Possession Isn’t Always 9/10ths of the Law: Why Due Diligence Matters When Acquiring Property

n

TLDR: This case clarifies that possessing items you should have known were stolen makes you a fence under Philippine law, even if you didn’t directly participate in the theft. Ignorance is not bliss, and being offered goods at suspiciously low prices should raise red flags, prompting reasonable inquiry into their origin.

nn

G.R. No. 139250, August 15, 2000

nn

INTRODUCTION

n

Imagine buying a luxury watch at a bargain price from someone who seems a bit shifty. You might think you’ve scored a great deal, but what if that watch was stolen? In the Philippines, you could find yourself facing charges under the Anti-Fencing Law. This law targets those who profit from stolen goods, even if they weren’t the original thieves. The case of Gabriel Capili v. Court of Appeals illustrates this principle clearly, reminding us that ‘no questions asked’ can lead to serious legal trouble. This case dives into the specifics of ‘fencing’ and underscores the importance of exercising due diligence when acquiring property, especially under suspicious circumstances. The central legal question is: When does possessing goods obtained from theft cross the line into ‘fencing,’ and what level of knowledge or suspicion is required?

nn

LEGAL CONTEXT: DEFINING ‘FENCING’ UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW

n

Presidential Decree No. 1612, also known as the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979, was enacted to combat the prevalent problem of stolen goods being circulated in the market. It recognizes that thieves are often emboldened when they have a ready market to dispose of their ill-gotten gains. The law aims to break this cycle by penalizing those who facilitate the selling and distribution of stolen items.

n

Section 2 of P.D. 1612 clearly defines ‘fencing’ as:

n

“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.”

n

This definition is crucial because it highlights several key elements. First, there must be a predicate crime of robbery or theft. Second, the accused must perform an act of buying, receiving, possessing, or dealing with the stolen item. Third, and most importantly, the accused must have knowledge, or should have known, that the items are proceeds of robbery or theft. The Supreme Court in Tan v. People (G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999) further clarified these elements, stating that intent to gain is also necessary.

n

The law doesn’t require absolute certainty of the goods being stolen. The phrase