ASG Law

Tag: Fencing Law Philippines

  • Unwittingly Buying Stolen Goods? Understanding Fencing Law in the Philippines

    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

  • Fencing in the Philippines: Why Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Matters – Case Analysis of Tan v. People

    When Acquittal Hinges on Reasonable Doubt: Understanding Fencing Law in the Philippines

    In Philippine law, being accused of ‘fencing’ or dealing in stolen goods carries serious penalties. However, as the Supreme Court clarified in Tan v. People, even in fencing cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, establishing every element of the crime. This means the prosecution must convincingly demonstrate not only that the goods were stolen but also that the accused knew or should have known they were dealing with ill-gotten items. A failure to prove even one element can lead to acquittal, highlighting the crucial role of evidence and the presumption of innocence in Philippine criminal law.

    G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a business owner diligently sourcing materials, only to find themselves unknowingly purchasing stolen goods. This scenario, unfortunately, is not uncommon and falls under the ambit of ‘fencing’ in Philippine law. Fencing, essentially dealing in stolen items, is a crime distinct from theft or robbery, aimed at penalizing those who profit from the proceeds of these unlawful acts. The case of Ramon C. Tan v. People of the Philippines delves into the intricacies of proving this crime, particularly emphasizing the necessity of establishing each element beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, Ramon C. Tan was accused of fencing after allegedly purchasing boat spare parts stolen from Bueno Metal Industries. The central legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved all the elements of fencing to warrant a conviction.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: UNPACKING THE ANTI-FENCING LAW

    Presidential Decree No. 1612, also known as the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979, was enacted to combat the prevalent problem of stolen goods being readily bought and sold. Before this law, individuals who merely bought stolen items could only be charged as accessories to theft or robbery, facing significantly lighter penalties. P.D. No. 1612 elevated fencing to a principal offense, recognizing the crucial role fences play in perpetuating theft and robbery by providing a market for stolen goods.

    Section 2 of P.D. No. 1612 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 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.”

    The Supreme Court, in Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People of the Philippines, laid out the four essential elements that the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction for fencing:

    1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed.
    2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, disposes of, or deals in any article, item, or object of value derived from the said crime.
    3. The accused knows or should have known that the article, item, or object of value was derived from robbery or theft.
    4. The accused intended to gain for himself or another.

    Crucially, the Court emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proving each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt, in legal terms, does not mean absolute certainty, but it signifies a doubt based on reason and common sense arising from the evidence or lack thereof. If, after considering all the evidence, a reasonable person cannot confidently say the accused is guilty, then reasonable doubt exists, and the accused must be acquitted. This principle is rooted in the fundamental right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: RAMON C. TAN VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    Rosita Lim, the owner of Bueno Metal Industries, discovered missing boat spare parts after a former employee, Manuelito Mendez, left her company. Suspecting theft, Lim contacted Victor Sy, Mendez’s uncle, who eventually facilitated Mendez’s arrest. Mendez confessed to stealing the items with Gaudencio Dayop and selling them to Ramon C. Tan. Despite Mendez’s confession, Lim did not file charges against Mendez and Dayop but instead pursued a case against Tan for fencing.

    The procedural journey of the case unfolded as follows:

    • **Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 19:** Based on Lim’s complaint and Mendez’s confession, an information for fencing was filed against Ramon C. Tan. After trial, the RTC convicted Tan, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering him to indemnify Lim. The RTC relied heavily on Mendez’s testimony and Lim’s claim of loss.
    • **Court of Appeals (CA):** Tan appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of fencing. The CA, however, affirmed the RTC’s decision, finding no error in the lower court’s judgment.
    • **Supreme Court:** Undeterred, Tan elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, reiterating his argument that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to establish fencing beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The Supreme Court meticulously examined the evidence presented. Justice Pardo, writing for the First Division, highlighted critical evidentiary gaps. The Court noted that:

    “As complainant Rosita Lim reported no loss, we cannot hold for certain that there was committed a crime of theft. Thus, the first element of the crime of fencing is absent, that is, a crime of robbery or theft has been committed.”

    The Court emphasized that Lim never reported the alleged theft to the police. While Mendez confessed to the crime, his extra-judicial confession, made without counsel, was inadmissible against him and certainly could not be used against Tan. Furthermore, the Court pointed out the lack of independent evidence corroborating the theft. The Court also questioned whether Tan knew or should have known the goods were stolen, stating:

    “What is more, there was no showing at all that the accused knew or should have known that the very stolen articles were the ones sold to him… And given two equally plausible states of cognition or mental awareness, the court should choose the one which sustains the constitutional presumption of innocence.”

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted Ramon C. Tan. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime of theft had occurred and that Tan had the requisite knowledge that the goods were stolen. The acquittal underscored the paramount importance of the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove every element of the crime.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS

    Tan v. People serves as a potent reminder of the prosecution’s high burden of proof in criminal cases, even in statutory offenses like fencing. For businesses and individuals, this case offers several key takeaways:

    • **Importance of Reporting Crimes:** For businesses that experience theft or robbery, officially reporting the incident to the police is crucial. This creates an official record and establishes the corpus delicti (body of the crime), a fundamental element in prosecuting related offenses like fencing. Rosita Lim’s failure to report the theft weakened the prosecution’s case against Tan significantly.
    • **Due Diligence in Transactions:** Businesses and individuals purchasing goods, especially in bulk or at significantly discounted prices, should exercise due diligence. Inquire about the source of the goods, request proper documentation, and be wary of deals that seem too good to be true. While not explicitly required by law in all transactions, such practices can help avoid unknowingly dealing in stolen property.
    • **Presumption of Innocence:** If accused of fencing, remember the presumption of innocence. The prosecution must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence, such as lack of proof of the underlying theft or lack of evidence of your knowledge, can be grounds for acquittal.
    • **Admissibility of Evidence:** Extra-judicial confessions without proper legal counsel are generally inadmissible in court. This case highlights the importance of proper procedure in obtaining evidence and confessions.

    Key Lessons from Tan v. People:

    • **Proof of Underlying Crime is Essential:** To convict someone of fencing, the prosecution must first prove that a robbery or theft actually occurred.
    • **Knowledge is a Key Element:** The prosecution must demonstrate that the accused knew or should have known that the goods were stolen. Mere possession of stolen goods is not enough.
    • **Reasonable Doubt Leads to Acquittal:** If the prosecution fails to prove any element of fencing beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) ABOUT FENCING IN THE PHILIPPINES

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

    A: The penalty for fencing depends on the value of the stolen property. P.D. No. 1612 adopts the penalties for theft or robbery, ranging from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua for large-scale fencing. In Tan v. People, the initial sentence was 6 years and 1 day to 10 years of prision mayor, highlighting the severity of potential penalties.

    Q: If I unknowingly buy stolen goods, am I guilty of fencing?

    A: Not necessarily. A key element of fencing is knowledge – that you knew or should have known the goods were stolen. If you genuinely had no reason to suspect the goods were stolen, and exercised reasonable diligence, you may not be guilty of fencing. However, proving lack of knowledge can be complex and fact-dependent.

    Q: What is ‘corpus delicti’ and why is it important in fencing cases?

    A: Corpus delicti literally means ‘body of the crime.’ In theft and fencing cases, it refers to the fact that a crime (theft or robbery) has actually been committed, and property was lost due to that crime. Proving corpus delicti is essential because without establishing that a theft or robbery occurred, there can be no fencing.

    Q: What should I do if I suspect I have unknowingly purchased stolen goods?

    A: If you suspect you’ve bought stolen goods, it’s best to seek legal advice immediately. Cooperating with authorities and providing information about the transaction might mitigate potential legal repercussions. Ignoring the situation could worsen your legal position.

    Q: Can I be charged with both theft and fencing?

    A: No. Fencing and theft (or robbery) are distinct offenses. A fence is not the person who committed the original theft or robbery but someone who deals with the stolen goods afterward. You would be charged with either theft/robbery or fencing, but not both for the same set of facts.

    Q: How does the ‘should have known’ element of fencing work?

    A: The ‘should have known’ element implies a standard of reasonable diligence. If a reasonable person in your situation would have been aware that the goods were likely stolen (e.g., due to suspiciously low prices, unusual circumstances of the sale, or the seller’s background), you could be deemed to ‘should have known.’ This is a subjective assessment based on the specific facts of each case.

    Q: Is a confession from the thief enough to convict a fence?

    A: No. While a thief’s confession can be evidence, it is generally not sufficient on its own to convict a fence, especially if the confession is extra-judicial and uncorroborated. The prosecution must present independent evidence to prove all elements of fencing, including the corpus delicti and the fence’s knowledge.

    Q: What is the role of ‘intent to gain’ in fencing?

    A: ‘Intent to gain’ is another essential element of fencing. It means that the accused must have bought, received, or dealt with the stolen goods with the intention of making a profit or some other form of personal benefit. However, intent to gain is usually inferred from the act of dealing with the goods themselves.

    ASG Law specializes in Criminal Defense and Corporate Law, assisting businesses and individuals in navigating complex legal issues like fencing and theft. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.