Anti-Fencing

Law of 1979
PD No. 1612

What is 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.

What is fencing?

Prior PD No. 1612 in 1979, the fence could only be prosecuted as an

accessory after the fact of robbery or theft, as defined in Article 19 of
the RPC.

But the penalty was light as it was two (2) degrees lower than that
prescribed for the principal in theft.

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.

Elements
1.

A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;

2.

The accused, who is not a principal or 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 said crime;

3.

The accused knows 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 the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.

More on the Elements

Robbery in Anti-fencing Law covers all kinds of robbery.

i.e. brigandage, highway robbery, even piracy is included in

the anti-fencing law since it is basically robbery in waters)

Theft includes all kinds of theft.

Qualified theft, theft in other SPLs*

Other kinds of theft were transferred to SPLs since it would be
easier to prove since they are now mala prohibita.

*Ex. RA 7832 that punishes theft of electricity, tapping of electric wirings to

secondary lines, and other similar offenses

More on the Elements

One who knows or ought to know/should be known to him

Even if you are in good faith but the circumstances are

suspicious, you are liable.

Fencing is malum prohibitum, criminal intent is immaterial.

Criminal intent not required.

ex. You bought a Rolex watch at a very low price from a taxi driver.

Only intent to gain.

There need not be a previous conviction of robbery or theft.

As long as you show person doesnt own the property and there is
evidence to show there was theft/robbery.

Who are liable for the crime of

fencing?
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.

Tan vs. People, GR No. 134298

Lim, proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries manufacturing spare parts for

boats, obtained the confession, without the assistance of counsel, of her
employee, Mendez, that he unlawfully took stocks of propellers from Lims
plant and sold them to Tan for a low consideration.
Lim did not report theft to authorities.
Tan was acquitted.
Confession was inadmissible. Therefore, cannot be used against the
accused.
Theft had to be reported in order to establish corpus delicti.
Corpus delicti means the "body or substance of the crime, and, in its
primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been actually
committed.
Such confession is insufficient to convict, without evidence of corpus delicti.

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.

Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People,

GR No. 111426

Teodoro Encarnacion, Usec of DPWH, was robbed by five unidentified men in his home in
Paranaque.
The robbers ransacked the house and took away jewelries and other personal properties including
cash.
Encarnacion was then interviewed by police, was asked to prepare a list of items of jewelry and
other valuables that were lost including a sketch of distinctive items, and was told that a group
was assigned to his case.
An informant informed the police that some of the lost items were in Chinatown.
An entrapment was made and in the stall tended by Norma Dizon-Pamintuan, some of the
jewelries were found as they were displayed for sale.
Dizon was charged with violation of PD 1612.
Dizon contented that the articles belonged to Fredo, the stall owner, and that they were there
only to eat lunch but later on admitted that she was in engaged in the purchase and sale of
jewelry.
Dizon was convicted of Fencing because of the presumption of fencing.

Implementing Rules &

Regulations (IRR)

Implementing Rules &

Regulations (IRR)

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.

Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used
Second Hand Articles is required

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 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 articles is located.

Rules in Dealing with Establishments

Selling Secondhand Articles

Obtain a licence.
Keep an inventory of goods and articles bought
and sold.
Duty of Station Manager to Ensure Proper
Inventory.
Duty to require owner to show proof of acquisition.
To prevent harassment, require proof of ownership
from the seller. Otherwise, ask for an affidavit of
ownership duly notarized.

How can we be protected if we

want to buy second hand goods?

Ask for the receipt evidencing that the seller

bought the article he is selling; if you buy it,
get the receipt
If no receipt?

Pawnshops will ask you to execute an affidavit of

ownership; you will have a copy, they have a copy
Even if no formal affidavit, can state in a piece of
paper that the person is the owner, this is sufficient

Penalties

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 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 RPC shall also be imposed.
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.
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.
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 pesos but not
exceeding 200 pesos.
The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period, if such value is over five (5) pesos
but not exceeding 50 pesos.
The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period, if such value does not exceed 5
pesos.

Bar Question #1
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing vs. Theft or Robbery (1995)
What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or
robbery? Explain. Is there any similarity between them?
One

difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is

the penalty involved; a fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No.
1612 and the penalty is higher, whereas an accessory to robbery or theft
under the Revised Penal Code is punished two degrees lower than the
principal, unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft or
robbery arising from robbery in Philippine highways under P.D. No. 532
where he is punished as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one degree
lower. Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need
to prove criminal intent of the accused; this is not so in violations of
Revised Penal Code.

Bar Question #2
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (1996)
Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry,
was prosecuted for the violation of P.D. 1612, otherwise known
as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found to be in
possession of recently stolen Jewelry valued at P100,000.00 at
her jewelry shop at Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. She
testified during the trial that she merely bought the same from
one named Cecilino and even produced a receipt covering the
sale. Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to her jewelries for sale
but is presently nowhere to be found. Convicted by the trial court
for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued (or her acquittal
on appeal, contending that the prosecution failed to prove that
she knew or should have known that the Jewelries recovered
from her were the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

Bar Question #2
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (1996)
No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere possession
of any article of value which has been the subject of theft or
robbery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing (P.D.No. 1612).
The burden is upon the accused to prove that she acquired the
jewelry legitimately. Her defense of having bought the Jewelry
from someone whose whereabouts is unknown, does not
overcome the presumption of fencing against her (Pamintuan vs
People, G.R 111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal property
puts the buyer on caveat because of the phrases that he should
have known or ought to know that it is the proceed from robbery
or theft. Besides, she should have followed the administrative
procedure under the decree that of getting a clearance from the
authorities in case the dealer is unlicensed in order to escape
liability.

Handouts to follow
fin