ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979

(PD NO. 1612)

DEFINITION
Fencing as defined in Sec. 2 of PD No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) 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, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value
which he knows or should be known to him, or to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, GR 111426, 11 July 94).
BRIEF HISTORY OF PD 1612 OR THE ANTI-FENCING LAW
Presidential Decree No. 1612 or commonly known as the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 was enacted under
the authority of therein President Ferdinand Marcos. The law took effect on March 2, 1979. The
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Anti-Fencing Law were subsequently formulated and it took
effect on June 15, 1979.
THE PURPOSE OF ENACTING PD 1612
The Anti-Fencing Law was made to curtail and put an end to the rampant robbery of government and
private properties. With the existence of ready buyers, the business of robbing and stealing have
become profitable. Hence, a law was enacted to also punish those who buy stolen properties. For if
there are no buyers then the malefactors could not profit from their wrong doings.
WHAT IS FENCING LAW AND HOW IT CAN BE COMMITTED
Fencing 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, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in
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. A Fence includes any person, firm,
association corporation or partnership or other organization who/ which commits the act of fencing.
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THE CRIME OF FENCING; AND ITS PENALTIES:
The person liable is the one buying, keeping, concealing and selling the stolen items. If the fence is a
corporation, partnership, association or firm, the one liable is the president or the manager or the
officer who knows or should have know the fact that the offense was committed.
The law provide for penalty range for persons convicted of the crime of fencing. Their penalty depends
on the value of the goods or items stolen or bought:

A. The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos
but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty
provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each
additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In
such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining
thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.

B. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the
property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12, 000 pesos;

C. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the
property involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos;

D. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, if the value of the property involved is over 50 but not exceeding 200 pesos;

E. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is over five (5) pesos but not
exceeding 50 pesos.

F. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
RULES REGARDING BUY AND SELL OF GOODS PARTICULARLY SECOND HAND GOODS
The law requires the establishment engaged in the buy and sell of goods to obtain a clearance or
permit to sell used second hand items, to give effect to the purpose of the law in putting an end to
buying and selling stolen items. Failure of which makes the owner or manager liable as a fence.
The Implementing Rules provides for the guidelines of issuance of clearances or permits to sell used or
secondhand items. It provided for the definition of the following terms:

Used secondhand article shall refer to any goods, article, items, object or anything of
value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier, regardless of whether the same has
actually or in fact been used.

Unlicensed dealer/supplier shall refer to any persons, partnership, firm, corporation,

association or any other entity or establishment not licensed by the government to engage
in the business of dealing in or of supplying the articles defined in the preceding paragraph;

Store, establishment or entity shall be construed to include any individual dealing

in the buying and selling used secondhand articles, as defined in paragraph hereof;

Buy and Sell refer to the transaction

whereby one purchases used secondhand articles

for the purpose of resale to third persons;

Station Commander shall refer to the Station Commander of the Integrated National
Police within the territorial limits of the town or city district where the store, establishment or
entity dealing in the buying and selling of used secondhand

PROCEDURE FOR SECURING PERMIT/CLEARANCE

The Implementing Rules provided for the method of obtaining clearance or permit. No fee will be
charged for the issuance of the clearance/permit. Failure to secure clearance/permit shall be punished
as a fence, that may result to the cancellation of business license.

1. The Station Commander shall require the owner of a store or the President, manager or responsible
officer in having in stock used secondhand articles, to submit an initial affidavit within thirty (30) days
from receipt of notice for the purpose thereof and subsequent affidavits once every fifteen (15) days
within five (5) days after the period covered, which shall contain:

a.

complete inventory of such articles including the names and addresses from whom the articles

were acquired.

b. Full list of articles to be sold or offered for sale including the time and place of sale

c. Place where the articles are presently deposited. The Station Commander may, require the
submission of an affidavit accompanied by other documents showing proof of legitimacy of acquisition.

2. Those who wish to secure the permit/clearance, shall file an application with the Station
Commander concerned, which states:

a. name, address and other pertinent circumstances

b. article to be sold or offered for sale to the public and the name and address of the unlicensed dealer
or supplier from whom such article was acquired.

c. Include the receipt or document showing proof of legitimacy of acquisition.

3. The Station Commander shall examine the documents attached to the application and may require
the presentation of other additional documents, if necessary, to show satisfactory proof of the
legitimacy of acquisition of the article, subject to the following conditions:

a. if the Station Commander is not satisfied with the proof of legitimacy of acquisition, he shall cause
the publication of the notice, at the expense of the one seeking clearance/permit, in a newspaper of
general circulation for two consecutive days, stating:

articles acquired from unlicensed dealer or supplier

the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were acquired

that such articles are to be sold or offered for sale to the public at the address of the
store, establishment or other entity seeking the clearance/permit.

4. If there are no newspapers in general circulation, the party seeking the clearance/permit shall, post
a notice daily for one week on the bulletin board of the municipal building of the town where the store,
firm, establishment or entity is located or, in the case of an individual, where the articles in his
possession are to be sold or offered for sale.

5. If after 15 days, upon expiration of the period of publication or of the notice, no claim is made to
any of the articles enumerated in the notice, the Station Commander shall issue the clearance or
permit sought.

6. If before expiration of the same period for the publication of the notice or its posting, it shall appear
that any of the articles in question is stolen property, the Station Commander shall hold the article in
restraint as evidence in any appropriate case to be filed.
Articles held in restraint shall kept and disposed of as the circumstances of each case permit. In any
case it shall be the duty of the Station Commander concerned to advise/notify the Commission on
Audit of the case and comply with such procedure as may be proper under applicable existing laws,
rules and regulations.

7. The Station Commander shall, within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the application, act
thereon by either issuing the clearance/permit requested or denying the same. Denial of an application
shall be in writing and shall state in brief the reason/s thereof.

8. Any party not satisfied with the decision of the Station Commander may appeal the same within 10
days to the proper INP (now PNP) District Superintendent and further to the INP (now PNP) Director.
The decision of the Director can still be appealed top the Director-General, within 10 days, whose

decision may be appealed with the Minister (now Secretary) of National Defense, within 15 days, which
decision is final.

PRESUMPTION
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object or anything fo value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery, shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.

ELEMENTS
A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft,
buys, receives, possess, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any
manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the
proceeds of the said crime;
The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, or object or anything of value has
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
1.

There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.

(Dizon-Pamintuan vs People, GR 111426, 11 July 94)

As regards the first element, the crime of robbery or theft should have been committed before crime
of fencing can be committed. The person committing the crime of robbery or theft, may or may not be
the same person committing the crime of fencing. As in the case of D.M.

Esguerra,

Consunji, Inc., vs.

quantities of phelonic plywood were stolen and the Court held that qualified theft had

been committed. In People vs. Lucero there was first a snatching incident, where the bag of Mrs.
Maripaz Bernard Ramolete was snatch in the public market of Carbon, Cebu City, where she lost a
Chinese Gold Necklace and pendant worth some P4,000.00 to snatchers Manuel Elardo and Zacarias
Pateras. The snatchers sold the items to Manuel Lucero. Consequently, Lucero was charged with
violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. However, in this case, no eyewitness pointed to Lucero as the
perpetrator and the evidence of the prosecution was not strong enough to convict him.
The second element speaks of the overt act of keeping, buying, receiving, possessing, acquiring,
concealing, selling or disposing or in any manner deals with stolen items. It is thus illustrated in the
case of Lim vs. Court of Appeals, where the accused, Juanito Lim stored and kept in his bodega and
subsequently bought or disposed of the nine (9) pieces of stolen tires with rims owned by Loui Anton
Bond.
The accused known or should have known that the goods were stolen. As pointed out in the case of
People vs. Adriatico, the court in convicting Norma Adriatico, stated that it was impossible for her to
know that the jewelry were stolen because of the fact that Crisilita was willing to part with a
considerable number of jewelry at measly sum, and this should have apprised Norma of the possibility
that they were stolen goods. The approximate total value of the jewelry were held to be at P20,000.00,
and Norma having bought it from Crisilita for only P2,700. The court also considered the fact that
Norma engage in the business of buying and selling gold and silver, which business is very well

exposed to the practice of fencing. This requires more than ordinary case and caution in dealing with
customers. As noted by the trial court:
. . . the Court is not inclined to accept the accuseds theory of buying in good faith and disclaimer of
ever seeing, much more, buying the other articles. Human experience belies her allegations as no
businessman or woman at that, would let go of such opportunities for a clean profit at the expense of
innocent owners.
The Court in convicting Ernesto Dunlao Sr., noted that the stolen articles composed of farrowing crates
and G.I. pipes were found displayed on petitioners shelves inside his compound. (Dunalao, Sr. v. CA,
08/22/96)
In the case of

People v. Muere (G.R.12902, 10/18/94), the third element was not proven. This case

involves the selling of alleged stolen Kenwood Stereo Unit in the store Danvir Trading, owned by the
spouses Muere. The store is engaged in buying and selling of second hand merchandise located at
Pasay Road, Makati. The said stereo was bought from Wynns Audio, an existing establishment. The
court held that there is no proof that the spouses Muere, had knowledge of the fact that the stereo was
stolen. The spouses Muere purchased the stereo from a known merchant and the unit is displayed for
sale in their store. These actions are not indicative of a conduct of a guilty person.
On the same vein, the third element did not exist in the case of

D.M. Consunji, Inc.(Consunji

v.

Esguerra, 07/30/96) where the subject of the court action are the alleged stolen phelonic plywood
owned by D.M. Consunji, Inc., later found to be in the premises of MC Industrial Sales and Seato
trading Company, owned respectively by Eduardo Ching and the spouses Sy. Respondents presented
sales receipts covering their purchase of the items from Paramount Industrial, which is a known
hardware store in Caloocan, thus they had no reason to suspect that the said items were products of
theft.
The last element is that there is intent to gain for himself or for another. However, intent to gain need
not be proven in crimes punishable by a special law such as the Anti-Fencing Law. The crimes
punishable by special laws are called acts

mala prohibita,

mala prohibita. The rule on the subject is that in acts

the only inquiry is that, has the law been violated? (in Gatdner v. People, as cited

in US v. Go Chico, 14 Phils. 134) When the act is prohibited by law, intent is immaterial.
Likewise,

dolo

or deceit is immaterial in crimes punishable by special statute like the Anti-Fencing

Law. It is the act itself which constitutes the offense and not the motive or intent. Intent to gain is a
mental state, the existence if which is demonstrated by the overt acts of the person. The mental state
is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act. (Dunlao v. CA) again, intent to gain is a mental
state, the existence of which is demonstrated by the overt acts of person, as the keeping of stolen
items for subsequent selling.
A FENCE MAY BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE RPC OR PD 1612
The state may thus choose to prosecute him either under the RPC or PD NO. 1612 although the
preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is a malum

prohibitum,

and PD No. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value
of the property. (supra)
MERE POSSESSION OF STOLEN ARTICLE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF FENCING
Since Sec. 5 of PD NO. 1612 expressly provides that mere possession of any good, article, item, object
or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing it follows that the accused is presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the items found in
her possession were the proceeds of robbery or theft. The presumption does not offend the
presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FENCING AND ROBBERY
The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participation in the criminal design to commit
or to have been in any wise involved in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft. Neither is the
crime of robbery or theft made to depend on an act of fencing in order that it can be
consummated. (People v De Guzman, GR 77368).
Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of
violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything.
On the other hand, fencing 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, or shall buy and sell, or in any
other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or shall be known
to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
FENCING AS A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.
In violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, actual knowledge by the fence of the fact that property received
is stolen displays the same degree of malicious deprivation of ones rightful property as that which
animated the robbery or theft which by their very nature are crimes of moral turpitude. (Dela Torre v.
COMELEC 07/05/96)
Moral turpitude can be derived from the third element accused knows or should have known that the
items were stolen. Participation of each felon, one being the robber or the thief or the actual
perpetrators, and the other as the fence, differs in point in time and degree but both invaded ones
peaceful dominion for gain. (Supra) Both crimes negated the principle of each persons duty to his
fellowmen not to appropriate things that they do not own or return something acquired by mistake or
with malice. This signifies moral turpitude with moral unfitness.
In the case of Dela Torre, he was declared disqualified from running the position of Mayor in Cavinti,
Laguna in the last May 8, 1995 elections because of the fact of the disqualification under Sec. 40 of the
Local Government Code, of persons running for elective position -Sec. 40 Disqualifications (a) Those
sentenced by final judgement for an offense involving moral turpitude
Dela Torre was disqualified because of his prior conviction of the crime of fencing wherein he admitted
all the elements of the crime of fencing.
ESSENCE OF VIOLATION OF PD 1612, SEC. 2 OR ANTI-FENCING

PD 1612, Section 2 thereof requires that the offender buys or otherwise acquires and then sells or
disposes of any object of value which he knows or should he known to him to have been derived from
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. (Caoili v CA; GR 128369, 12/22/97)
PROOF OF PURCHASE WHEN GOODS ARE IN POSSESSION OF OFFENDER NOT NECESSARY IN
ANTI-FENCING
The law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by petitioner, as mere possession
thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing.
It was incumbent upon petitioner to overthrow this presumption by sufficient and convincing
evidence. (Caoili v. CA; GR 128369, 12/22/97)