Below is a comprehensive discussion on the topic of Criminal Liability for Buying Stolen Property under Philippine law, covering all essential legal points, relevant statutes (primarily the Revised Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 1612, known as the “Anti-Fencing Law”), jurisprudence, defenses, and practical considerations.

1. Overview of the Relevant Laws

1.1. Revised Penal Code (RPC)

Under the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815), “theft,” “robbery,” and related property crimes (Articles 293 to 310) govern the unlawful taking of personal property. However, the RPC does not explicitly punish the mere act of buying or receiving stolen goods from another person. Traditionally, one who knowingly buys or receives stolen property could potentially be considered an accessory to the crime of theft or robbery (Article 19, in relation to Article 4 on accessories, of the RPC).

Nevertheless, to address the problem of individuals or businesses profiting from the sale of stolen items, a more specific law was enacted.

1.2. The Anti-Fencing Law (Presidential Decree No. 1612)

Enacted in 1979, the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612) criminalizes the act of “fencing,” which is effectively the buying, receiving, possessing, keeping, acquiring, concealing, selling, or disposing of property that one knows (or should know) is stolen. It was introduced to deter the rampant trade in stolen property and to simplify the prosecution of those who profit from stolen items.

Key provision: Section 2 of P.D. 1612, which states:

“Definition of Terms: '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 manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should have known, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.”

2. The Crime of Fencing and Its Elements

When someone in the Philippines “buys stolen property,” the operative crime is typically fencing under P.D. 1612, not merely being an accessory to theft or robbery. The direct penal provision specifically targets the buyer and other handlers of stolen goods.

2.1. Elements of Fencing

Subject Property: The property in question must be the proceeds of robbery or theft (i.e., stolen property).
Act of Dealing: The accused must buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell, or otherwise deal in such property.
Intent to Gain: The accused must have intended to profit or derive benefit from dealing in the stolen property.
Knowledge (Actual or Constructive): The accused knew or should have known that the property was stolen.
- Actual knowledge means the accused was aware that the property was stolen when it was acquired.
- Constructive knowledge implies there were sufficient circumstances that should have led a reasonable person to inquire further or suspect that the property was stolen.

2.2. Notable Features of the Law

Separate Offense: Fencing is treated as a distinct crime, independent of the original theft or robbery. This means that even if the thieves themselves are not prosecuted or convicted, or are unknown, a person can still be held criminally liable for fencing.
Presumption of Fencing: There is a legal presumption under P.D. 1612 that a person found in possession of stolen goods (without a legitimate explanation as to its source) is prima facie presumed to have committed fencing. This shifts a measure of the burden to the accused to provide a credible explanation.

3. Key Jurisprudence on Fencing

Philippine Supreme Court decisions have reinforced the distinct nature of fencing and have clarified its elements:

People v. Crisologo (G.R. No. 88237, 1992)
The Supreme Court emphasized that fencing is a standalone offense and that the prosecution need only establish that the accused knowingly bought or received stolen property. It is not necessary for the conviction of the principal thieves to proceed first.
People v. de Lara (G.R. No. L-76096, 1989)
The Court highlighted that the presumption of fencing applies when the property possessed by the accused is proved to be stolen and that the accused cannot satisfactorily explain his or her possession.
People v. Domingo (G.R. No. 106197, 1994)
The Court reiterated that lack of knowledge or the accused’s good faith is a defense, but it must be clearly and convincingly shown to overcome the presumption of fencing.

These cases underscore the significance of actual or constructive knowledge and the burden on the accused to present a viable explanation for possession or purchase of suspected stolen items.

4. Penalties under the Anti-Fencing Law

P.D. 1612 provides varying degrees of penalties based on the value of the stolen goods. Generally:

If the value of the stolen property does not exceed Php 5,000 – the penalty is prisión mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years).
If the value exceeds Php 5,000 but is less than Php 50,000 – the penalty increases to prisión mayor in its medium period up to prisión mayor in its maximum period.
If the value exceeds Php 50,000 – the penalty may escalate to reclusión temporal (12 years and 1 day to 20 years).

(Exact ranges vary based on amendments and the specific value thresholds as set forth in the law, with reference also to the Indeterminate Sentence Law for final sentencing.)

5. Distinctions and Interplay with Other Crimes

Fencing vs. Accessory to Theft
- Before P.D. 1612, a person who bought stolen property could be indicted as an accessory under the Revised Penal Code. However, with the passage of the Anti-Fencing Law, such an act is now specifically punished as fencing, which is a distinct and more directly prosecutable offense.
Fencing vs. Theft/Robbery
- A fence (buyer/receiver of stolen property) does not need to be the one who committed the original theft or robbery. Liability arises from handling or benefiting from the stolen property.
Fencing vs. Falsification or Fraud (Estafa)
- Fencing involves dealing with stolen property; estafa involves deceit or abuse of confidence resulting in damage to another. If an individual is purely transacting stolen goods without direct deceit of the original owner, it generally falls under fencing rather than estafa.
Civil Liability
- Similar to other criminal offenses, a conviction for fencing may carry with it a separate civil liability to return or pay the value of the stolen property to the rightful owner.

6. Defenses in Fencing Cases

An accused can raise several defenses, though they must overcome the legal presumption that arises once possession of stolen property is proven.

Good Faith / Lack of Knowledge
- The strongest defense is to prove lack of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were stolen. For example, showing that the purchase came with apparently legitimate documentation, or that the price was aligned with fair market value, can dispel the presumption of knowledge.
Legitimate Explanation of Possession
- Providing records such as valid receipts, deeds of sale, or other documentary evidence that would point to a legitimate chain of ownership.
- Demonstrating that there was reasonable diligence in verifying the seller’s background or the item’s provenance.
Mistake of Fact
- If the accused made honest, diligent inquiries regarding the origin of the goods, reasonably believing them to be legitimate, this may negate criminal intent.
Lack of Intent to Gain
- Because “intent to gain” (animus lucrandi) is an element of the crime, an argument that no benefit or profit was intended (e.g., the property was inadvertently received and surrendered immediately upon discovery) could be raised.

7. Practical Considerations and Advice

Due Diligence in Transactions
- Buyers should verify the ownership of secondhand items, particularly high-value or easily stolen goods (e.g., cell phones, electronics, jewelry, vehicles).
- Request original receipts or proof of ownership; document the transaction with formal receipts and copies of IDs.
Red Flags
- Significantly low prices (well below market value)
- Inability of the seller to provide any documentation of ownership
- Suspicious or evasive responses about the source of the goods
Reporting Suspicions
- If there is any doubt, it is safer to report to law enforcement or to refuse the transaction.
- Business establishments, particularly pawnshops, secondhand dealers, and thrift shops, should maintain clear protocols to avoid criminal liability under the Anti-Fencing Law.
Consequences for Businesses
- For enterprises dealing in used or secondhand goods (e.g., surplus shops, pawnshops), compliance with documentary requirements under local ordinances and the Anti-Fencing Law is critical. Non-compliance can expose the establishment and its owners/operators to significant legal consequences, ranging from fines and imprisonment to closure of business.

8. Conclusion

In the Philippine setting, criminal liability for buying stolen property is comprehensively governed by Presidential Decree No. 1612 (the Anti-Fencing Law) rather than by mere accessory liability under the Revised Penal Code. The central thrust of the law is to curb the demand side of property crimes by imposing stiff penalties on those who knowingly (or under circumstances where they should have known) engage in the trade of stolen goods.

Key takeaway: A person need not be the original thief to face criminal prosecution; mere purchase or possession of stolen items, coupled with knowledge (actual or presumed), is enough to incur liability.
The law’s presumption of knowledge if the person is found in possession of stolen property significantly shifts the burden to the accused to prove innocence or good faith.
Best practices: Exercise diligent care when buying used goods, keep thorough documentation, and ascertain the provenance of any item offered for sale at a suspiciously low price.

By having stringent measures and a dedicated statutory framework, Philippine law seeks to deter the circulation of stolen goods and reduce property crimes. Ultimately, awareness of the Anti-Fencing Law’s provisions and strict compliance in commercial transactions stand as the most effective defenses against potential criminal liability for buying stolen property.