View full case

GABRIEL CAPILI v. CA

FACTS:

Gabriel Capili and his wife were charged with violation of the Anti-Fencing Law for knowingly receiving and possessing stolen jewelry and old US dollar coins valued at P3,000,000. Christine Diokno testified that the stolen items from her closet and her mother's room were sold to Capili by their former houseboy, Michael Manzo, for P50,000. Some of the stolen items were returned to Capili by Manzo, and Diokno identified the recovered items as her own, stating that they had a value of around 3 million pesos and included jewelry acquired from trips to the United States. Manzo also confirmed that he sold the stolen items to Capili.

In a separate charge of qualified theft, Manzo claimed that he entrusted jewelry to Boy Recto, who later returned some of the jewelry to him. Manzo admitted that he did not count the jewelry when he left it with Recto, and after a drinking session, he was given money and found out later that some jewelry had been returned to him. Police investigations recovered jewelry and related documents from Capili's residence, and Manzo positively identified Capili during the investigation. Capili denied any knowledge of the theft and disagreed with Manzo's claim of agreeing to pay P50,000.

In Mario Romero's case, he was charged with qualified theft based on the statement made by Manzo. Romero claimed that Manzo invited him to see jewelry, but he declined to purchase the items. Romero went with Manzo and another person to a hotel and later to a business establishment, where they had drinks until dawn. Romero borrowed money from Manzo, who allegedly gave him a birthstone and watch as a gift. Romero returned the jewelry to Manzo but asked him to sign various documents that were not returned to him. Romero later learned that Manzo had sold the jewelry and was invited to the police station, where Manzo and another person were incarcerated.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the accused were wrongfully detained without a valid warrant of arrest.

  2. Whether or not the police officers violated the rights of the accused during their detention.

  3. Whether or not there was sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  4. Whether the value of the stolen goods should be based on the agreed selling price or the actual value of the property.

  5. Whether the prosecution failed to prove the value of the stolen goods.

  6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an acquittal based on the value of the stolen property.

  7. Whether the prosecution failed to prove the value of the stolen items.

  8. Whether the court correctly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law in determining the penalty for the crime of violation of the Anti-fencing law.

  9. Whether the value of the fenced items should be considered in determining the indeterminate penalty.

RULING:

  1. The accused were wrongfully detained without a valid warrant of arrest. The Fiscal had ordered their release on multiple occasions, but they were not released and were instead brought back to the cell. This shows that there was no legal basis for their continued detention.

  2. The police officers violated the rights of the accused during their detention. The accused testified that they were mauled by the police officer and that their rights were disregarded. These allegations were not refuted by the prosecution.

  3. There was not sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to present clear and convincing evidence linking the accused to the alleged crimes. The testimonies against the accused were inconsistent and unreliable.

  4. The Court agrees with the petitioner that the value of the stolen goods should be based on the actual value of the property and not the agreed selling price. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) clarified that the value of the subject articles, which is P50,000.00, should be adopted and used instead of the agreed selling price. Therefore, the petitioner should not be made to suffer the entire penalty imposed by the trial court.

  5. The prosecution failed to prove the value of the stolen goods beyond reasonable doubt. Since the actual value of the property was not correctly established, the guilt of the petitioner has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  6. The petitioner is not entitled to an acquittal based on the value of the stolen property. The value of the stolen property is not determinative of the guilt of the accused but is only determinative of the penalty. The essential elements of fencing are present in the case, and the petitioner's intent to gain is evident.

  7. The prosecution did not fail to prove the value of the stolen items. Although the witness's testimony regarding the value of the items was hearsay, the testimony of the accused, who admitted to selling the stolen items for P50,000, remains unrebutted. Thus, the P50,000 value is presumed to be the value of the stolen items.

  8. The court correctly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law in determining the penalty for the crime of violation of the Anti-fencing law. The petitioner should be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correcional as minimum to thirteen (13) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.

  9. The value of the fenced items should not be considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty. Unlike in cases of estafa, the value of the items is not considered in determining the indeterminate penalty for violation of the Anti-fencing law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The right to liberty and due process requires that a person cannot be detained without a valid warrant of arrest or without legal grounds.

  • The rights of the accused must be respected and upheld by the police officers during their detention.

  • The prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Insufficient evidence will not meet this standard.

  • In a case of fencing, the value of the stolen goods should be based on the actual value of the property and not the agreed selling price.

  • The prosecution has the burden of proving the value of the stolen goods beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so may result in the acquittal of the accused.

  • Fencing is the act of buying, receiving, possessing, selling or disposing of stolen items, with the intention to gain for himself or another person.

  • The essential elements of fencing are the commission of robbery or theft, the accused's involvement with the stolen items, knowledge or should have known that the items are derived from the proceeds of a crime, and intent to gain.

  • Proof of purchase is not required for a presumption of fencing; possession of stolen items is enough.

  • The value of the stolen items is not determinative of the accused's guilt but is only relevant to the penalty imposed.

  • Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court shall sentence an accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

  • The value of the fenced items should not be considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty for violation of the Anti-fencing law.