THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE C. DE GUZMAN et al.

G.R. No. 77368, 5 October, 1993, THIRD DIVISION, (Vitug, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

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. Fencing, on the other hand, 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 theft and

robbery.

FACTS

Robbery was committed in Quezon City in the residence of Jose Obillos. An

information was filed before the RTC of Quezon City against respondents.

Subsequently, another information was filed for against the respondent for violation of

Presidential Decree No. 1612 or the Anti Fencing Law against the same respondents.

Then, respondents filed a motion to quash against the information since the Quezon

City RTC does not have jurisdiction over the case, because the crime of fencing was

committed in Antipolo Rizal. The motion was granted

The OSG filed before the Supreme Court arguing that since the essential

elements of fencing is the commission of robbery, which occurred in Quezon City vests
the RTC of Quezon jurisdiction over the case. OSG also argued that fencing is a

continuing crime of robbery or theft.

ISSUE

WON fencing is a continuing crime of robbery or theft?

RULING

NO. Robbery and fencing are two different crimes. The law on fencing does not

require the accused to be a participant in the criminal design to commit or to have been

in any wise involved in the commission of theft and robbery. Neither is robbery or theft

made to defend on the act of fencing. The place where theft or robbery is committed in

inconsequential. Therefore, fencing is not a continuing crime of robbery or theft.

 MEL DIMAT v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 181184, 25 January, 2012, THIRD DIVISION, (Abad, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

FACTS

The government charged petitioner for violating Presidential Decree No. 1612.

Petitioner sold a Nissan Safari to one Sonia Delgado. The police discovered the car

parked in Quezon City, and has suspicions on it. Upon inspecting the car, it was

discovered that it belonged to one Jose Mantequilla. Petitioner argues that he bought

the car in good faith from one Manuel Tolentino and then later sold to Sonia Delgado

ISSUE

WON good faith is a valid defense for violating PD No. 1612?

RULING

NO. PD No. 1612 is a special penal law and its violation is regarded as malum

prohibitum, which requires no proof of criminal intent. In the case at bar, petitioner

stated that he obtained the car from Manuel Tolentino and that the latter showed the

former the old documents pertaining to the ownership of the car, and promised that he

would deliver a new certificate of registration in petitioner’s name. However, Tolentino

did not fulfill his promise. From the foregoing facts, petitioner is aware that the car is not

properly documented, and yet, he still sold the same for his own gain.
 JAIME ONG y ONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 190475, 10 April, 2013, FIRST DIVISION, (Sereno, C.J.,)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

Fencing is malum prohibitum and PD No. 1612 created prima facie

presumption of fencing from evidence of possession, by the accused of any

good, article, item, object or anything of value, which has been the subject of

robbery or theft; and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the

property

FACTS

Petitioner Ong was charged for the violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612 for

acquiring from an unknown person truck tires which originally belonged to one

Fransisco Azajar Lee. Petitioner denied having knowledge that the tires were stolen.

ISSUE

WON the lack of knowledge that the truck tires were stolen is a valid defense?

RULING

NO. The elements of fencing pursuant to PD No. 1612 are: (1) a crime of theft or

robbery has been committed; (2) the accused, who is not principal or on accomplice in

the composition of the crime of theft or robbery, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,

acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes, or buy or sells, or in any manner detail in any

article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of

the crime of theft and robbery; (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 and theft; (4) there is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for

oneself or another.

The phrase “should have known” in the third element denotes that a person with

reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his

duty to another that such fact exist. In the case at bar, Ong, who is engaged in business

of buying and selling tires for a significant amount of time should have known the

procedure in purchasing from an unknown seller. Petitioner’s experience in the business

should have given him doubt as to the legitimate ownership of the tires considering that

it was his first time to transact with the seller.

Moreover, Section 6 of PD No. 1612, provides that stores dealing with an

unlicensed dealer must secure a clearance or permit from the Station Commander of

the Police where his store resides. Ong, who is familiar with such conduct, failed to

secure the necessary clearance in this case, which