ANTI-FENCING LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES: A COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW

Presidential Decree No. 1612, otherwise known as the “Anti-Fencing Law,” is the primary Philippine law that penalizes the act of “fencing”—the buying, receiving, possessing, keeping, acquiring, concealing, selling, or in any other manner dealing in stolen or fraudulently obtained property. Enacted on March 2, 1979, during the administration of President Ferdinand E. Marcos, this law was crafted to complement the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on theft and robbery by targeting those who profit from the disposal of stolen property.

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the Anti-Fencing Law, tracing its background, explaining its major provisions, and illustrating how it operates in conjunction with other criminal offenses under Philippine law.

1. RATIONALE AND LEGISLATIVE INTENT

Curtailing the Market for Stolen Goods
The fundamental purpose of the Anti-Fencing Law is to discourage theft and robbery by cutting off the avenues through which criminals can dispose of, or “fence,” their loot. In other words, if criminals are unable to sell or profit from stolen property, it removes much of the incentive to commit theft or robbery in the first place.
Closing Loopholes Not Addressed by the Revised Penal Code
Before PD 1612, law enforcers and prosecutors often encountered difficulties in holding fences liable because the Revised Penal Code primarily focused on the principal offenders in theft, robbery, or other crimes involving wrongful taking. Fencing was treated as a mere accessory act. The Anti-Fencing Law thus addresses this gap by creating a distinct and independent offense for dealing with stolen or fraudulently obtained property.

2. DEFINITION OF FENCING

Under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1612, “fencing” is defined as:

“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 or sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery.”

From this definition, the law encompasses a wide array of transactions—buying, selling, possessing, or in any way dealing with property that one knows (or should know) is stolen.

3. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE OF FENCING

To secure a conviction under the Anti-Fencing Law, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt:

A Crime Involving the Property
The property in question must be previously obtained through robbery, theft, or any fraudulent means (e.g., swindling or estafa).
The Accused’s Act of Dealing with the Property
The accused must have bought, received, possessed, kept, acquired, concealed, sold, disposed of, or otherwise dealt in the stolen/fraudulently obtained property.
Knowledge or Presumption of Knowledge
The accused knew or should have known that the property was stolen or derived from an unlawful source. This knowledge can be implied from circumstances—such as the absence of receipts or any proof of legitimate acquisition, suspiciously low prices, or secretive transactions.
Intent to Gain
There must be an intention to obtain a benefit or advantage, whether personal or for another. Gain could be monetary or otherwise.

4. PRESUMPTION OF FENCING (PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE)

One of the distinctive features of the Anti-Fencing Law is its prima facie presumption clause. Section 5 of PD 1612 provides:

“Mere possession of any article, item, object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or theft shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.”

This statutory presumption simplifies the prosecution’s burden because once the stolen nature of the item is established and the accused is shown to have possessed or dealt with such item, a presumption of fencing arises. It is then up to the accused to provide evidence of lawful acquisition or lack of knowledge regarding the stolen character of the property.

How the Presumption May Be Overcome

Proof of Legitimate Source: Presenting receipts, invoices, sales documents, or other credible proof that the acquisition was in good faith from a legitimate seller.
Lack of Awareness: Demonstrating genuine ignorance of the property’s stolen origin, backed up by credible circumstances (e.g., verifying the seller’s background, normal market prices, official documentation).
Other Credible Defenses: Such as an honest mistake of fact or establishing that the defendant was merely entrusted with the property without knowledge of its status.

5. PENALTIES UNDER THE ANTI-FENCING LAW

PD 1612 prescribes penalties similar to those for the crimes of robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code, primarily based on the value of the stolen property. The penalties range from prisión mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) to higher or lower terms depending on the aggravating or mitigating circumstances and the value involved.

Below is a simplified matrix referencing the Revised Penal Code guidelines:

Up to PHP 5,000: Penalty of prisión correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years)
Over PHP 5,000 up to higher values: Penalty may escalate to prisión mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years), and, for very high values, reclusión temporal (12 years and 1 day to 20 years) or more.

Note: The exact sentencing depends on the corresponding value thresholds and graduation of penalties as prescribed in both the Revised Penal Code (as amended by various Republic Acts) and the specific guidelines in PD 1612.

6. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CRIMES OF THEFT AND ROBBERY

Separate and Distinct Offense
Fencing is not merely an accessory offense to theft or robbery. PD 1612 explicitly makes fencing an independent crime, which means that a fence may be prosecuted regardless of whether the original thief or robber has been charged or convicted.
No Need for Prior Conviction of the Thief
A common misconception is that the fence can only be charged or convicted if the thief is first found guilty. Philippine jurisprudence clarifies that it is enough for the prosecution to prove:
- The property was stolen or obtained illegally; and
- The accused knowingly dealt with it.
The principal thief’s conviction is not a prerequisite to establishing the stolen character of the property.
Overlap with Fraudulent Means
The Anti-Fencing Law does not only apply to articles derived from theft or robbery. If the property is obtained through estafa, swindling, or other fraudulent schemes, dealing with it knowingly still constitutes fencing.

7. REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR SECOND-HAND DEALERS

To further enforce the Anti-Fencing Law, businesses that deal in second-hand goods (e.g., pawnshops, surplus stores, junk shops, antique dealers, etc.) are required by various local ordinances or national regulations to:

Secure Business Permits and Licenses: Properly register the nature of their business with the relevant Local Government Unit (LGU).
Maintain Records: Keep a record or logbook containing details about each purchased item, seller identification, date of acquisition, and transaction details.
Cooperate with Authorities: Provide information to law enforcement agencies if there is suspicion regarding any items or if an item matches descriptions of stolen property.

Failure to comply with these regulations can strengthen the presumption of fencing if the goods turn out to be stolen.

8. DEFENSES AND EXCULPATORY CIRCUMSTANCES

While the Anti-Fencing Law is stringent, accused persons may interpose certain defenses:

Lack of Knowledge
Demonstrating legitimate sources, normal market conditions, due diligence in verifying the seller, and thorough record-keeping.
Absence of Intent to Gain
Although rare, an accused might show they did not intend to profit personally (e.g., they were merely holding the item as a favor without any monetary exchange).
Evidence of Good Faith Purchase
Presenting official receipts, proper documentation, or proof of an ordinary arm’s length transaction at market price.
Coercion or Threat
If the accused was coerced into possessing or dealing with the items under threat, they might raise the defense of uncontrollable fear under the Revised Penal Code.

9. JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDANCE

Philippine courts have consistently upheld convictions under the Anti-Fencing Law, emphasizing the following legal doctrines and principles:

People v. De la Cruz (G.R. No. 121394, 1998): Affirmed that the prosecution need not prove the prior conviction of the principal thieves; it is sufficient to show that the goods were stolen and the accused had knowledge or reason to believe they were stolen.
People v. Gan (G.R. No. 216027, 2018): Reiterated that possession of recently stolen property, without credible explanation, raises the presumption of fencing.

These rulings underscore the importance of the presumption of fencing and the accused’s burden to provide a credible and satisfactory explanation once possession of stolen goods is established.

10. IMPORTANCE IN CURBING CRIMINALITY

The Anti-Fencing Law plays a critical role in the country’s criminal justice system by:

Targeting Organized Criminal Networks: Often, syndicates rely on fences to offload stolen goods. By penalizing fences, law enforcement disrupts an essential link in criminal enterprises.
Protecting Legitimate Commerce: Law-abiding second-hand dealers benefit from a clear regulatory environment that weeds out shady and illegitimate transactions.
Deterrence: Knowing there is a legal risk in buying and selling stolen goods helps reduce the market demand for such items, thereby deterring thieves and robbers.

11. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612) in the Philippines is a crucial legal mechanism designed to combat the proliferation of stolen property in the market. By creating a distinct offense of fencing and establishing a presumption of illegal dealing when a person is found in possession of stolen items without credible justification, the law complements the Revised Penal Code’s provisions on theft and robbery. It reinforces the principle that not only those who steal but also those who knowingly facilitate the disposal of stolen goods must be held accountable.

Key Takeaways

Definition: Fencing involves dealing in any stolen or fraudulently obtained property with intent to gain.
Independent Offense: It is separate from theft or robbery; no prior conviction of the principal offender is required.
Prima Facie Presumption: Possession of stolen property creates a presumption of fencing, shifting the burden to the accused to prove lawful acquisition or good faith.
Penalties: Penalties mirror those of theft/robbery under the Revised Penal Code and depend on the value of the stolen goods.
Good Faith: Proof of legitimate purchase and due diligence in verifying ownership are the best defenses.

Ultimately, compliance with regulatory requirements for second-hand dealers, awareness of the legal repercussions, and vigilance among the buying public are essential in supporting the law’s goal of eradicating the market for stolen property. By closing off avenues for disposing of stolen goods, the Anti-Fencing Law remains a potent deterrent against property crimes in the Philippines.