View full case

IRENEO CAHULOGAN v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

On April 18, 2011, petitioner Ireneo Cahulogan was charged with the crime of Fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612, also known as the "Anti-Fencing Law of 1979". The prosecution alleged that petitioner bought, received, possessed, and dealt with 210 cases of Coca-Cola products worth Php52,476.00, which he knew or should have known were derived from the proceeds of theft. The stolen items were supposed to be delivered to Demins Store but were mistakenly delivered to petitioner's store. The owner of the stolen items, Johnson Tan, informed petitioner of the mistake and requested the return of the items, but petitioner refused, claiming that he bought them from another person for P50,000.00 without presenting any receipt. To minimize losses, Tan negotiated with petitioner to instead deliver P20,000.00 worth of empty bottles with cases. Tan then filed a case against petitioner for the crime of Fencing. Petitioner pleaded not guilty during arraignment but chose not to present any evidence in his defense. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty of the crime charged, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed his conviction. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court to challenge his conviction for Fencing.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court has full jurisdiction to review the appealed judgment in criminal cases.

  2. Whether or not the elements of the crime of Fencing have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  3. Whether or not the proper penalty has been imposed on the petitioner.

  4. Whether the penalties prescribed under PD 1612 for the crime of fencing need to be adjusted in accordance with the recent amendments to the penalties for theft under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code.

  5. Whether the Court has the authority to adjust penalties through judicial fiat.

RULING:

  1. Yes. An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.

  2. Yes. The elements of the crime of Fencing have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution was able to establish that a crime of robbery or theft has been committed, the accused bought, received, possessed, kept, acquired, concealed, sold or disposed of, or bought and sold, or in any manner dealt in any article, item, object or anything of value which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft, the accused knew 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 the accused had the intent to gain for oneself or for another.

  3. The proper penalty has been imposed on the petitioner. The Court sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day. This is in accordance with the penalties provided in the special law on Fencing which adopts the nomenclature of the penalties under the Revised Penal Code.

  4. The Court agrees that the penalties prescribed under PD 1612 for the crime of fencing should be adjusted to reflect the recent amendments to the penalties for theft under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code. Without such adjustment, there would be instances where the fence, theoretically a mere accessory to the crime of robbery/theft, would be punished more severely than the principal of such crimes. However, the Court acknowledges that the determination of penalties is a policy matter that belongs to the legislative branch of the government. Hence, instead of adjusting the penalties through judicial fiat, the Court seeks to alert both Houses of Congress and the President of the Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Justice, about the incongruence in penalties in the hope of arriving at the proper solution to this predicament.

  5. The Court recognizes that adjusting penalties through judicial fiat is a dangerous proposition as it would constitute prohibited judicial legislation. The Court acknowledges that the determination of penalties is within the authority of the legislative branch. Therefore, the Court refrains from adjusting the penalties itself and instead provides its ruling to alert the legislative and executive branches of the government.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.

  • The elements of the crime of Fencing include the commission of a crime of robbery or theft, the possession or dealing in items derived from the crime of robbery or theft, knowledge or should have known that the items were derived from the crime, and intent to gain.

  • The penalty to be imposed for the crime of Fencing is determined by the value of the property involved, and if the special penal law adopts the nomenclature of the penalties under the Revised Penal Code, the indeterminate sentence will be based on the rules applied for crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

  • The penalties prescribed under PD 1612 for the crime of fencing should be adjusted to reflect the recent amendments to the penalties for theft under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • The determination of penalties is a policy matter that belongs to the legislative branch of the government.

  • Adjusting penalties through judicial fiat is a prohibited judicial legislation.