D. No. 1612 provides the penalty to be imposed based on the value of the property involved.

• The Indeterminate Sentence Law allows the imposition of an indeterminate penalty with a minimum not lower than the minimum prescribed by the special law and a maximum not exceeding the maximum provided therein.

• Double jeopardy occurs when the requisites of first jeopardy attaching prior to the second, valid termination of the first jeopardy, and the second jeopardy for the same offense as the first, concur.