Priming Activity
Vocabulary Check: Let’s Act It Out
Robbery vs Theft
the act of robbing—stealing,
especially by force or through
threats of violence
physical removal of an object that
is capable of being stolen without
the consent of the owner and with
the intention of depriving the
owner of it permanently
Special Topics for
ABM
Elective Class
Q3 Lesson 4
At the end of the session, the learners are
expected to:

 explain the provisions of PD 1612 of 1979

 enumerate examples of situations pending violations of
PD 1612 of 1979
 create a poster slogan that depicts PD 1612
 References
Anderson, E. (2009). Code of the Street: Decency, Violence and the Moral Life of the Inner City .
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Barker, M., J. Geraghty, B. Webb, and T. Key (2013). The Prevention of Street Robbery . Crime
Prevention Unit Series, Paper No. 44. London: Home Office.

Barker, M., and S. Page (2012). "Visitor Safety in Urban Tourism Environments: The Case of
Auckland, New Zealand." Cities 19(4):273–282.

Clarke, R. (2009). Hot Products: Understanding, Anticipating and Reducing Demand for Stolen
Goods. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

Cook, P. (2019). "Robbery." In M. Tonry (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Public Policy , pp.
102–114. New York: Oxford University Press.
What is Anti-Fencing Law ( PD No. 1612 ) of 1979?
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 Anti-Fencing Law ( PD No. 1612 ) of 1979?
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)

Basic Terms of PD 1612

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.
Fence: includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other organization
who/ which commits the act of fencing.
Elements of “fencing”
1) a robbery or theft has been committed;
2) the accused, who took no part in the robbery or theft, “buys,
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes,
or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article or object
taken” during that robbery or theft;
3) the accused knows or should have known of that “thing” was
derived form that crime; and
4) by the deal s/he makes he intends to gain for himself or for
another
 How does a person violate anti-fencing law?
A person violates anti-fencing law by buying, receiving, possessing, keeping, acquiring,
concealing, selling or disposing of, or buying and selling, or in any manner deal in any article,
item, object or anything of value which he know, or should be known to him, to have been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

Who are liable for the crime of fencing?

 “Fence” which includes any person, firm. association, corporation or partnership
or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing as defined earlier.
 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
PRESUMPTION
 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.

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.
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.
Are crimes of robbery and theft separate and distinct from fencing?

Crimes of robbery and theft are separate and distinct from fencing, in the
following sense:

[1] As to the classification of liability, the crimes of theft and

robbery, the perpetrator is only an accessory to the crime while
on fencing, the perpetrator is a principal.

[2] As to defense of good faith, in the crimes of theft and

robbery, it is applicable while on fencing it is not since intent is
not an element to establish its commission.
Can you be held liable as an accessory to the crime of theft or robbery
instead of violation of Anti-Fencing Law?

 Before the enactment of P.D. No. 1612, a person who committed the act of fencing could be
prosecuted as an accessory to the crime of theft and robbery. Upon conviction, he is
punished with a penalty two degrees lower than the principal.
 With the advent of PD No. 1612, such person can be prosecuted as an accessory under the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) or as a principal under PD No. 1612.
 The State now has a choice to either prosecute a person under RPC or under PD 1612.
However, the preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is
a malum prohibitum crime, and P.D. No. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing
and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property.

an act which is immoral because it is illegal

Penalties
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. 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. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to twenty years and the
accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed. The duration of the penalties of prision
mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve years.
B. Prision correccional ( medium to maximum): if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but
not exceeding 12, 000 pesos. The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from six months
and one day to six years.
C. Prision correccional ( minimum to medium ): if the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesos but not
exceeding 6,000 pesos
D. Arresto mayor ( medium to correccional): if the value of the property involved is over 50 but not exceeding 200 pesos;
The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six months.
E. Arresto mayor ( medium ): if such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos.
F. Arresto mayor ( minimum ): if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
Wrap Up Activity
Thank you, ABM
POUNDS.