1st slide: ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979 P.D. 1612 2nd slide: WHAT IS FENCING? Sec. 2 of PD No.

1612 there are 10 acts or ways of committing Fencing BRP-KAC-SDBD 3rd slide: (case Caoili v CA) 4th slide: WHO ARE FENCERS? 5 persons may be considered as Fencers, and they are PFAPO 4th slide: WHAT IS FENCE? 5th slide: corporation, partnership, association or firm, 6th slide: liable if 7th slide: prima facie evidence The mere possession of purchase of the stolen articles by the petitioner, as mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. It is incumbent upon him to overthrow this presumption by sufficient and convincing evidence. For example when a store owner displays stolen articles inside his compound, it is assumed that he is doing so with the intention of selling them. 8th slide: Essence of violation 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. 9th element: elements 1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed; 2. A person, not a participant in said crime, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells; or in any manner deals in any article or item, object or anything of value 3. With personal knowledge, or should be known to said person that said item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; 4. With intent to gain for himself or for another; have been established by positive and convincing evidence of the prosecution. 10th slide 1st element

11th slide: 2nd element liable as an accessory

12th slide: 3rd element Mention Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 expressly provides that 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, Since the court cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and state with certainty what is contained therein, it must determine such knowledge with care from the overt acts of that person it follows that the an accused is presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the items found in her possession were the proceeds of robbery or theft. The presumption is reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise from the established fact of her possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. This presumption does not offend the presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law. 13th slide: 4th element The crimes punishable by special laws are called acts mala prohibita. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is that, has the law been violated? Likewise, dolo or deceit is immaterial in crimes punishable by special statute like the Anti-Fencing Law. It is the act itself which constitutes the offense and not the motive or intent. Intent to gain is a mental state, the existence if which is demonstrated by the overt acts of the person. The mental state is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.