ASG Law

Tag: Presidential Decree 1612

  • Possession of Stolen Goods: Establishing Knowledge in Fencing Cases

    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Reymundo Masil for fencing, emphasizing that possessing stolen goods creates a presumption that the possessor knew the items were derived from robbery or theft. This ruling underscores the responsibility of those dealing in goods, especially those in the junk shop business, to exercise due diligence in ascertaining the legitimacy of their sources. The decision serves as a reminder that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and those who profit from stolen items will be held accountable.

    From Stolen Jeepney to Junk Shop: Did the Buyer Know?

    This case revolves around the theft of a passenger jeepney and the subsequent discovery of its dismantled parts in Reymundo Masil’s junk shop. Nimfa Esteban reported the jeepney stolen after her hired driver, Eugene Labramonte, failed to return it. Acting on a tip, police apprehended Wilfredo Santiago while dismantling the jeepney and he confessed to selling parts to Masil’s junk shop. Masil was charged with fencing under Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1612, or the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979. The central legal question is whether Masil knew, or should have known, that the jeepney parts he acquired were derived from theft.

    The elements of fencing, as defined in Section 2 of PD 1612, are critical to understanding the court’s decision. These elements include the commission of robbery or theft, the accused’s lack of involvement as a principal or accomplice in the crime, the accused’s act of buying, receiving, possessing, or dealing in items derived from the crime, the accused’s knowledge or imputed knowledge that the items were derived from the crime, and the accused’s intent to gain. The prosecution bears the burden of proving each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Fencing is defined under Section 2 of PD 1612 as “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.”

    In this case, the court found ample evidence to support Masil’s conviction. The theft of the jeepney and the subsequent dismantling by Wilfredo were established facts. Masil admitted to possessing the dismantled parts in his junk shop. The critical issue was whether Masil knew, or should have known, that the parts were stolen. The court emphasized that the term “should have known” implies a standard of reasonable prudence and intelligence.

    The court considered Masil’s profession as a junk shop owner since 2010. This experience, the court reasoned, should have made him aware of the necessary protocols for buying and selling motor vehicle parts. Section 6 of PD 1612 requires businesses dealing in such items to secure clearance from the police before offering them for sale. Masil’s failure to request proof of ownership from Wilfredo raised serious doubts about the legitimacy of the transaction. This failure to exercise due diligence was a significant factor in the court’s finding of guilt.

    Furthermore, the court highlighted the legal principle that fencing is malum prohibitum, meaning the act is wrong because it is prohibited by law. As such, PD 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of fencing based on the accused’s possession of stolen goods. Masil’s possession of the jeepney parts, without a credible explanation of their origin, was sufficient to trigger this presumption. This shifts the burden to the accused to prove their innocence.

    The court acknowledged the potential for disproportionate penalties between the principal crime of theft and the accessory crime of fencing, especially in light of Republic Act No. 10951, which adjusted the penalties for theft under the Revised Penal Code but not for fencing under PD 1612. However, the court emphasized that the determination of penalties is a policy matter for the legislature. The court also stated that it cannot adjust the penalty based on RA 10951. Despite this observation, the court was constrained to apply the existing law and affirmed Masil’s conviction.

    Regarding the penalty, the Court modified it based on Section 3(a) of PD 1612, which stipulates the penalty of prision mayor if the value of the property is more than P12,000.00 but not exceeding P22,000.00. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced Masil to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor in its minimum period, as minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum.

    FAQs

    What is fencing under Philippine law? Fencing is the act of buying, receiving, possessing, or dealing in items derived from robbery or theft, with knowledge or imputed knowledge that the items were stolen. It is defined and penalized under Presidential Decree No. 1612.
    What is the significance of “should have known” in fencing cases? The phrase “should have known” means that a reasonable and prudent person, exercising due diligence, would have ascertained that the items were derived from a crime. This places a responsibility on buyers to verify the legitimacy of the goods they acquire.
    What is the effect of possessing stolen goods in a fencing case? Possession of stolen goods creates a prima facie presumption of fencing. This means that the burden shifts to the possessor to prove that they did not know, nor should have known, that the goods were stolen.
    What is malum prohibitum? Malum prohibitum refers to acts that are wrong because they are prohibited by law, rather than being inherently immoral. Fencing is considered malum prohibitum.
    What is the Indeterminate Sentence Law? The Indeterminate Sentence Law requires courts to impose a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment, rather than a fixed sentence. This law aims to individualize punishment and encourage rehabilitation.
    How does Republic Act No. 10951 affect fencing cases? RA 10951 adjusted the penalties for theft under the Revised Penal Code, but not for fencing under PD 1612. This can lead to situations where the penalty for fencing is greater than the penalty for the underlying theft.
    What is the role of due diligence in preventing fencing? Due diligence requires buyers to take reasonable steps to verify the legitimacy of the goods they acquire. This may include asking for proof of ownership, checking the seller’s credentials, and obtaining necessary clearances or permits.
    Can a person be convicted of fencing even if they did not directly participate in the theft? Yes. Fencing is an accessory crime, meaning a person can be convicted of fencing even if they were not involved in the original theft. The key is whether they knowingly or should have known that the goods were stolen.

    This case serves as an important reminder of the responsibilities of those dealing in goods, particularly those in the junk shop business. The duty to exercise due diligence in verifying the source of items is crucial in preventing the proliferation of stolen goods. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and those who profit from stolen items will be held accountable.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: REYMUNDO MASIL Y AVIAR v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 241837, January 05, 2022

  • Possession is Prima Facie Evidence: Understanding Fencing under Philippine Law

    In Ireneo Cahulogan v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ireneo Cahulogan for the crime of fencing, as defined and penalized under Presidential Decree No. 1612, also known as the Anti-Fencing Law. The Court reiterated that possession of stolen goods constitutes prima facie evidence of fencing, which the accused failed to rebut. This decision underscores the importance of due diligence in commercial transactions and serves as a reminder that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, especially when circumstances should have prompted a reasonable person to investigate the legitimacy of a transaction.

    When a Discount Turns into a Crime: The Perils of Buying Stolen Goods

    The case began with a simple instruction. Johnson Tan, a businessman, directed his employees, Braulio Lopez and Loreto Lariosa, to deliver 210 cases of Coca-Cola products to Demins Store. Instead, Lopez and Lariosa delivered the goods to Ireneo Cahulogan’s store without authorization. Tan confronted Cahulogan, seeking to retrieve his merchandise, but Cahulogan refused, claiming he had purchased the items from Lariosa for P50,000.00. This refusal, coupled with the suspicious circumstances of the sale, led to Cahulogan’s prosecution and subsequent conviction for fencing.

    Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of PD 1612, is:

    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.

    The law aims to penalize those who profit from the proceeds of robbery or theft, acting as a deterrent to such crimes. The essential elements of fencing are:
    (a) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; (b) the accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, 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 proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; (c) the accused knew 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; and (d) there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another.

    In this case, all the elements were met. Lariosa’s unauthorized sale of the Coca-Cola products constituted theft. Cahulogan, by buying and possessing the items, dealt in goods derived from that crime. Crucially, the Court found that Cahulogan should have known the goods were illegally sourced, given the circumstances of the transaction. Finally, his intent to gain was evident in purchasing the items at a price lower than their actual value.

    The legal framework surrounding fencing also includes a significant provision regarding presumption. Section 5 of PD 1612 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 presumption places the burden on the possessor to prove that they acquired the goods legally and without knowledge of their illicit origin. Cahulogan failed to overcome this presumption, as he presented no evidence to demonstrate his legitimate acquisition of the Coca-Cola products.

    The Court emphasized that the circumstances of the transaction should have alerted Cahulogan to the illegal nature of the goods. Lariosa sold the items without proper documentation and did not request the usual exchange of empty bottles, a common practice in the soft drink industry. These red flags, combined with the discounted price, should have prompted a reasonable person to inquire about the legitimacy of the sale. Instead, Cahulogan proceeded with the transaction, thereby assuming the risk and consequences of dealing in stolen goods.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed an important point regarding the penalties for fencing in light of Republic Act No. 10951. While PD 1612 was enacted to impose heavier penalties on those profiting from robbery and theft, its penalties are similar to those for theft and are largely dependent on the value of the stolen properties. R.A. No. 10951 adjusted the property value thresholds for theft penalties but did not amend PD 1612, which could lead to situations where a fence receives a harsher penalty than the original thief. Recognizing this incongruence, the Court urged Congress to review and adjust the penalties for fencing to ensure a more equitable application of the law.

    FAQs

    What is the crime of fencing? Fencing is the act of buying, receiving, possessing, or dealing in any item derived from robbery or theft, with knowledge that it came from such illegal activity. It is defined and penalized under Presidential Decree No. 1612.
    What are the elements of fencing? The essential elements are: a crime of robbery or theft occurred; the accused is not the principal or accomplice; the accused buys, receives, possesses, or deals in the stolen item; the accused knew or should have known it was stolen; and intent to gain.
    What is the significance of ‘prima facie evidence’ in fencing cases? Prima facie evidence means that mere possession of stolen goods creates a presumption that the possessor is a fence. The burden then shifts to the possessor to prove they acquired the goods legally and without knowledge of their illegal origin.
    What factors indicate that someone ‘should have known’ goods were stolen? Factors include: the time and place of sale, the seller not being regularly engaged in selling such goods, lack of documentation, unusually low price, and any other circumstances that would raise suspicion in a reasonable person.
    What is the penalty for fencing under PD 1612? The penalty depends on the value of the stolen property. It ranges from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, with potential increases based on higher property values.
    How does Republic Act No. 10951 affect fencing penalties? R.A. No. 10951 adjusted the value of property for theft penalties but did not amend PD 1612. This can result in a fence receiving a harsher penalty than the thief, which the Supreme Court has acknowledged as an incongruence.
    Can someone be convicted of fencing even if the thief is not convicted? Yes, a conviction of the principal in the crime of theft is not necessary for an accused to be found guilty of the crime of Fencing.
    What did the Supreme Court recommend regarding fencing penalties? The Court recommended that Congress review and adjust the penalties for fencing to align them more equitably with the penalties for theft, considering the adjustments made by R.A. No. 10951.

    The Cahulogan case serves as a stark reminder of the legal consequences of dealing in stolen goods. It underscores the importance of exercising due diligence in commercial transactions and being vigilant for red flags that may indicate the illicit origin of merchandise. By affirming Cahulogan’s conviction, the Supreme Court reinforced the policy of deterring fencing and protecting legitimate businesses from the harmful effects of theft and robbery.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Ireneo Cahulogan v. People, G.R. No. 225695, March 21, 2018

  • Good Faith vs. Fencing: When a Notarized Affidavit Protects Purchasers

    In Mariano Lim v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Mariano Lim for violating the Anti-Fencing Law, Presidential Decree No. 1612. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Lim knew or should have known that the Komatsu Road Grader he purchased was stolen. This decision highlights the importance of establishing all elements of fencing beyond a reasonable doubt and underscores the significance of a notarized affidavit of ownership in demonstrating a purchaser’s good faith.

    Unraveling Intent: Did a Road Grader Sale Constitute Fencing?

    The case began when Mariano Lim, proprietor of Basco Metal Supply, purchased a Komatsu Road Grader for P400,000.00. The grader, owned by the Second Rural Road Improvement Project (SRRIP) PMO-DPWH, was allegedly stolen. Lim was subsequently charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Lim, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The central legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven that Lim knew or should have known the grader was stolen, an essential element of fencing.

    The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the lower courts’ assessment. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, every circumstance favoring the accused must be considered. It meticulously examined the evidence presented and found critical deficiencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court underscored that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that a theft had even occurred. This failure hinged on the fact that the prosecution’s primary witness, Engr. Gulmatico, relied heavily on hearsay evidence. His testimony regarding the theft was based on information received from third parties, none of whom testified in court.

    “Sec. 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that witnesses can testify only with regard to facts of which they have personal knowledge; otherwise, their testimonies would be inadmissible for being hearsay.”

    Furthermore, the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish the DPWH’s ownership of the Komatsu Grader. While Engr. Gulmatico presented a Memorandum Receipt, it lacked crucial details like the date of acquisition and property number. This undermined the claim that the DPWH rightfully owned the equipment. The Court noted that even assuming a theft had occurred, the prosecution failed to prove that Lim knew or should have known the grader was stolen. This element of knowledge is critical for a conviction under the Anti-Fencing Law.

    The Court addressed the lower courts’ reliance on the presumption that possession of stolen goods implies knowledge. It found that Lim had successfully rebutted this presumption by presenting a duly notarized Affidavit of Ownership from the seller, Petronilo Banosing. The affidavit, being a notarized document, carries a presumption of regularity. It serves as prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated within it.

    “It is well settled that a document acknowledged before a notary public is a public document that enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution.” (Ocampo v. Land Bank of the Philippines)

    The Court noted the lack of conclusive evidence from the prosecution that would overturn this presumption. The Court also found that Section 6 of PD 1612, which requires a clearance or permit for selling used second-hand articles, was inapplicable in this case. This section applies specifically to stores or establishments engaged in the business of buying and selling goods obtained from unlicensed dealers and offering them for sale to the public. The prosecution failed to establish that Lim was engaged in such a business or that he intended to sell the grader to the public.

    Additionally, the Court raised concerns about a violation of Lim’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The Information charged Lim with knowing that the grader was stolen. However, the trial court convicted him on the basis that he should have known, a different standard not explicitly stated in the Information. This discrepancy was deemed a violation of his due process rights.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the crime of fencing beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the importance of concrete evidence and the protection afforded by a notarized affidavit in demonstrating a purchaser’s good faith. This ruling reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

    FAQs

    What is the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979? It’s a law (Presidential Decree No. 1612) that penalizes individuals who buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell, or dispose of items they know to be derived from theft or robbery. The law aims to deter the disposal of stolen goods by making it risky for individuals to deal with such items.
    What are the essential elements of fencing? The elements include a crime of robbery or theft, the accused not being a principal or accomplice in the robbery or theft, the accused buying or possessing items from the crime, the accused knowing or should have known the items were from the crime, and the accused having intent to gain. All these elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
    What is the significance of a notarized affidavit of ownership? A notarized affidavit of ownership is a public document that carries a presumption of regularity. It serves as prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated within it, including the seller’s claim of ownership. In this case, it helped rebut the presumption that Lim knew the grader was stolen.
    When is a clearance or permit required for selling used second-hand articles? A clearance or permit is required under Section 6 of PD 1612 for stores or establishments engaged in the business of buying and selling goods obtained from unlicensed dealers and offering them for sale to the public. The prosecution must prove that the accused meets these criteria for the provision to apply.
    What is hearsay evidence? Hearsay evidence is testimony or evidence offered in court that relies on statements made out of court by someone who is not present to testify. It is generally inadmissible because the person who made the original statement cannot be cross-examined.
    What does it mean to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation? This is a constitutional right that requires the Information to clearly state the specific offense the accused is charged with, including all essential elements of the crime. The accused must be properly informed to prepare a defense and prevent conviction based on uncharged offenses.
    What was the value of the grader? The trial court assessed the value of the grader at P100,000 due to missing parts. However, Lim testified that he paid P400,000 for it. The value disparity supported Lim’s claim of good faith, as it indicated he believed in the seller’s representations.
    What was the outcome of the case? The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted Mariano Lim. The acquittal was based on the prosecution’s failure to prove the essential elements of fencing beyond a reasonable doubt.

    This case serves as a crucial reminder of the stringent burden on the prosecution to establish every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It also underscores the protective role of a notarized affidavit in demonstrating good faith in commercial transactions. The ruling emphasizes that assumptions or presumptions cannot substitute for concrete evidence, especially when an individual’s liberty is at stake.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Mariano Lim v. People, G.R. No. 211977, October 12, 2016

  • The Fencing Law: Knowledge and Presumption in Dealing with Stolen Goods

    In Jaime Ong y Ong v. People, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jaime Ong for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612, the Anti-Fencing Law. The Court emphasized that individuals in the business of buying and selling goods must exercise due diligence in ascertaining the source and legitimacy of their merchandise; failure to do so can result in a conviction for fencing, especially when possessing goods from robbery or theft. This ruling serves as a stern reminder to business owners to ensure their transactions are above board, lest they face severe legal repercussions.

    “Should Have Known Better”: The Case of the Curious Tires and the Anti-Fencing Law

    The case revolves around the theft of thirty-eight (38) Firestone truck tires from a warehouse owned by Francisco Azajar. Following the theft, Azajar discovered thirteen (13) of his tires in the possession of Jaime Ong, who operated a tire store. Ong claimed he purchased the tires from a certain Ramon Go, presenting a sales invoice as proof. However, the prosecution argued that Ong should have known the tires were stolen, given the circumstances of the purchase. The core legal question is whether Ong, as a businessman, exercised the due diligence required to avoid violating the Anti-Fencing Law.

    To properly understand the ruling, a review of Presidential Decree No. 1612, or the Anti-Fencing Law, is essential. Section 2(a) of P.D. 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 essential elements of fencing, which the prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, are: (1) a crime of robbery or theft occurred; (2) the accused, not a principal or accomplice, bought, received, possessed, or dealt in items from the crime; (3) the accused knew or should have known the items were derived from the crime; and (4) the accused intended to gain from the transaction. In this case, the prosecution successfully established these elements.

    The Court found that the first element was met, as Azajar and Cabal, the caretaker, testified to the robbery. Azajar substantiated his ownership with Sales Invoice No. 4565 and an Inventory List. The second element was also evident: Ong possessed thirteen (13) of Azajar’s tires, which were identified by their serial numbers. Ong’s defense hinged on his claim that he bought the tires from Go and had a receipt to prove it.

    The critical point of contention was whether Ong knew or should have known that the tires were stolen. The Supreme Court emphasized the phrase “should know,” clarifying that it implies a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain the facts before acting. Given Ong’s twenty-four years in the tire business, he was expected to exercise a higher degree of diligence when purchasing from an unfamiliar seller like Go. The court noted Ong’s failure to ask for proof of ownership and the unusual speed of the transaction raised red flags that a more cautious businessman would have noticed. The entire transaction, from the offer to the delivery, happened in a single day, a circumstance that should have aroused suspicion.

    The Supreme Court cited Dela Torre v. COMELEC to support its reasoning:

    [C]ircumstances normally exist to forewarn, for instance, a reasonably vigilant buyer that the object of the sale may have been derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft. Such circumstances include the time and place of the sale, both of which may not be in accord with the usual practices of commerce. The nature and condition of the goods sold, and the fact that the seller is not regularly engaged in the business of selling goods may likewise suggest the illegality of their source, and therefore should caution the buyer. This justifies the presumption found in Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 that “mere possession of any goods, . . ., object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing” — a presumption that is, according to the Court, “reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise from the established fact of . . . possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.”xxx.

    Moreover, the court highlighted that Ong, being in the business of selling tires, was aware of the requirement to secure clearances from the police for reselling used tires. His failure to do so in this transaction further indicated a lack of due diligence. The sales invoice Ong presented was also deemed disputable, as the prosecution proved that Gold Link, the alleged seller, was fictitious.

    Thus, Ong failed to overcome the prima facie presumption of fencing established under Section 5 of P.D. 1612, which states that “mere possession of any goods, . . ., object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.” Finally, the court found clear intent to gain, as Ong was caught selling the stolen tires in his store during the buy-bust operation.

    The court thus upheld the penalty computed by the lower courts based on the value of the tires, amounting to P65,975. The ruling emphasizes the importance of due diligence in business transactions and reinforces the Anti-Fencing Law’s objective to deter the disposal of stolen goods.

    FAQs

    What is the Anti-Fencing Law? The Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612) penalizes individuals who knowingly deal with items derived from robbery or theft, aiming to prevent the circulation of stolen goods. It requires individuals to exercise caution and diligence when purchasing goods from unfamiliar sources.
    What are the elements of fencing? The elements are: (1) a crime of robbery or theft; (2) the accused bought, received, possessed, etc., items from the crime; (3) the accused knew or should have known the items were stolen; and (4) intent to gain. All elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
    What does “should know” mean under the Anti-Fencing Law? “Should know” implies that a reasonable and prudent person, under similar circumstances, would have been aware that the goods were derived from a crime. This standard considers the individual’s profession, experience, and the nature of the transaction.
    What is the significance of possessing stolen goods? Possession of goods that were the subject of robbery or theft creates a prima facie presumption of fencing under Section 5 of P.D. 1612. This presumption shifts the burden to the possessor to prove they acquired the goods legitimately and without knowledge of their illicit origin.
    How did the court assess the credibility of the sales invoice presented by Ong? The court found the sales invoice disputable because the prosecution proved that the alleged seller, Gold Link, was a fictitious entity. This undermined Ong’s claim of legitimate purchase and supported the conclusion that he was dealing in stolen goods.
    What factors contributed to the court’s conclusion that Ong was guilty of fencing? Factors included Ong’s failure to ask for proof of ownership, the unusually quick transaction, his awareness of the need for police clearances for used tires, and the fictitious nature of the sales invoice. These elements, combined with the possession of stolen tires, led to his conviction.
    Can a sales receipt always be used as a valid defense? While a sales receipt can serve as evidence of a legitimate transaction, its validity can be challenged. The court assesses the credibility of the receipt and the circumstances surrounding its issuance to determine its probative value.
    What was the final decision of the Supreme Court in this case? The Supreme Court denied Ong’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which upheld the trial court’s conviction for violating the Anti-Fencing Law. The minimum penalty was reduced to six years of prision correccional.

    The Ong v. People case serves as a reminder that businesses must exercise due diligence and prudence in their transactions. Failing to do so can lead to serious legal consequences under the Anti-Fencing Law. This case underscores the importance of verifying the legitimacy of suppliers and goods to avoid inadvertently dealing with stolen property.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Jaime Ong y Ong v. People, G.R. No. 190475, April 10, 2013

  • Fencing Law: Inconsistent Testimony and the Burden of Proof

    In the case of Ernesto Francisco y Spenocilla v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court acquitted Ernesto Francisco of violating the Anti-Fencing Law (Presidential Decree No. 1612). The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily due to inconsistent witness testimony and a lack of evidence that Francisco knew the jewelry he purchased was stolen. This decision underscores the importance of credible evidence and the burden of proof in criminal cases.

    Unraveling Reasonable Doubt: Can Inconsistent Testimony Sustain a Fencing Conviction?

    Ernesto Francisco was accused of violating Presidential Decree No. 1612, the Anti-Fencing Law, for allegedly buying stolen jewelry. The prosecution claimed that Pacita Linghon stole jewelry from Jovita Rodriguez and then, with the help of her brother Macario, sold it to Francisco. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Francisco was guilty of fencing.

    The elements of fencing are as follows: (1) a robbery or theft has occurred; (2) the accused, not a principal or accomplice in the robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, or otherwise deals in items derived from the crime; (3) the accused knew or should have known the items were from robbery or theft; and (4) the accused had intent to gain. The prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. In this case, the element of knowledge became the focal point of the court’s scrutiny.

    “Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. No. 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any good, article, item, object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or theft, and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property.”

    The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of Macario Linghon, who claimed to have sold the jewelry to Francisco on behalf of his sister, Pacita. However, Macario’s testimony was riddled with inconsistencies. He changed his story multiple times regarding the dates of the transactions, the amounts paid, and even who accompanied him when he sold the jewelry. These inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the credibility of his testimony, and on whether Francisco should be convicted of the crime charged.

    The Supreme Court noted that while the testimony of a single witness can be sufficient for conviction, that testimony must be credible and reliable. Given the numerous contradictions in Macario’s account, the Court found his testimony to be dubious and lacking in probative weight. Crucially, Macario himself admitted that he did not know the jewelry was stolen at the time of the sale. His sister had told him that the jewelry belonged to a friend, not to Jovita Rodriguez. He never informed Francisco the jewelry was stolen property.

    The prosecution also failed to establish that Francisco should have known the jewelry was stolen. They argued that the low price at which the jewelry was allegedly sold should have raised a red flag. However, the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to prove the actual value of the jewelry. Jovita Rodriguez’s self-serving valuation, without receipts or other supporting documentation, was deemed insufficient. The Court also found problematic the evidence that Pacita was guilty for stealing the jewerly did not occur before trial.

    “The stolen property subject of the charge is not indispensable to prove fencing. It is merely corroborative of the testimonies and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the crime of fencing.”

    Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in the absence of direct evidence of knowledge, the prosecution must prove facts and circumstances from which it can be concluded that the accused should have known the property was stolen. The failure to convincingly prove the value of the jewelry undermined this argument. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the prosecution failed to prove Francisco’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The inconsistent testimony, the lack of evidence of knowledge, and the failure to establish the value of the jewelry all contributed to this determination. As such, the decision of the lower courts was reversed, and Francisco was acquitted.

    FAQs

    What is the Anti-Fencing Law? The Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612) penalizes the act of buying, receiving, or possessing items that one knows or should have known were derived from theft or robbery. It aims to deter the trafficking of stolen goods.
    What are the elements of fencing? The essential elements are: a crime of robbery or theft occurred; the accused, not a principal in that crime, receives items from it; the accused knew or should have known the items were stolen; and the accused intended to gain from it.
    What does it mean to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? In criminal law, the prosecution must present enough credible evidence to convince the judge or jury that there is no other logical explanation for the facts except that the defendant committed the crime. If any reasonable doubt exists, the defendant must be acquitted.
    Why was Macario’s testimony considered unreliable? Macario gave different accounts of key events, such as dates, amounts, and who was present during the jewelry sales. These inconsistencies undermined the credibility and probative value of his testimony.
    Why was the prosecution’s valuation of the jewelry deemed insufficient? The prosecution relied solely on the complainant’s testimony, without providing receipts, appraisals, or other objective evidence to support the claimed value of the jewelry. Therefore, the court determined it was self serving, and thus, not admissible.
    What is the significance of proving knowledge in a fencing case? Proving that the accused knew or should have known the goods were stolen is a crucial element of fencing. Without this element, the accused cannot be convicted of the crime.
    What happens when the prosecution fails to prove an element of the crime? If the prosecution fails to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any doubt benefits the accused.
    Is possession of a final court decision regarding theft a vital instrument in this case? There is no certainty that possession of such an instrument would ensure a completely opposing ruling. Rather the presence and delivery of finality regarding the guilt of theft is of greater relevance to the trial courts to aid and collaborate each element with higher levels of reliability.

    The Francisco case underscores the importance of credible evidence and the prosecution’s burden to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Inconsistent testimony and a failure to establish key facts can lead to an acquittal, even in cases involving alleged stolen property.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Ernesto Francisco y Spenocilla v. People, G.R. No. 146584, July 12, 2004

  • 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.

  • Understanding the Anti-Fencing Law in the Philippines: Knowledge and Presumptions

    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.

  • Fencing in the Philippines: Knowledge and Presumptions Under the Anti-Fencing Law

    The Importance of Knowledge in Fencing Cases: Rebutting the Presumption of Guilt

    D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RAMON S. ESGUERRA, ET AL., G.R. No. 118590, July 30, 1996

    Imagine you’re a business owner who purchases materials from a supplier. Unbeknownst to you, those materials were stolen. Can you be held liable for ‘fencing,’ even if you had no idea they were illegally obtained? This Supreme Court case clarifies the crucial element of knowledge in fencing cases and how the presumption of guilt can be overcome with evidence of good faith.

    INTRODUCTION

    This case revolves around D.M. Consunji, Inc., which experienced systematic pilferage of company properties. These stolen materials were then sold to hardware stores owned by Eduardo Ching and the Spouses Say. The central legal question is whether Ching and the Spouses Say could be prosecuted for violating the Anti-Fencing Law (Presidential Decree 1612), despite claiming they were unaware the goods were stolen. The Supreme Court ultimately addressed whether the dismissal of the complaint against the private respondents was justified.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: UNDERSTANDING THE ANTI-FENCING LAW

    The Anti-Fencing Law (Presidential Decree No. 1612) aims to combat the trafficking of stolen goods. It defines ‘fencing’ as the act of any person who, with intent to gain, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes of any item which he knows, or should have known, to have been derived from robbery or theft.

    A key provision of the law, Section 5, states that “[m]ere 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 simply possessing stolen goods creates a presumption that the possessor is a fence, shifting the burden of proof to the possessor to prove their innocence.

    However, the prosecution must still prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew or should have known that the goods were stolen. This element of knowledge is crucial. The Supreme Court in Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People outlined the elements of fencing:

    • A crime of robbery or theft has been committed.
    • The accused, not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possesses, etc., the stolen item.
    • The accused knows or should have known the item was derived from robbery or theft.
    • The accused has intent to gain.

    A person is deemed to know a fact if they are aware of its existence or have it within their mind’s grasp. The phrase “should know” implies a reasonable person would ascertain the fact in performing their duty. This case highlights that the presumption of fencing can be rebutted with evidence showing a lack of knowledge or reasonable suspicion that the goods were stolen.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: THE FACTS AND THE COURT’S REASONING

    Here’s a chronological breakdown of the events:

    1. D.M. Consunji, Inc. discovers internal pilferage of company properties.
    2. The stolen materials are sold to MC Industrial Sales (owned by Ching) and Seato Trading Company, Inc. (owned by the Spouses Say).
    3. The NBI conducts searches of the premises of Ching and the Spouses Say, seizing phenolic plywood.
    4. The NBI files complaints against Ching and the Spouses Say for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law.
    5. The Investigating Prosecutor recommends dismissal of the case, finding no probable cause to believe that Ching and the Spouses Say knew the plywood was stolen.
    6. The Undersecretary of Justice upholds the dismissal.
    7. D.M. Consunji, Inc. files a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the public respondents. The Court emphasized that the private respondents presented sales receipts covering their purchases, disputing the prima facie presumption of fencing. The court cited the Investigating Prosecutor’s findings:

    “When SEATO TRADING bought the said marine plywoods from EDUARDO CHING, there is no doubt that the Spouses SAY were buying legitimate goods. They never had any suspicious (sic), even the slightest suspicion, that those marine plywoods were allegedly the subject of thievery…”

    Additionally, the Court noted that Ching claimed to have purchased the plywood from agents of Paramount Industrial, a known hardware store, and that his purchases were covered by receipts. The Spouses Say also claimed to have bought the plywood from MC Industrial Sales, a registered business establishment licensed to sell construction materials, with receipts to prove the transaction. The Supreme Court concluded that these receipts provided a reasonable basis to believe the transactions were legitimate, thus negating the element of knowledge required for a fencing conviction.

    “Absent other evidence, the presumption of innocence remains. Thus, grave abuse of discretion cannot be successfully imputed upon public respondents.”

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHAT THIS MEANS FOR BUSINESSES

    This case underscores the importance of due diligence in business transactions. While mere possession of stolen goods creates a presumption of fencing, this presumption can be overcome by presenting evidence of good faith and lack of knowledge that the goods were stolen. For business owners, this means keeping accurate records of purchases, verifying the legitimacy of suppliers, and documenting all transactions.

    Key Lessons:

    • Document Everything: Always obtain and keep receipts for all purchases.
    • Know Your Suppliers: Verify that your suppliers are legitimate and licensed businesses.
    • Be Aware: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Investigate any suspicious circumstances.

    For prosecutors, this case emphasizes the need to prove the element of knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt in fencing cases. Mere possession is not enough; there must be evidence that the accused knew or should have known that the goods were stolen.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

    Q: What is fencing under Philippine law?

    A: Fencing is the act of buying, receiving, possessing, or dealing in any item that the person knows or should have known was derived from robbery or theft, with the intent to gain.

    Q: What is the penalty for fencing?

    A: The penalty for fencing is dependent on the value of the property involved and is generally equivalent to the penalty prescribed for robbery or theft of the same property.

    Q: What does “prima facie evidence of fencing” mean?

    A: It means that the mere possession of stolen goods creates a presumption that the possessor is a fence. However, this presumption can be rebutted with evidence to the contrary.

    Q: What kind of evidence can rebut the presumption of fencing?

    A: Evidence such as sales receipts, proof of legitimate business operations, and testimony showing a lack of knowledge or reasonable suspicion that the goods were stolen can rebut the presumption.

    Q: What is the role of the prosecutor in a fencing case?

    A: The prosecutor must establish probable cause and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew or should have known that the goods were stolen.

    Q: Can a person be convicted of fencing even if they didn’t directly steal the goods?

    A: Yes, fencing applies to individuals who buy, receive, or possess stolen goods, even if they were not involved in the actual theft.

    Q: What is the difference between theft and fencing?

    A: Theft is the act of stealing property, while fencing is the act of dealing in stolen property. They are distinct but related offenses.

    Q: Is it enough to have receipts to prove that I am not a fence?

    A: While receipts are strong evidence, the court will consider the totality of evidence to determine your guilt or innocence. Keeping accurate records and verifying suppliers are important.

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