FACTS:

The appellant, Jaime Ong y Ong (Ong), was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila for violating the Anti-Fencing Law. Ong was charged with receiving and acquiring thirteen truck tires worth ?65,975 that were stolen from Francisco Azajar, and subsequently selling one of the tires knowing it was derived from the crime of robbery. Ong pleaded not guilty and a trial on the merits ensued.

According to the prosecution, the private complainant owned forty-four Firestone truck tires. He marked the tires before storing them in a warehouse owned by his relative, Teody Guano. On February 17, 1995, the private complainant learned that all thirty-eight tires were stolen from the warehouse. He reported the robbery to the police and subsequently searched for the stolen tires. On February 24, 1995, the private complainant found one of the stolen tires being sold at Jong's Marketing, a tire store owned by the appellant. The private complainant reported the matter to the police, and a buy-bust operation was conducted. The police confirmed that the tires in appellant's store were the same tires stolen from the warehouse. Appellant was arrested and the stolen tires were confiscated.

In his defense, Ong claimed that he was unaware that the tires he purchased were stolen. He testified that he had been in the business of buying and selling tires for twenty-four years. He mentioned that a certain Ramon Go offered to sell him thirteen Firestone truck tires allegedly from Caloocan City, and he bought them for P45,500. Ong displayed one of the tires in his store and kept the rest in his bodega. He further claimed that the poseur-buyer bought the displayed tire and when he returned to ask for more, the police confiscated the tires, arrested Ong, and informed him that the items were stolen.

The RTC found Ong guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the Anti-Fencing Law. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's findings with a modification of the penalty imposed.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the accused is guilty of violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law.

2. Whether or not the minimum penalty imposed by the lower courts is appropriate.

RULING:

1. The accused is guilty of violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612. The Court affirmed the lower courts' finding of guilt, as the prosecution was able to establish that the accused knowingly received and acquired stolen truck tires and subsequently sold one of them. The thirteen (13) tires found in the accused's possession were confirmed by the private complainant as stolen from his warehouse.

2. The minimum penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of imprisonment imposed by the RTC was reduced to six (6) years of prision correcional. The CA found that the penalty imposed by the RTC was excessive. The Court affirmed the CA's ruling on this matter.

PRINCIPLES:

• Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612, also known as the Anti-Fencing Law, is committed when a person receives or acquires, through any means, stolen property and the person knows or should have known that the property was stolen. (Ruling 1)

• The penalty for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612 is imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, if the value of the property exceeded five hundred pesos (₱500) but did not exceed twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000). (Ruling 2)