The Anti-Fencing Law: Possession of Stolen Goods Creates a Legal Presumption

G.R. No. 111343, August 22, 1996

Imagine finding a great deal on some construction materials, only to later discover they were stolen. In the Philippines, the Anti-Fencing Law makes it a crime to deal in stolen goods, even if you weren’t the original thief. This case, Ernestino P. Dunlao, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, clarifies how the law works, particularly the legal presumption that arises from possessing stolen items.

The case revolved around Ernestino Dunlao, Sr., a scrap metal dealer, who was found in possession of farrowing crates and G.I. pipes stolen from Lourdes Farms. The key legal question was whether Dunlao could overcome the presumption that he was a “fence” – someone who knowingly deals in stolen property.

Legal Context: Defining Fencing and Its Presumptions

Presidential Decree No. 1612, also known as the Anti-Fencing Law, aims to combat the buying, selling, or dealing in stolen goods. The law defines “fencing” 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 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 or theft.”

A crucial aspect of the law is the presumption it creates. Section 5 states:

“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.”

This means that if you’re found with stolen goods, the burden shifts to you to prove you didn’t know they were stolen and didn’t intend to profit from them. This presumption is a powerful tool for law enforcement in prosecuting those involved in the illegal trade of stolen items. For example, if a homeowner discovers their television set at a pawnshop, the pawnshop owner has to prove they didn’t know it was stolen.

It is important to note the distinction between mala in se and mala prohibita. Crimes mala in se are inherently wrong, like murder or theft, and require proof of criminal intent. Crimes mala prohibita, like fencing, are wrong because a law prohibits them. In these cases, the intent of the offender is immaterial; the act itself is the crime.

Case Breakdown: Dunlao’s Defense and the Court’s Reasoning

Here’s how the case unfolded:

• Lourdes Farms employees, along with police officers, went to Dunlao’s scrap metal yard after receiving information that stolen items were there.
• They found farrowing crates and G.I. pipes belonging to Lourdes Farms on Dunlao’s property.
• Dunlao claimed that men in a jeep had unloaded the pipes at his yard, asking to leave them temporarily, but never returned. He said he was merely holding them for safekeeping.
• The trial court convicted Dunlao, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that Dunlao failed to overcome the presumption of fencing. The Court highlighted the following points:

1. Intent to gain is not required for mala prohibita crimes: The Court stated, “When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial.”
2. Mere possession creates a presumption: “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.”
3. Dunlao’s explanation was unconvincing: The Court found it suspicious that Dunlao displayed the items in his shop and didn’t verify the identity of the people who left them.

The Court quoted the trial court’s observation:

“And when the accused took it upon himself to protect and transfer inside his compound items unloaded by total strangers without any agreement as to how the items would be sold or disposed of nor how soon agreement would be compensated, a rather dubious aura of illegitimacy envelopes and taints the entire transaction.”

Consider this hypothetical: A person buys a used laptop at a significantly discounted price from an unknown individual. If that laptop is later identified as stolen, the buyer could face charges under the Anti-Fencing Law, even if they claim they didn’t know it was stolen. The burden would be on them to prove their innocence.

Practical Implications: Protecting Yourself from Fencing Charges

This case underscores the importance of due diligence when acquiring goods, especially if the price seems too good to be true. Here are some practical tips:

• Verify the source: Ask for proof of ownership or a receipt from the seller.
• Be wary of deals that seem too good to be true: A price significantly below market value should raise red flags.
• Document the transaction: Keep records of the sale, including the seller’s information and a description of the goods.
• Report suspicious offers: If you suspect someone is trying to sell stolen goods, contact the police.

Key Lessons:

• Possession of stolen goods creates a legal presumption of fencing.
• It is crucial to exercise due diligence when acquiring property to avoid potential legal issues.
• Ignorance is not always a defense; you must take reasonable steps to ensure the goods you acquire are not stolen.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the penalty for fencing in the Philippines?

A: The penalty depends on the value of the stolen goods. It can range from prision correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) to prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years), along with fines.

Q: What if I unknowingly bought stolen goods? Am I still liable?

A: You could still face charges. The burden is on you to prove that you had no knowledge that the goods were stolen and that you acted in good faith.

Q: How can I prove I didn’t know the goods were stolen?

A: Evidence of due diligence, such as verifying the seller’s identity, obtaining receipts, and checking the market value of the goods, can help demonstrate your lack of knowledge.

Q: What should I do if I suspect I’ve purchased stolen goods?

A: Contact the police immediately and cooperate with their investigation. This can help mitigate potential charges.

Q: Does the Anti-Fencing Law apply to online transactions?

A: Yes, the law applies regardless of whether the transaction occurs in person or online.

Q: What is the difference between theft and fencing?

A: Theft is the act of stealing property. Fencing is the act of dealing in stolen property, knowing it was stolen.

Q: Can a business be held liable for fencing if an employee unknowingly purchases stolen goods?

A: Yes, the business can be held liable if it is proven that the employee was acting within the scope of their employment. Due diligence is extremely important.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and commercial law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.