PD 1621 ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979

 What are the reasons for the enactment of the law?

 Due to the reports of the law enforcement agencies that there was a rampant of robbery and
thievery of government and private properties and that such robbery and thievery became
profitable on the part of the lawless elements because of the existence of ready buyers, or
commonly known as fence, of stolen properties.
 P.D 1621 was enacted to impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by the effects of the
crimes of robbery and theft.
 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?
 Is the act of any person who, with the intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
posses, 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 and theft.
 Who is considered a fence?
  Any person, firm, association, corporation or partnership or other organization who/which
commits the act of fencing.
 What is the presumption regarding fencing?
 General Rule: Mere possession of the 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.
 Exception:
 What are the elements of fencing?
 Crime of robbery or theft has been committed
 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 deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the
proceed of the said crim.
 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.
 There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or another.
 What does the phrase “should know” connotes?
-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)

 Is the filing of robbery or theft a prerequisite for the filing of fencing?

 Is the intent of gain an element of fencing? Yes (not sure pani na part)

On the element of knowledge that the items are derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery and of
intent to gain for herself or for another, the Anti-Fencing Law provides:

Sec. 5. Presumption of Fencing. — 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

Is there a need to prove intent to gain? (supplement question kay galibong kos kaning intent to gain an element )

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)