P.D. NO.
1612 ( THE ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979)  The prosecution must prove that a crime of theft or robbery has been
What is the purpose of the anti-fencing law?
PD 1612 was enacted to impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by the
effects of the crimes of robbery and theft. (Tan vs. People, G.R. No. 134298. August
26, 1999)
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. A "Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation
or partnership or other organization who/ which commits the act of fencing. (Sec. 2,
PD 1612)
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, firm or other organization, the
one liable is the president or the manager or the officer who knows or should have
known the commission of the offense. (Sec. 4, PD 1612)
What are the elements of the crime of fencing?
The elements of the crime of fencing are:
1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
2. The accused who is not a principal or accomplice in 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
have 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. (Dela
Torre vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 121592, July 5, 1996)
Note:
 Fencing may be shown when the buyer bought the article at a price way below
ordinary prices.
committed but there need not be an information filed in court before the crime
of fencing is prosecuted.
What is meant by the third element "to know or should have known"?
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 mind's grasp with certitude and clarity.
When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such
knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence
unless he actually believes that it does not exist. On the other hand, the words "should
know" denote the fact that a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence would
ascertain the fact in performance of his duty to another or would govern his conduct
upon assumption that such fact exists. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, G.R. No.
111426, July 11, 1994)
Where should the crime of fencing be filed?
It should be filed in the the place where the property unlawfully taken is found to have
been acquired.
The offender may be prosecuted at the place where he took hold of the property and
not at the place of the commission of the theft or robbery.
Does the law require proof of purchase of the stolen articles to give rise to a
presumption of fencing?
No. The law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles as mere
possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. (Dunlao vs.
CA, G.R. No. 111343, August 22, 1996)
Sec. 5 of PD 1416 provides: "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."
The presumption is reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise from
the established fact of possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, G.R. No. 111426, July 11, 1994)
Is there a need to prove intent to gain?
No. Intent to gain need not to be proven in crimes punishable by a special law such as
the Anti-Fencing Law. The crimes punishable by special laws are called “acts mala
prohibita”.
The law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called "acts mala in
se," and acts which would not be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them,
called "acts mala prohibita." This distinction is important with reference to the intent
with which a wrongful act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se,
the intent governs, but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been
violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial. (Dunlao vs.
CA, G.R. No. 111343, August 22, 1996)
CASES:
DIZON-PAMINTUAN VS. PEOPLE
234 SCRA 63
FACTS:
1. Teodoro Encarnacion, Undersecretary of the Department of Public Works and
Highways arrived at his residence form the airport and immediately proceeded inside
his house.
2. Five unidentified masked-armed persons appeared from the grassy portion of the
lot and poked their guns at his driver and two helpers and were dragged inside the
house.
3. The robbers ransacked the house and took away pieces of jewelry and other
personal properties including case.
4. The matter was reported to the police.
5. The WPD asked Teodoro to prepare a list of items of jewelry and other valuables
that were lost.
6. He was later told that some of the lost items were in Chinatown area as tipped by
an informer.
7. His wife was able to recognize the stolen jewelry displayed at the stall being
tended by Norma Dizon-Pamintuan.
8. Norma was arrested, tied and convicted of violating the Anti-Fencing Law.
9. In convicting the petitioner, the trial court ruled that there is not doubt that the
recovered items were found in the possession of the accused and she was not able to
rebut the presumption (Sec. 5) though the evidence for the prosecution alleged that
the stall is owned by Fredo.
10. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision.
ISSUE:
Is the accused guilty of the crime charged? (yes)
HELD:
Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law), 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.
The elements of the crime of fencing are:
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, possess, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or
disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deal 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.
Since Section 5 of PD 1612 expressly provides that mere possession of any good,
article, item or 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 petitioner 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.
DIMAT V. PEOPLE, GR NO. 181184, JANUARY 25, 2012
FACTS:
The government charged the accused Mel Dimat with violation of the Anti-Fencing
Law before the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC).
On March 7, 2001, Ramirez and fellow officers of the Traffic Management Group
spotted the Nissan Safari bearing a suspicious plate number. After stopping and
inspecting the vehicle, they discovered that it had been stolen from Jose Mantequilla.
Dimat claimed that he did not know Mantequilla and that he bought the Nissan
Safari in good faith and for value from a certain Manuel Tolentino under a deed of
sale. Dimat later sold the vehicle to Delgado. He also claimed that, although the
Nissan Safari he sold to Delgado and the one which the police officers took into
custody had the same plate number, they were not actually the same vehicle.
ISSUE:
WON the CA correctly ruled that accused Dimat knowingly sold to Sonia Delgado
for gain the Nissan Safari that was earlier carnapped from Mantequilla.
RULING:

Yes. The elements of "fencing" are present in this case.

Dimat’s defense is that the Nissan Safari he bought from Tolentino and later sold to
Delgado had engine number TD42-126134 and chassis number CRGY60-YO3553 as
evidenced by the deeds of sale covering those transactions. The Nissan Safari stolen
from Mantequilla, on the other hand, had engine number TD42-119136 and chassis
number CRGY60-YO3111.

Dimat’s defense is flawed. First, the Nissan Safari Delgado bought from him turned
out to have the engine and chassis numbers of the Nissan Safari stolen from
Mantequilla. This means that the deeds of sale did not reflect the correct numbers of
the vehicle’s engine and chassis.

Second, Dimat claims lack of criminal intent as his main defense. But Presidential
Decree 1612 is a special law and, therefore, its violation is regarded as malum
prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent.

Dimat testified that he met Tolentino at the Holiday Inn Casino where the latter gave
the Nissan Safari to him as collateral for a loan. Tolentino supposedly showed him
the old certificate of registration and official receipt of the vehicle and even promised
to give him a new certificate of registration and official receipt already in his name.
But Tolentino reneged on this promise. Dimat insists that Tolentino’s failure to
deliver the documents should not prejudice him in any way. Delgado himself could
not produce any certificate of registration or official receipt.

Evidently, Dimat knew that the Nissan Safari he bought was not properly
documented. Tolentino was unable to make good on his promise to produce new
documents, and this undoubtedly confirmed to Dimat that the Nissan Safari came
from an illicit source. Still, Dimat sold the same to Sonia Delgado who apparently
made no effort to check the papers covering her purchase. That she might herself be
liable for fencing is of no moment since she did not stand accused in the case.