PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612 (Cahulugan vs People, G.R. No.
225695, March 21,
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
Fencing- is defined as an act on any person
who, with intent to gain for himself of 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, to have been derived
from the proceeds of the crime or robbery or theft. Fence
includes any person, firm, association, corporation or
partnership or other organization who/which commits the
act of fencing. (Sec. 2(a), P.D. 1612)
Essential Elements of the Crime of Fencing
1) A crime of robbery or theft has been committed
2) The accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice
in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys,
receives, possesses, 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 crime of robbery
or theft
3) 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
4) there is on the part of one accused, intent to gain for
oneself or for another.
(Ong vs People, GR No. 190475, April 10, 2013)
Jurisprudence;
The courts a quo correctly found that the
prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable
doubt all the elements of the crime of Fencing, as it was
shown that; (a) subject items were sold without authority
and consent from the sellers employer, for his own
personal gain and abusing the trust and confidence
reposed upod him as a truck helper, (b) petitioner bought
the subject items from the seller and was in possession
of the same; (c) under the circumstances, petitioner
should have been forewarned that the subject items
came from an illegal source, as his transaction with the
seller did not have any accompanying delivery and
official receipts, and that the latter did not demand that
such items be replaced with empty bottles, contrary to
common practice among dealers of softdrinks and
petitioner’s intent to gain was made evident by the fact
that he bought the subject items for just Php 50,000.00,
lower that their value in the amount of Php 52, 476.00
2018)
A person who is engaged in the buying and
selling of an item from an unlicensed dealer or supplier
shall before offering the same for sale to the public,
secure the necessary clearance permit from the station
commander of the Integrated National Police in the town
or city where such establishment or entity is located and
any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit
required shall upon conviction be punished as a fence.
(Lim vs People, G.R. No. 211977, October 12, 2016)
(Sec. 6 of PD 1612)
“Sec. 6. Clearance/ Permit to Sell/ Used Second
Hand Articles. For purposes of this Act, all stores,
establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of
any good, article item, object of anything of value
obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof,
shall before offering the same for sale to the public,
secure the necessary clearance or permit from the
station commander of the Integrated National Police in
the town or city where such store, established or entity is
located. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or
permit required by this section or who violates any of the
provisions of the rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder shall upon conviction be punished as fence.
 The crime of fencing applies only to proceeds of
theft or robbery. (Capili vs. CA, August 15, 2000)
 Fencing must be deemed as malum in se which
pertains to acts that are immoral in itself even if
the same is punishable by the law or not. The
commission of the act itself and not bout it being
prohibited by the law implies moral turpitude.
(Dela Torre vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121592,
July 5, 1996)
Presumption of Fencing;
Sec. 5. PD No. 1612. “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.
Mere possession of stolen articles is enough to
give rise to a presumption of fencing. (Dunlao vs CA G.R
No. 111343, August 22, 1996)
 Republic Act No. 3019 exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT against the same or does not participate in the action of
the board, committee, panel or group to which they
ACTS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS THAT CONSTITUTE belong.
CORRUPTION. (j) Knowingly approving or granting any license,
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not
public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit,
rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or
authority or an offense in connection with the official dummy of one who is not qualified.
duties (k) Divulging valuable information of a
(b) Requesting or receiving any gift, present, confidential character, acquired by his office or by him
share, percentage or benefit, for himself or for any other on account of his official position to unauthorized
person, in connection with any contract or transaction persons, or releasing such information in advance of its
between the Government and any other party, wherein authorized release date.
the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene
under the law. Jurisprudence;
(c) Requesting or receiving any gift, present, or
other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for The Three Essential Elements for Violation of Section 3
another, from any person for whom the public officer, in (e) RA 3019 are;
any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will 1) that the accused is a public officer
secure or obtain, any Government permit or license. discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
(d) Accepting or having any member of his 2) that the accused acted with manifest
family accept employment in a private enterprise which partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
has pending official business with him during the negligence;
pendency thereof or within one year after its termination. 3) that the accused undue injury to any party
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party
including the Government, or giving any private party unwarranted
any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in benefits, advantage or preference in the
the discharge of his official administrative or judicial discharge of his functions.
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or (Garcia, et. al vs People, G.R. No. 197204,
gross inexcusable negligence. March 26, 2014)
(f) Neglecting or refusing to act within a (Fuentes vs People, G.R. No. 186421, April 17,
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for 2017)
the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue  “Evident bad faith” or “gross inexcusable
advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other negligence” may be committed either by dolo, as
interested party. when the accused acted with evident bad faith
(g) Entering on behalf of the government, into or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the
any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly accused committed gross inexcusable
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public negligence.
officer profited or will profit thereby.  There is “manifest partiality” when there is a
(h) Directly or indirectly having financing or clear, notorious, or plain inclination or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract or predilection to favor one side or person rather
transaction in connection with which he intervenes or that another.
takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is  Evident bad faith connotes not only bad
prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having judgment but also palpably and patently
any interest. fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some
personal gain, or having a material interest in any perverse motive of ill will.
transaction or act requiring the approval of a board,  “Gross inexcusable negligence” refers to
panel or group of which he is a member, and which negligence characterized by the want of even
the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with
conscious indifference to consequences insofar
as other persons may be affected.