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.

Differences between Accessory in

theft/robbery and Fencing
Accessory in theft /
robbery
Penalty

Subject
Nature

Presumption

Criminal Exemption

2 degrees lower than that

prescribed for the
principal
Accessory after the fact in
the crime of theft/robbery
under RPC
Malum in se

RPC provides no
presumption

Accessories are exempt

from criminal liability if
principal merely

Crime of Fencing

Imposes heavier penalty

Principals in the crime of
fencing
Malum prohibitum
Mere possession of any
good, article, item, object,
or anything of value which
has been the subject of
robbery / thievery shall be
prima facie evidence of
fencing (Sec. 5, PD 1612)
No provision on criminal

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

Offender who takes part subsequent to the commission of the crime other
than theft/robbery by profiting himself by the effects of the crime, is not
liable for fencing. The offender in such a case can only be charged as
accessory.
Carnapping - a crime in the nature of theft/robbery of motor vehicle =
included
Access Device Fraud (RA 8484, Sec. 13) The person who is knowingly
dealing with property acquired through the use of counterfeit access device
or an unauthorized access device or an access device fraudulently applied
for, shall be prosecuted under PD 1612 if the penalty prescribed therein is
higher than that imposable under RA 8484.

One may not be convicted of the crime of fencing if the

complainant did not lodge a criminal complaint against the
principal in the crime of theft.

Tan v. People G.R. No. 134298

Facts: Complainant Rosita Lim testified that she lost certain items and Manuelito Mendez confessed that he stole those
items and sold them to the accused. However, Rosita 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 eftnot prosecute him.
Issue: w/n theft has been proven
Held: No, theft has not been proven. Theft is a public crime. It can be prosecutedde 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, crime of
robbery or theft has been committed.
There was no sufficient proof of the unlawful taking of another's property. True, witness Mendez admitted in an extrajudicial 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.Even on this, if given extra-judicially, the confessant must have the assistance of counsel; otherwise, the
admission would be inadmissible in evidence against the person so admitting.Here, the extra-judicial confession of
witness Mendez was not given with the assistance of counsel, hence, inadmissible against the witness. Neither may such
extra-judicial confession be considered evidence against accused.There must be corroboration by evidence ofcorpus
delictito sustain a finding of guilt.
In this case, the theft was not proved because complainant Rosita Lim did not complain to the public authorities of the
felonious taking of her property. She sought out her former employee Manuelito Mendez, who confessed that he stole
certain articles from the warehouse of the complainant and sold them to petitioner. Such confession is insufficient to
convict, without evidence ofcorpus delicti.

Francisco v. People G.R.No. 146584

Held: Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. No. 1612 creates a 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. The stolen property
subject of the charge is not indispensable to prove fencing. It is merely corroborative of
the testimonies and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the crime of
fencing.
We agree with the trial and appellate courts that the prosecution mustered the requisite
quantum of evidence, on the basis of the testimony of Jovita, that Pacita stole the
subject jewelry from the locked cabinet in the main house of her then employer. Jovita
testified on her ownership of the jewelry and the loss thereof, and narrated that Pacita
had access to the cabinet containing the pieces of jewelry.
We, however, agree with the petitioner that the decision of the RTC of Rizal, Branch 76,
in Criminal Case No. 2005 convicting Pacita of theft does not constitute proof against
him in this case, that Pacita had, indeed, stolen the jewelry. There is no showing that
the said decision in Criminal Case No. 2005 was already final and executory when the
trial court rendered its decision in the instant case.

Venue
place where the property unlawfully taken is found to later been
acquired. The crime of fencing is not a continuing offense that
can allow the filing of criminal case for it in the place where
robbery/theft is committed because the two are separate and
distinct from each other.

The law on fencing requires that accused did not

participate in the criminal design to commit, or to have
not been in any wise involved in the commission of, the
crime of robbery/theft.

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.

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

Fencing is malum prohibitum, criminal intent is immaterial.

Criminal intent not required.

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.

3rd Element
Knowledge one is deemed to know a particular fact if he has the cognizance,
consciousness or awareness thereof, or is aware of the existence of
something, or has the acquaintance with facts, or if he has something within
the minds grasp with certitude and clarity.
Presumption of knowledge Possession of stolen property is prima facie
evidence of fencing. If fencing is presumed from the fact of possession, it
follows that the possessor is presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the
items found in his possession were the proceeds of robbery/theft.
Crime involving moral turpitude moral turpitude is deducible from the 3 rd
element. Actual knowledge by the fence of the fact that property received is
stolen displays the same degree of malicious deprivation of ones rightful
property as that which animated the robbery and theft which, by their very
nature, are crimes of moral turpitude.

4th Element
Concealing without intent to gain if a person concealed the
stolen property to prevent its discovery so that it could not be
used as evidence against the principal in the crime of
theft/robbery, he could be charged as:
Accessory in the crime of theft/robbery; or
Obstruction of justice (PD1829). NOT FENCING (for lack of 4 th
element).

Buying the property

Capili v. CA G.R.No.139250
Facts: Gabriel and Ferma Capili were charged with violation of PD 1612. Michael Manzo, former house-boy of Christine
Diokno, stole the latters items in her closet, jewelries and money. He sold said items to spouses Capili with the
information that the jewelry was stolen.
Held: DIOKNOs testimony is corroborated by MANZO, who admitted that he stole the jewelry from DIOKNO. And that
after stealing the jewelry, he delivered them to the petitioner, GABRIEL with the information that the jewelry was
stolen and for the purpose of selling the same.He identified GABRIEL in court as the person to whom he delivered the
stolen jewelry.MANZO testified that GABRIEL was not a participant in the theft of the jewelry and that he told GABRIEL
that the jewelry was stolen.He also established the fact that the petitioner agreed to pay fifty thousand (P50,000.00)
pesos for the stolen jewelry which clearly manifests intent to gain on the part of the petitioner.Consequently, MANZOs
testimony proves the second, third and fourth elements of the crime of fencing.
At any rate, the law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by the accused as mere possession
thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. GABRIEL, who was in possession of at least two of the
stolen items, has not rebutted this presumption.
We also disagree with the petitioner that the prosecution failed to prove the value of the stolen items.
Although DIOKNOs testimony is hearsay and is inadmissible for purposes of determining the value of the stolen items
inasmuch as her testimony was not based on her own personal knowledge but on the appraisals made by jewelers
and what her mother told her, MANZOs testimony remains unrebutted.MANZO established that he sold the stolen
items to GABRIEL forP50,000.00 and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, said amount is presumed to be
the value thereof as it is the only value established by the prosecution.Besides, the valuation of the stolen items
made by the trial court is a factual issue and factual findings of the trial court especially when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals are entitled to great weight and generally should not be disturbed on appeal.

Presumption of intent to gain

intent to gain is a mental state, the existence of which is demonstrated by the overt acts of a person.
Animus furandi can be inferred from the external demeanor of the accused. This sinister mental state
is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act in dealing with stolen properties.
Dunlao, Sr. v. CA G.R. No.111343
Facts: Ernestino P. Dunlao, Sr., a duly licensed retailer and wholesaler of scrap iron in Davao City, was
accused of violating Presidential Decree No. 1612. On October 25, 1986 at about 2:30 p.m. Fortunate
Mariquit and Carlito Catog, both employees of Lourdes Farms, were instructed by its proprietor, Mrs.
Lourdes Du, to go to petitioner's premises together with police officers Pfc. Epifanio Sesaldo and Pat.
Alfredo Ancajas to verify information received that some farrowing crates and G.I. pipes stolen from
Lourdes Farms were to be found thereat.
Upon arrival at petitioner's compound, the group saw the farrowing crates and pipes inside the
compound. They also found assorted lengths of G.I. pipes inside a cabinet in petitioner's shop and
another pile outside the shop but within the compound.
After he was informed by the police operatives that said pipes were owned by Lourdes Farms and had
been stolen from it, petitioner voluntarily surrendered the items. These were then taken to the police
station.

Dunlao, Sr. v. CA G.R. No.111343

Held: the law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by petitioner, as mere possession
thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing.
It was incumbent upon petitioner to overthrow this presumption by sufficient and convincing evidence
but he failed to do so. All petitioner could offer, by way of rebuttal, was a mere denial and his incredible
testimony that a person aboard a jeep unloaded the pipes in front of his establishment and left them
there.
In theLimcase, we held that:
. . . the presumption of fencing under Section 5 of Presidential Decree 1612 . . . must be upheld in the
light of petitioner's shallow demurrer premised on a denial and alibi, since a disputable presumption on
this score is sufficient until overcome by contrary evidence.
The Court notes that the stolen articles were founddisplayedon petitioner's shelves inside his
compound. If petitioner were merely keeping the farrowing crates and G.I. pipes for the men aboard the
jeep, why did he display them? When a storeowner displays articles, it is assumed that he is doing so
with the intention of selling them. Furthermore, the Court finds it strange that petitioner did not even
bother to ascertain the identity of the person or persons who deposited the articles with him.

Section 3. Penalties. Any person guilty of fencing

shall be punished as hereunder indicated:
(a) 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 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 and the
accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be
imposed.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
(e) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is over five (5) pesos but
not exceeding 50 pesos.
(f) The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.

 Prosecution must establish the value of

the property stolen because the penalty for
fencing depends on it.
Self-serving valuation in the absence of receipts or any other
competent evidence besides the self-serving valuation made by
the prosecution, the assertion as to the value of the property
stolen cannot be sustained.
No available evidence / prosecution failed to prove it
corresponding penalty to be imposed on the accused shall be
the minimum penalty corresponding to fencing involving the
value of P5.00.
Court may still fix the value thereof at a specific amount based
on the attendant circumstances of the case.

People v. Dator G.R. No. 136142

Held: In the case of People vs. Elizaga, the accused-appellant therein was convicted of the crimes
of homicide and theft, and the value of the bag and its contents that were taken by the accusedappellant from the victim was estimated by the prosecution witness to be P500.00.In the
absence of a conclusive or definite proof relative to their value, this Court fixed the value of the
bag and its contents at P100.00 based on the attendant circumstances of the case.More
pertinently, in the case of People vs. Reyes,this Court held that if there is no available evidence
to prove the value of the stolen property or that the prosecution failed to prove it, the
corresponding penalty to be imposed on the accused-appellant should be the minimum penalty
corresponding to theft involving the value of P5.00.
In the case at bench, the confiscated fifty-one (51) pieces of assorted Dita and Antipolo lumber
were classified by the CENRO officials as soft, and therefore not premium quality lumber.It may
also be noted that the said pieces of lumber were cut by the appellant, a mere janitor in a public
hospital, from the land owned by his mother, not for commercial purposes but to be utilized in
the renovation of his house.It does not appear that appellant Telen had been convicted nor was
he an accused in any other pending criminal case involving violation of any of the provisions of
the Revised Forestry Code (P.D. No. 705, as amended).In view of the attendant circumstances of
this case, and in the interest of justice, the basis for the penalty to be imposed on the appellant
should be the minimum amount under Article 309 paragraph (6) of the Revised Penal Code which
carries the penalty ofarresto mayorin its minimum and medium periods for simple theft.

Selling price of the property

Capili v. CA G.R.No.139250
Held: Although DIOKNOs testimony is hearsay and is inadmissible for
purposes of determining the value of the stolen items inasmuch as her
testimony was not based on her own personal knowledge but on the
appraisals made by jewelers and what her mother told her, MANZOs
testimony remains unrebutted.MANZO established that he sold the stolen
items to GABRIEL forP50,000.00 and in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, said amount is presumed to be the value thereof as it is the only
value established by the prosecution.Besides, the valuation of the stolen
items made by the trial court is a factual issue and factual findings of the
trial court especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals are entitled to
great weight and generally should not be disturbed on appeal.

Exceeding P22,000
Capili v. CA
Held: A person found guilty of fencing property the value of which exceedsP22,000.00 is
punished under Presidential Decree 1612 as follows:
Sec. 3.PenaltiesAny person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder indicated:
a)The penalty ofprision 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 for 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 termedreclusion temporaland the accessory
penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,the court shall sentence an accused to an
indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed and the minimum of which shall be within
the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense; and if the offense is
punished by any other law, the court shall sentence an accused to an indeterminate sentence,
the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum
shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

Capili v. CA
Applying the foregoing, the petitioner should be sentenced to suffer the
penalty ofprision mayormaximum.The fact that the value of the fenced
items exceedsP22,000.00 should not, like in cases of estafa, be considered
in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty. In the absence of
mitigating and aggravating circumstances, this should be imposed in its
medium period which ranges from ten (10) years, eight (8) months and
one (1) day to eleven (11) years and four (4) months.Adding the additional
two (2) year sentence, one for eachP10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00,
the maximum of the indeterminate penalty is anywhere within ten (10)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day ofprision mayorto thirteen (13)
years and four (4) months ofreclusion temporal. On the other hand, the
minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within the
range of the penalty next lower which isprision
correcionalmaximumwhich ranges from four (4) years, two (2) months
and one (1) day to six (6) years.

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.

 If a corp. violated a law with penal provision,

the ff. shall be liable for the crime:

Officers & EEs of the corp., who actively and consciously participated in the
commission of corporate acts, which constitute the crime; and
People v. Corpuz G.R.No. 148198
Facts: Illegal recruitment case. Elizabeth Corpuz contends that she is not liable for
the foregoing illegal recruitment activities considering that she was merely an
employee having no control over the recruitment business of the Alga-Moher
International Placement Services Corporation and that she did not actually recruit
the private complainants.Moreover, she did not appropriate for her own use the
processing fees she received and she had no knowledge that the agencys license
was suspended by the POEA.
The trial court convicted appellant based on its findings that despite the
suspension of the agencys license, appellant still convinced the applicants to give
their money with the promise to land a job abroad.Moreover, as the registered
secretary of the agency she had management control of the recruitment business.

People v. Corpuz G.R.No. 148198

Held: An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be
held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and
consciously participated in illegal recruitment.Settled is the rule that the existence of the
corporate entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and
intentionally causes the corporation to commit a crime.The corporation obviously acts,
and can act, only by and through its human agents, and it is their conduct which the law
must deter.The employee or agent of a corporation engaged in unlawful business
naturally aids and abets in the carrying on of such business and will be prosecuted as
principal if, with knowledge of the business, its purpose and effect, he consciously
contributes his efforts to its conduct and promotion, however slight his contribution may
be.The law of agency, as applied in civil cases, has no application in criminal cases, and
no man can escape punishment when he participates in the commission of a crime upon
the ground that he simply acted as an agent of any party.The culpability of the employee
therefore hinges on his knowledge of the offense and his active participation in its
commission.Where it is shown that the employee was merely acting under the direction of
his superiors and was unaware that his acts constituted a crime, he may not be held
criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer.

Officers / EEs specified by law as criminally

liable for corporate acts.
PD1612 specifies the president and the manager or any officer
thereof who knows or should have known the commission of the
offense.

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.

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.
To prove knowledge and intent to gain as elements of fencing,
prosecution must establish that the subject property was stolen or taken
and that the accused was found in possession thereof. These facts will give
rise to the presumption of fencing. In sum, proof of the presence of the 1 st
& 2nd elements of fencing will give rise to the presumption that the 3 rd & 4th
are also present.
Possession of stolen property not limited to actual manual control of
the offender over the stolen property but extends to power and
dominion over it.
Use of stolen property gives rise to the presumption of fencing. Thus,
the user may be held liable for fencing even though he only materially
benefited from the crime

Disputable presumption
Lim v. CA G.R.No.100311
Facts: Juanito Lim had some spare parts owned by Loui Anton Bond that was stolen
from the latter. Lim knew of this yet kept in his bodega and later disposed the said
spare parts.

Held: Verily, when it was proved that petitioner committed the unlawful acts alleged
in the information, it was properly presumed that they were committed with full
knowledge and with criminal intent, and it was incumbent upon him to rebut such a
presumption a burden which petitioner regrettably failed to discharge.The
presumption of fencing under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1612 that: Mere
possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been
the subject of robbery or thievery shall beprima facieevidence of fencing.
must be upheld in the light of petitioner's shallow demurrer premised on a denial
and abili, since a disputable presumption on this score is sufficient until overcome
by contrary evidence.

Disputable presumption
Licensed dealer one way to overcome presumption is showing proof that accused bought
the item from a licensed dealer of second-hand items.
Official Receipts

DM Consunji, Inc. v. Esguerra G.R.No.118590

Held: It is uncontested that private respondents presented sales receipts covering their
purchases of the subject phenolic plywood.In respondent Chings case, he alleges that he
purchased the phenolic plywood from agents of Paramount Industrial which is a known
hardware store in Caloocan City and that his purchases were covered by receipts.On the
other hand, the Spouses Say likewise claim that they bought the plywood from MC
Industrial Sales which is a registered business establishment licensed to sell construction
materials and that their purchases too were covered by receipts.Thus, theprima
faciepresumption was successfully disputed.The logical inference follows that private
respondents had no reason to suspect that said plywoods were the proceeds of qualified
theft or any other crime.Admittedly, there is no jurisprudence to the effect that a receipt is
a sufficient defense against charges of fencing.But logically, and for all practical purposes,
such receipt is proof -- although disputable -- that the transaction in question is aboveboard and legitimate.Absent other evidence, the presumption of innocence remains.

Recently stolen property

if suspect is found in the possession of recently stolen property, he
should be charged as principal in the crime of theft/robbery. Under
Sec.3(j) Rule 131, a person found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of recently wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the
whole act. Settled is the rule that unexplained possession of recently
stolen property is prima facie evidence of guilt of the crime of theft.
US v. Ungal 37 Phil. 835
Held: It is a rule established by an abundance of jurisprudence, when
stolen property is found in the possession of one, not the owner,
without a satisfactory explanation of his possession, that he will be
presumed to be the thief. It is well settled rule that the possession of
stolen goods isprima facieevidence that the possessor is the thief,
and throws on him the necessity of accounting for his possession.

Requisites to establish presumption that the

possessor of stolen property is the principal
in the crime of theft/robbery:
1. Subject property was recently stolen
2. Offender is in possession of recently stolen property
3. Offender cannot make a valid explanation as to why he is in possession of the recently stolen
property.

People v. Maclid, and Ponciano, Jr. G.R.No.91846

. Held: The circumstances presented by the prosecution during trial in an attempt to pin the
accused did not in any way point to him as the perpetrator of the robbery and the killing. It is
true that his possession of the stolen goods results in a strong suspicion that he had something
to do with the crime. However, this is only one circumstance and the presumption brought about
by this fact had been overcome by his reasonable explanation that he bought the goods from his
co-accused. Accused-appellant's admission that he already suspected that the goods sold to him
were probably stolen and his failure to give any statement to prove his innocence do not
indicate his commission of the crime charged. This fact does not make him the thief or the
robber. At most, accused-appellant could be guilty of violating the anti-fencing law. Neither
should one's silence be equated with guilt. Suspicion of guilt, no matter how strong should not
be permitted to sway judgment (People v. Fontanilla, 199 SCRA 897). A defendant in a criminal
case must always be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven. When his culpability is not
satisfactorily shown, or in case of a reasonable doubt, he shall have the right to be acquitted,
though his innocence be doubted.

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)
Used
secondhand
article
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.

Unlicensed
dealer/supplier
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.

Store,
establishment
or entity
Construed to
include any
individual dealing
in the buying and
selling used
secondhand
articles, as
defined in
paragraph hereof.

Buy and Sell

The transaction
whereby one
purchases used
secondhand
articles for the
purpose of resale
to third persons.

Station
Commander
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.

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)


Reported by:
Sara Ai Jenne D. Yoshihara