Anti Fencing Law

Elements:

1.) Robbery or theft was committed

2.) The accused is neither an accomplice nor principal and buys, accepts, sells, etc. the stolen item

3.) The accused knows or should know that the object is stolen

4.) The accused was motivated to profit for himself or for another person

The third element is crucial. Moral turpitude must be proven. If this can't be proven, the prosecution has
a problem. There is a clue, however. Sec. 5 of the law states that mere possession of the stolen object
constitutes prima facie evidence that fencing took place.

In addition to jail time the stolen object is to be to its rightful owner, even if it's in the hands of a third
person unless it was acquired following requirements set by law and the law now bars recovery.
Reparation for damages is also required as well as indemnity for damages. Allowance for deterioration
or diminution will also be determined by the court.

Furthermore, establishments or entities that sell second hand items are required to possess a police
clearance to sell such items. Failure to produce such a license or violations in the rules an regulations for
the license will be considered a violation of PD 1612. This, however, doesn't cover rummage and garage
sales.

Penalties

1. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by Section 6 of P.D.1612 or who
violates any of the provisions of these rules and regulations shall upon conviction be punished as
a fence.

2. The INP Director-General shall recommend to the proper authority the cancellation of the business
license of the erring individual, store, establishment or the entity concerned.

3. Articles obtained from unlicensed sources for sale or offered for sale without prior compliance with
the provisions of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 and with these rules and regulations shall be held in
restraint until satisfactory evidence or legitimacy of acquisition has been established.

4. Articles for which no satisfactory evidence of legitimacy of acquisition is established and which are
found to be stolen property shall likewise be held under restraint and shall, furthermore, be subject to
confiscation as evidence in the appropriate case to be filed. If, upon termination of the case, the same is
not claimed by their legitimate owners, the article/s shall be forfeited in favor of the government and
made subject to disposition as the circumstances warrant in accordance with applicable existing laws,
rules and regulations. The Commission on Audit shall, in all cases, be notified.

5. Any personnel of the Integrated National Police found violating the provisions of Section 6 of P.D. No.
1612 or any of its implementing rules and regulations or who, in any manner whatsoever, connives with
or through his negligence or inaction makes possible the commission of such violations by any
party required to comply with the law and its implementing rules and regulations, shall be prosecuted
criminally without prejudice to the imposition of administrative penalties

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.

A FENCE MAY BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE RPC OR PD 1612

The state may thus choose to prosecute him either under the RPC or PD NO. 1612 although the
preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is a malum prohibitum, and PD
No. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of
the property. (supra)

MERE POSSESSION OF STOLEN ARTICLE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF FENCING

Since Sec. 5 of PD 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” it follows that the 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 does not offend the presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law.
PROOF OF PURCHASE WHEN GOODS ARE IN POSSESSION OF OFFENDER NOT NECESSARY IN ANTI-
FENCING

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.