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

1612)

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

The fencing in this law (PD 1612) refers to a crime that in many
ways accompanies crimes against property. It happens when a
person buys, sells, accepts, keeps, conceals, acquires or in any
manner disposes of something that he knows or should know is
stolen. It is accompanied by the intent to gain from the stolen
object. *

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

BRIEF HISTORY OF PD 1612 OR THE ANTI-FENCING LAW
Presidential Decree No. 1612 or commonly known as the AntiFencing Law of 1979 was enacted under the authority of therein
President Ferdinand Marcos. The law took effect on March 2,
1979. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the AntiFencing Law were subsequently formulated and it took effect on
June 15, 1979.

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

THE PURPOSE OF ENACTING PD 1612
The Anti-Fencing Law was made to curtail and put an end to the
rampant robbery of government and private properties. With the
existence of ready buyers, the business of robbing and
stealing have become profitable. *

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

Elements:
1.) Robbery or theft was committed
2.) The accused is neither an accomplice nor principal and buys,
accepts, sells, etc. the stolen item
3.) The accused knows or should know that the object is stolen
4.) The accused was motivated to profit for himself or for
another person *

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

WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THE CRIME OF FENCING; AND ITS
PENALTIES:

The person liable is the one buying, keeping, concealing and

selling the stolen items. If the fence is a corporation,partnership,
association or firm, the one liable is the president or the manager
or the officer who knows or should have know the fact that the
offense was committed.

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

Penalties:
1.) Prision mayor if the stolen object is valued between Php
12,000.00 to Php 22,000.00. If the value exceeds Php 22,000.00, the
penalty is put at its maximum period with an additional year for every
additional Php10,000.00 but not to exceed 20 years
2.) If the value is greater than the limit in #1, reclusion temporal and
its accessory penalties are imposed.
3.) Prision correccional medium and maximum if the value of the
stolen object is higher than Php 6,000.00 but not higher than Php
12,000.00
3.) Prision correccional minimum and medium if the stolen property
is worth more than Php 200 but not higher than Php 6,000.00
4.) Arresto mayor medium to prision correccional minimum if the
value is more than Php 50 but not more than Php 200
5.) Arresto mayor medium if the value is more than Php 5 but not
higher than Php 50
6.) Arresto mayor minimum if the value is Php 5 or less

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

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is also applicable to PD 1612.
Furthermore, establishments or entities that sell secondhand
items are required to possess a police clearance to sell such
items. Failure to produce such a license or violations in the
rules an regulations for the license will be considered a violation
of PD 1612. This, however, doesn't cover rummage and garage
sales. *

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

Mel Dimat vs. People of the Philippines
This case is about the need to prove in the crime of "fencing" that
the accused knew or ought to have known that the thing he
bought or sold was the fruit of theft or robbery.

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

Mel Dimat vs. People of the Philippines
The evidence for the prosecution showed that Sonia, Samson Delgados wife, bought from
Mel a 1997 Nissan Safari with plate number WAH-569; the deed of sale of the vehicle
indicated its vehicle number as TD42-126134 and its chassis number as CRGY60-YO3553.
On March 7, 2001, the car was accosted by the Traffic Management Group personnel for
bearing a suspicious plate number.

Examination revealed that its actual vehicle number was D42-119136 and its chassis
number CRGY60-YO3111; it was on the TMG list of carnapped vehicles, and owned by
Jose, who testified that his 1997 Nissan Safari with plate number JHM-818 was stolen on
May 25, 1998 and the incident was duly reported to the TMG.

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

Mel Dimat vs. People of the Philippines
In his defense, Mel averred he did not know Jose; he bought the Nissan Safari in good
faith and for value from a certain Manuel Tolentino where the engine number and chassis
number were indicated, and later sold it to the Delgados; although the Nissan Safari which
he sold to the Delgados and the one confiscated by the police had the same plate number,
they were actually two different vehicles.*

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

Mel Dimat vs. People of the Philippines
The Supreme Court decision:
The elements of fencing are
1) a robbery or theft has been committed;
2) the accused, who took no part in the robbery or theft, buys,
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes,
or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article or object
taken during that robbery or theft;
(3) the accused knows or should have known that the thing derived
from that crime; and
(4) he intends by the deal he makes to gain for himself or for
another. *

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

Mel Dimat vs. People of the Philippines
Dimat claims lack of criminal intent as his main defense. But Presidential Decree 1612 is a
special law and, therefore, its violation is regarded as malum prohibitum, requiring no
proof of criminal intent.4 Of course, the prosecution must still prove that Dimat knew or
should have known that the Nissan Safari he acquired and later sold to Delgado was
derived from theft or robbery and that he intended to obtain some gain out of his acts.

Dimat testified that he met Tolentino at the Holiday Inn Casino where the latter gave the
Nissan Safari to him as collateral for a loan. Tolentino supposedly showed him the old
certificate of registration and official receipt of the vehicle and even promised to give him
a new certificate of registration and official receipt already in his name. But Tolentino
broke this promise. Dimat insists that Tolentinos failure to deliver the documents should
not prejudice him in any way. Delgado himself could not produce any certificate of
registration or official receipt.*

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

Dunlao vs. People of the Philippines

Ernestino is the owner of a scrap iron retailing and wholesaling store (junk shop) in Davao
City. It is duly registered as Dunlao Enterprises. Lourdes is the owner of Lourdes
Farms. One sunny day, Lourdes ordered her employees, Fortunate and Carlito, to go
with some police officers to the store of Ernestino and see for themselves if Ernestino is
indeed selling some farrowing crates and G.I. pipes stoled from her farm. At Ernerstinos
store, they found the farrowing crates and pipes inside the compound. When he was
informed that the items belong to Lourdes Farms and were stolen, Ernestino voluntarily
surrendered the items.*

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

Dunlao vs. People of the Philippines

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Ernertino pleaded that he be exonerated of the
charge. He argued that there was no showing that he was motivated by intent to gain
when he received and possessed the stolen items, or that he bought the items. The
amount of the stolen items was not sufficiently shown further,

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

Dunlao vs. People of the Philippines

Supreme Court Decision:

First of all, contrary to petitioners contention, intent to gain need not be proved in crimes
punishable by a special law such as P.D. 1612.
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.
Secondly, the law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by petitioner, as
mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing.

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

Always remember the elements:
1.) Robbery or theft was committed
2.) The accused is neither an accomplice nor principal and buys,
accepts, sells, etc. the stolen item
3.) The accused knows or should know that the object is stolen
4.) The accused was motivated to profit for himself or for
another person