Presidential Decree

No. 1612
ANTI-FENCING LAW of 1979
What is fencing?
• “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.
Who is a fence?
•“Fence" includes any person,
firm, association corporation
or partnership or other
organization who/which
commits the act of fencing.
Elements of
Fencing
1. That a crime
of theft or
robbery has
been
committed.
2. Accused who is not a principal or
accomplice in the crime, buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, 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 crime of robbery
or theft.
3. The accused knows
or should have known
that said article, item,
object or anything of
value has been derived
from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft.
4. That there is, on
the part of the
accused, intent to
gain for himself or
for another.
Presumption of Fencing
The 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.
Exception:
Clearance/Permit
to Sell Used
Second Hand
Articles
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 in the town or city where such
store, establishment or entity is located.
Definition of Terms
1. "Used secondhand article" shall refer to any goods, article, item,
object or anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or
supplier, regardless of whether the same has actually or in fact been
used.
2. "Unlicensed dealer/supplier" shall refer to any persons, partnership,
firm, corporation, association or any other entity or establishment not
licensed by the government to engage in the business of dealing in or
of supplying the articles defined in the preceding paragraph.
3. "Store", "establishment" or "entity" shall be construed to include
any individual dealing in the buying and selling used secondhand
articles, as defined in paragraph hereof.
4. "Buy and Sell" refer to the transaction whereby one purchases used
secondhand articles for the purpose of resale to third persons.
5. "Station Commander" shall refer to 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.
Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People
Facts:
• Teodoro Encarnacion was robbed of his belongings
in his house then he reported it to the police.
• There was a tip that some of the stolen items were
in Chinatown area.
• The stall is being tended by Norma Dizon
Pamintuan
• She contends that she has no idea that the items
were stolen. Fredo is the one who allegedly sold it
to her.
Issue:
• Whether the prosecution proved the
existence of the third element: that the
accused knew or should have known that
the items recovered from her were the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft?
Resolution:
• Yes, the third element is proved by the
prosecution.
• 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.
Tan vs. People
Facts:
• Rosita Lim, engaged in the business of
manufacturing propellers and spare parts for
boats, was robbed by her employee Manuelito
Mendez of propellers and stocks.
• Mendez sold the stolen items to Mr. Tan, one of
the customers of Lim.
• Lim has forgiven Manuelito but sued Mr. Tan.
• Tan contends that there is no unlawful taking of
another’s property.
Resolution:
• Lim never reported the theft or even loss to the police.
She admitted that after Manuelito Mendez, her former
employee, confessed to the unlawful taking of the
items, she forgave him, and did not prosecute him.
Theft is a public crime. It can be prosecuted de oficio, or
even without a private complainant, but it cannot be
without a victim. As complainant Rosita Lim reported
no loss, we cannot hold for certain that there was
committed a crime of theft. Thus, the first element of
the crime of fencing is absent, that is, a crime of
robbery or theft has been committed.
Resolution:
• There was no sufficient proof of the unlawful
taking of another’s property. True, witness
Mendez admitted in an extra-judicial confession
that he sold the boat parts he had pilfered from
complainant to petitioner. However, an
admission or confession acknowledging guilt of
an offense may be given in evidence only
against the person admitting or confessing.
Bar Exam
Questions
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?
Suggested Answer:
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.
Suggested Answer:
• Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the
acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes of
robbery or theft are included in the acts
defined as fencing. In fact, the accessory in the
crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted
as such under the Revised Penal Code or as a
fence under P.D. No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan
vs. People, 234 SCRA 63]
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing;
Elements (1995)
What are the elements of fencing?
Suggested Answer:
The elements of fencing are:
1. That a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the
crime, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, 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 said crime;
3. That the accused knows or should have known that said
article, item, object or anything of value has been derived
from the from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
4. That there is on the part of the accused, intent to gainfor
himself or for another.
 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.
Suggested Answer:
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.
 Criminal Liability; Accessories &
Fence (1998)
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a
drink and after consuming three bottles of beer. King made advances
to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed
Laura and took her jewelry. Doming, King's adopted brother, learned
about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body, cleaned
everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later, King
gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to
Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was taken from Laura but
nonetheless he sold it for P2,000.
What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss
their criminal liabilities.
Suggested Answer:
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single
indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. ...
Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission of
the crime and obviously to conceal the body of the crime to prevent its
discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape with homicide
under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exempt from
criminal liability therefor under Article 20 of the Code, being an
adopted brother of the principal.
Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft
committed by King, or as fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of
King, the exemption under Article 20 does not include the participation
he did, because he profited from the effects of such theft by selling the
jewelry knowing that the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be
prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No.
1612) since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to
gain, he received it from King and sold it.
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing
(2009)
True or False Question
In a prosecution for fencing under P.D.
1612, it is a complete defense for the
accused to prove that he had no knowledge
that the goods or articles found in his
possession had been the subject of robbery.
Suggested Answer:
False, fencing is committed if the
accused “should have known” that the
goods or articles had been the subject
of theft or robbery (P.D. No. 1612[a]).
Mere possession of the stolen goods
gives rise to the prima facie
presumption of fencing.
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing
(2010)
Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, more
popularly known as"ukay-ukay." Among the items found by the
police in a raid of her store in Baguio City were brand-new Louie
Feraud blazers.
Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will the charge prosper? Why
or why not?
 Suggested Answer:
• No, the charge of “fencing” will not prosper. “Fencing” is
committed when a person, with intent to gain for himself or for
another, deals in any manner with an article of value which he
knows or should be known to him to have been derived from the
proceeds of theft or robbery (Sec. 2, PD 1612). Thus, for a charge
of fencing to prosper, it must first be established that a theft or
robbery of the article subject of the alleged “fencing” has been
committed – fact which is wanting in this case.
• It should be noted that the suspect is engaged in the buy and sell
of used garments, which are in the nature of movable property
carries with it a prima facie presumption of ownership. The
presumption of “fencing” arises only when the article or item
involved is the subject of a robbery or thievery (Sec. 5, PD 1612).
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing
(2013)
• Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Iñigo for P500,000.
While driving his newly-bought car, Roberto met a minor
accident that made the examination of his vehicle's
Registration Certificate necessary. When the policeman
checked the plate, chassis and motor numbers of the vehicle
against those reflected in the Registration Certificate, he
found the chassis and motor numbers to be different from
what the Registration Certificate stated. The Deed of Sale
covering the sale of the Fortuner, signed by Iñigo, also bore
the same chassis and motor numbers as Roberto's
Registration Certificate. The chassis and motor numbers on
the Fortuner were found, upon verification with the Land
Transportation Office, to correspond to a vehicle previously
reported as carnapped.
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing
(2013)
Roberto claimed that he was in good faith; Iñigo sold him a
carnapped vehicle and he did not know that he was buying a
carnapped vehicle.

If you were the prosecutor, would you or would you not charge
Roberto with a crime?
 Suggested Answer:
• I will charge Roberto with violation of Anti-Fencing Law. The
elements of “fencing” are: 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 the thing was derived form that crime; and 4)
by the deal he makes he intends to gain for himself or for
another. Here, someone carnapped the vehicle, sold it to
Roberto who did not take part in the crime.
• Roberto should have known also that the car was
stolen because it was not properly documented as
the deed of sale and registration certificate did not
reflect the correct numbers of the vehicle’s engine
and chassis. Apparently, he made no effort to check
the papers covering his purchase. Lastly, Roberto’s
defense of good faith is flawed because Presidential
Decree 1612 is a special law and, therefore, its
violation in regarded as malum prohibitum,
requiring no proof of criminal intent (Dimat v.
People, GR No. 181184, January 25, 2012).
 Alternative Answer:
• The facts given show that Roberto “bought” the car
form Inigo; that a “deed of sale” covering the
subject vehicle was executed by Inigo; that there is
also a copy of the “Registration Certificate”; that
Roberto aver, too, of being a buyer in good faith and
lacking of any knowledge that the subject car is a
carnapped vehicle. As against the foregoing, there is
only a certificate from the Land Transportation
Office showing that the vehicle had been previously
reported as carnapped.
• Consequently, in light of the satisfactory
explanation of Roberto of his possession of the
vehicle, the presumption of authorship of the theft
upon a person found in possession of the stolen
personal property finds no application in the instant
case. There is, thus, no probable cause or evidence
to warrant the prosecution of Riberto for any
wrongdoing.