Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (P.D. No. 1612)

I. Overview

The Anti-Fencing Law of 1979, or Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1612, is a special penal law in the Philippines aimed at curbing the prevalence of fencing, which is the act of buying, receiving, possessing, or dealing in stolen goods. This law criminalizes the act of fencing and imposes penalties distinct from the theft or robbery of the goods.

II. Purpose

The law recognizes the critical role of fences in perpetuating crimes of theft and robbery. By targeting those who profit from or deal in stolen goods, P.D. No. 1612 seeks to:

Curtail the market for stolen property.
Deter individuals from engaging in fencing.
Strengthen law enforcement efforts against property crimes.

III. Key Provisions of the Law

Definition of Terms (Section 2)
- Fencing: The act of buying, receiving, possessing, keeping, acquiring, concealing, selling, or disposing of stolen goods or property, or the act of profiting from such transactions.
- Fence: A person, natural or juridical, involved in fencing.
Presumption of Fencing (Section 5)
- Mere possession of stolen property, absent a satisfactory explanation, gives rise to a presumption of fencing. The burden of proof shifts to the accused to explain lawful possession.
Penalties (Section 3)
- Penalties depend on the value of the property involved:
  - Over ₱12,000: Prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years).
  - ₱6,000 to ₱12,000: Prision correccional in its maximum period (4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 6 years).
  - ₱200 to ₱6,000: Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months).
  - Below ₱200: Arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months).
- Fine: An additional fine equal to twice the value of the property may be imposed.
Corporate Liability (Section 4)
- If the offender is a juridical person, the penalty applies to:
  - The president.
  - Manager.
  - Director or officer responsible for the violation.
Duty of Business Establishments (Section 6)
- Businesses dealing in secondhand goods are required to:
  - Maintain a registry of used articles bought or received, including their description, date, and source.
  - Make such records available for inspection by law enforcement.
Seizure and Forfeiture (Section 7)
- Stolen property found in the possession of a fence shall be seized and forfeited in favor of the government.

IV. Elements of Fencing

To convict a person for fencing, the prosecution must prove:

A crime of theft or robbery occurred.
The accused acquired, possessed, or dealt with property taken in the said crime.
The accused knew or should have known that the property was stolen.
The accused had no lawful justification for dealing with the property.

V. Notable Jurisprudence

People v. Dichupa (G.R. No. 144044, January 22, 2003):
- Established that possession of stolen goods, without a credible explanation, is prima facie evidence of fencing.
People v. Olarte (G.R. No. 223123, October 3, 2018):
- Clarified that the lack of registration of a business engaged in secondhand goods strengthens the inference of criminal intent.
People v. Del Mundo (G.R. No. 182394, June 29, 2010):
- Affirmed the liability of corporate officers in cases where the fence is a juridical entity.

VI. Presumptions and Defenses

Presumptions:
- Unexplained possession of stolen goods presumes fencing.
- Failure to record the acquisition of secondhand goods presumes bad faith.
Defenses:
- Legitimate source or acquisition of the property.
- Lack of knowledge that the goods were stolen.
- Failure of the prosecution to prove that the property was stolen.

VII. Practical Implications

For Business Owners:
- Strict compliance with the registration and record-keeping requirements.
For Law Enforcement:
- Focus on tracing stolen goods to disrupt fencing operations.
For Legal Practitioners:
- Defense strategies may focus on disproving the knowledge element or the presumption of fencing.

VIII. Relation to Other Laws

Revised Penal Code:
- Theft and robbery under Articles 308 and 293 serve as predicate crimes for fencing.
Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA):
- Proceeds from fencing may be considered as laundering of stolen assets.

IX. Conclusion

P.D. No. 1612 significantly strengthens the legal framework against property crimes by holding fences criminally liable. It complements the Revised Penal Code and ensures that those who profit from or facilitate the trade in stolen property are prosecuted, thereby addressing the root causes of theft and robbery. Compliance with its provisions is crucial for individuals and businesses engaged in secondhand goods trade.