CASE TITLE

ERNESTINO P. DUNLAO, SR., petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the
Office of the Solicitor General, and LOURDES DU, respondents.

DOCKET NO. / DATE

G.R. No. 111343 August 22, 1996

PONENTE
ROMERO, J.

TOPIC
Crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita

DOCTRINE
Presidential Decree 1612, otherwise known as Anti-Fencing Law
WHEREAS, reports from law enforcement agencies reveal that there is rampant robbery and thievery of
government and private properties;

WHEREAS, such robbery and thievery have become profitable on the part of the lawless elements
because of the existence of ready buyers, commonly known as fence, of stolen properties;

WHEREAS, under existing law, a fence can be prosecuted only as an accessory after the fact and
punished lightly;

WHEREAS, is imperative to impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by the effects of the crimes of
robbery and theft.

Under Presidential Decree 1612,5 "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."

Sec. 5. Presumption of Fencing. — 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.

DISPOSITIVE OPINION

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioner is ordered to pay
Lourdes Farms, Inc., represented by Mrs. Lourdes Du, the sum of P20,000.00 minus the value of the
recovered pipes and farrowing crates, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SUMMARY
Ernestino P. Dunlao, Sr. is the petitioner in this case, while The Honorable Court of Appeals, The People
of the Philippines and Lourdes Du are the respondents.

Dunlao was accused of violating the PD 1612, otherwise known as Anti-Fencing Law. Dunlao was a
licensed retailer and wholesaler of scrap iron in Davao City using the business name “ Dunlao
Enterprise”. He was accused of committing an act of “fencing”.

On October 25, 1986 at about 02:30pm, the employees of Lourdes Farm were tasked by their proprietor
to go to Dunlao’s place together with some police to verify information received that some farrowing
crates and G.I. pipes stolen from Lordes Farm were to be found thereat.

When the group arrived at the petitioner’s place, they found farrowing crates and pipes inside and another
pile outside the shop but within the compound. Dunlao voluntarily surrender the items when the police
officers said that those were owned by Mrs. Lourdes.

However, Dunlalo still ordered to pay Lourdes Farms, Inc., represented by Mrs. Lourdes Du, the sum of
P20,000.00 minus the value of the recovered pipes and farrowing crates, without subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency.

FACTS
Petitioner is a duly licensed retailer and wholesaler of scrap iron in Davao City using the business name
"Dunlao Enterprise."

On October 25, 1986 at about 2:30 p.m. Fortunate Mariquit and Carlito Catog, both employees of Lourdes
Farms, were instructed by its proprietor, Mrs. Lourdes Du, to go to petitioner's premises together with
police officers Pfc. Epifanio Sesaldo and Pat. Alfredo Ancajas to verify information received that some
farrowing crates and G.I. pipes stolen from Lourdes Farms were to be found thereat.

Upon arrival at petitioner's compound, the group saw the farrowing crates and pipes inside the
compound. They also found assorted lengths of G.I. pipes inside a cabinet in petitioner's shop and
another pile outside the shop but within the compound.

After he was informed by the police operatives that said pipes were owned by Lourdes Farms and had
been stolen from it, petitioner voluntarily surrendered the items. These were then taken to the police
station.

On February 16, 1987, Criminal Case No. 14655 was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City,
Branch 9, accusing petitioner of violation of the Anti-Fencing Law.

ISSUE
WON the accused violated Presidential Decree No. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law
HELD/COURT’S RULING
Under Presidential Decree 1612,5 "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."

Sec. 5. Presumption of Fencing. — 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.

ADDITIONAL INFO/KNOWLEDGE SECTION

Mala prohibita crimes are criminal acts that are wrong because they violate a statute or law rather than
being an action that harms or offends society. Most of the time, mala prohibita crimes are less severe
than mala in se crimes. For example, a parking violation, tax fraud, and copyright violation are all
considered to be mala prohibita crimes.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to
refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing
the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

Mala in se crimes are universal. Rape, murder, robbery, and assault and battery are all considered
morally wrong actions. These crimes also violate the law, but they are first and foremost actions which go
against the standards of society.