ANTI FENCING LAW (PD 1612)
1979
Purpose
Reports from law enforcement agencies reveal that
there is rampant robbery and thievery of
government and private properties
Such robbery and thievery have become profitable
on the part of lawless elements because of the
existence of ready buyers FENCE
Under existing law, a fence can be prosecuted only
as an accessory after the fact and punished lightly
This law imposes heavy penalties on persons who
profit by the effects of the crimes of robbery and
theft
This law also requires stores, establishments or
entities to acquire clearance/permit to sell/used
second hand articles (Section 6)
Enactment facilitates prosecution of the crime
Fencing, defined (Section 2)
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 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 acts of fencing
o For juridical persons the president or the
manager or any officer who knows or should
have known the commission of the offense
Elements of Fencing
1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed
2. The accused is not a principal or accomplice in the
commission of the crime of robbery or theft
3. The accused 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
4. 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
5. There is intent to gain for himself or for another
Theft Robbery
Taking of personal Taking of personal
property belonging to property belonging to
another another
Intent to gain Intent to gain
Without violence against Violence against or
or intimidation of intimidation of any Dunlao v. CA
persons nor force upon person, or using force The law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen
things upon things articles since mere possession is enough to give rise to the
presumption of fencing and it is incumbent upon the
accused to overthrow this presumption by sufficient and
convincing evidence.
Malum Prohibitum - based on jurisprudence
Intent to gain need not be proved in crimes punishable by a
Presumption of Fencing (Section 5) special law such as PD 1612 since they are considered mala
Mere possession of any of the following, which has prohibita.
been the subject of robbery or thievery:
o Good
o Article Class notes
o Item
o Object 1st element best evidence is obviously a final
o Or anything of value conviction of robbery or theft
o If not yet final or executory not sufficient
Cases for purposes of establishing the 1st element
Tan v. People o NEED NOT BE technical robbery or theft
As the complainant had reported no loss, the court cannot see Dimat (carnapping)
hold for certain that there was committed a crime of theft. o Does not mean that conviction is necessary
for conviction under this law BUT it must be
Dimat v. People proven
PD 1612 is a malum prohibitum, and lack of criminal intent o Present the victim as well as alleged
is not a defense. thief/robber in court
o Aside form confession, and circumstantial
A buyer who is aware that a car was not properly evidence need to present proof of corpus
documented, and has in fact, not received any documents delicti
pertaining to the object, is prejudiced by such non-delivery. 2 element
nd
 3rd element
4th element Court said need not be proven
o Nevertheless, the Court in various decisions
still looked into considerations to help them
deduce the existence of such intent (i.e.
Dimat)
o As of now, case law categorically provides
that fencing is mala prohibita despite the
presence of this element

SEE: DIZON PAMINTUAN V CA 234 SCRA 63 1994