PRESIDENTIAL DECREE (P.D.) NO. 1612 (ANTI-FENCING LAW)

I. Introduction

P.D. No. 1612, also known as the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979, aims to penalize the act of fencing, which is the acquisition, possession, or disposal of property that has been unlawfully obtained through crimes such as robbery or theft. The decree addresses the growing problem of fencing as a key enabler of criminal enterprises by targeting those who profit from stolen property.

II. Key Provisions of P.D. No. 1612

1. Definition of Fencing (Section 2):

Fencing is defined as:
- The act of buying, receiving, possessing, keeping, acquiring, concealing, selling, or disposing of items;
- With the knowledge or reasonable belief that the items are stolen or obtained through robbery or theft.

2. Punishable Acts:

Any act that facilitates the disposal or sale of stolen property falls under the definition of fencing.

3. Penalties (Section 3):

The penalties for fencing are based on the value of the stolen property:
- Value does not exceed PHP 5,000: Arresto Mayor in its maximum period (4 months and 1 day to 6 months).
- Value exceeds PHP 5,000 but does not exceed PHP 12,000: Prision Correccional in its minimum period (6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months).
- Value exceeds PHP 12,000 but does not exceed PHP 22,000: Prision Correccional in its medium period (2 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months).
- Value exceeds PHP 22,000: Prision Mayor in its minimum period (6 years and 1 day to 8 years), with an additional penalty of one year for every PHP 10,000 beyond PHP 22,000. However, the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years.
If the offender is a juridical entity, the penalty is imposed on the responsible officers or employees.

4. Presumption of Fencing (Section 5):

The law provides for a prima facie presumption of fencing:
- A person found in possession of stolen property is presumed to have acquired it knowing it was stolen, unless they can prove otherwise.
This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the accused, which is a significant deviation from the general rule that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

III. Relation to Other Crimes

1. Fencing vs. Theft or Robbery:

Theft or robbery pertains to the unlawful taking of property.
Fencing, on the other hand, involves the subsequent act of dealing with the stolen property.
Both the thief/robber and the fence can be held criminally liable, as fencing is considered a distinct offense.

2. Fencing as a Malum Prohibitum Crime:

Unlike theft or robbery, which are malum in se (inherently evil), fencing is malum prohibitum (prohibited by law).
Criminal intent is irrelevant; mere possession of stolen goods creates liability unless the possessor can demonstrate a legitimate source.

IV. Applicability to Juridical Persons

Corporations, partnerships, or associations involved in fencing activities are subject to prosecution.
The officers, directors, or employees directly involved in the act are held personally liable.

V. Preventive Measures and Enforcement

1. Registration of Dealers (Section 6):

All pawnshops, dealers, and traders of used items must register with their respective city or municipal treasurers.
Failure to register constitutes a violation of the Anti-Fencing Law.

2. Inspection by Law Enforcement:

Law enforcement agencies are authorized to conduct inspections of establishments dealing in second-hand goods to ensure compliance with the law.

VI. Key Legal Doctrines and Jurisprudence

1. Prima Facie Presumption of Knowledge:

The Supreme Court has upheld that possession of stolen property, absent satisfactory explanation, constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge that the items were unlawfully obtained.
The accused must present credible evidence to rebut this presumption.

2. Separate Liability for Fencing:

Jurisprudence affirms that fencing is a separate and distinct offense from theft or robbery.
Conviction for fencing does not preclude prosecution for theft/robbery or vice versa.

3. Strict Liability Nature:

Given its malum prohibitum classification, mere possession suffices for conviction, provided the presumption is not rebutted.

VII. Common Defenses

1. Lack of Knowledge:

The accused must demonstrate that they had no knowledge or reason to believe the goods were stolen.
Examples include providing documentation or proof of legitimate purchase.

2. Absence of Possession or Control:

A defendant can argue that they were never in actual possession or control of the stolen items.

VIII. Implications for Businesses

1. Compliance Requirements:

Pawnshops and dealers must maintain proper documentation of transactions and ensure compliance with registration and inspection mandates.

2. Risk Management:

Establishments dealing with second-hand goods must institute due diligence processes to verify the legitimacy of items purchased or traded.

IX. Practical Notes for Enforcement

The Anti-Fencing Law provides law enforcement with tools to target the demand side of the market for stolen goods.
Vigilant implementation, including public awareness and cooperation among stakeholders, is crucial to its effectiveness.

X. Conclusion

P.D. No. 1612 serves as a robust deterrent against fencing by punishing both the act itself and its enablers. Its focus on penalizing possession of stolen goods strengthens the broader framework of criminal law, targeting not just perpetrators of theft or robbery but also the illegal marketplace that sustains such activities.