ANTI-FENCING LAW 

OF 1979 (PD NO. 1612)

DEFINITION
Fencing as defined in Sec. 2 of PD No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) 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 manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows or should be known to him, or to
have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.  (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, GR 111426, 11
July 94).
BRIEF HISTORY OF PD 1612 OR THE ANTI-FENCING LAW
Presidential Decree No. 1612 or commonly known as the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 was enacted under the authority
of therein President Ferdinand Marcos. The law took effect on March 2, 1979. The Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the Anti-Fencing Law were subsequently formulated and it took effect on June 15, 1979.
THE PURPOSE OF ENACTING PD 1612
The Anti-Fencing Law was made to curtail and put an end to the rampant robbery of government and private
properties. With the existence of “ready buyers”, the “business” of robbing and stealing have become profitable.
Hence, a law was enacted to also punish those who buy stolen properties. For if there are no buyers then the
malefactors could not profit from their wrong doings.
WHAT IS FENCING LAW AND HOW IT CAN BE COMMITTED
“Fencing” 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. A “Fence” includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other organization
who/ which commits the act of fencing.
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THE CRIME OF FENCING; AND ITS PENALTIES:  
The person liable is the one buying, keeping, concealing and selling the stolen items. If the fence is a corporation,
partnership, association or firm, the one liable is the president or the manager or the officer who knows or should
have know the fact that the offense was committed.
The law provide for penalty range for persons convicted of the crime of fencing. Their penalty depends on the value
of the goods or items stolen or bought:
A. The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not
exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph
shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal
and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
B. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the property robbed or
stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12, 000 pesos;
C. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property involved
is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos;
D. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value
of the property involved is over 50 but not exceeding 200 pesos;
E. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos.
F. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
RULES REGARDING BUY AND SELL OF GOODS PARTICULARLY SECOND HAND GOODS
The law requires the establishment engaged in the buy and sell of goods to obtain a clearance or permit to sell “used
second hand items”, to give effect to the purpose of the law in putting an end to buying and selling stolen items.
Failure of which makes the owner or manager liable as a fence.
The Implementing Rules provides for the guidelines of issuance of clearances or permits to sell used or secondhand
items. It provided for the definition of the following terms:
 “Used secondhand article” shall refer to any goods, article, items, object or anything of value obtained
from an unlicensed dealer or supplier, regardless of whether the same has actually or in fact been used.
 “Unlicensed dealer/supplier” shall refer to any persons, partnership, firm, corporation, association or
any other entity or establishment not licensed by the government to engage in the business of dealing in
or of supplying the articles defined in the preceding paragraph;
 “Store”, “establishment” or “entity” shall be construed to include any individual dealing in the buying
and selling used secondhand articles, as defined in paragraph hereof;
 “Buy and Sell” refer to the transaction whereby one purchases used secondhand articles for the

purpose of resale to third persons;

 “Station Commander” shall refer to the Station Commander of the Integrated National Police within the
territorial limits of the town or city district where the store, establishment or entity dealing in the buying and
selling of used secondhand
PROCEDURE FOR SECURING PERMIT/CLEARANCE
The Implementing Rules provided for the method of obtaining clearance or permit. No fee will be charged for the
issuance of the clearance/permit. Failure to secure clearance/permit shall be punished as a fence, that may result to
the cancellation of business license.
1. The Station Commander shall require the owner of a store or the President, manager or responsible officer in
having in stock used secondhand articles, to submit an initial affidavit within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice for
the purpose thereof and subsequent affidavits once every fifteen (15) days within five (5) days after the period
covered, which shall contain:
a. complete inventory of such articles including the names and addresses from whom the articles were acquired.
b. Full list of articles to be sold or offered for sale including the time and place of sale
c. Place where the articles are presently deposited. The Station Commander may, require the submission of an
affidavit accompanied by other documents showing proof of legitimacy of acquisition.
2. Those who wish to secure the permit/clearance, shall file an application with the Station Commander concerned,
which states:
a. name, address and other pertinent circumstances
b. article to be sold or offered for sale to the public and the name and address of the unlicensed dealer or supplier
from whom such article was acquired.
c. Include the receipt or document showing proof of legitimacy of acquisition.
3. The Station Commander shall examine the documents attached to the application and may require the
presentation of other additional documents, if necessary, to show satisfactory proof of the legitimacy of acquisition of
the article, subject to the following conditions:
a. if the Station Commander is not satisfied with the proof of legitimacy of acquisition, he shall cause the publication
of the notice, at the expense of the one seeking clearance/permit, in a newspaper of general circulation for two
consecutive days, stating:
 articles acquired from unlicensed dealer or supplier
  the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were acquired
  that such articles are to be sold or offered for sale to the public at the address of the store,
establishment or other entity seeking the clearance/permit.
4. If there are no newspapers in general circulation, the party seeking the clearance/permit shall, post a notice daily
for one week on the bulletin board of the municipal building of the town where the store, firm, establishment or entity
is located or, in the case of an individual, where the articles in his possession are to be sold or offered for sale.
5. If after 15 days, upon expiration of the period of publication or of the notice, no claim is made to any of the articles
enumerated in the notice, the Station Commander shall issue the clearance or permit sought.
6. If before expiration of the same period for the publication of the notice or its posting, it shall appear that any of the
articles in question is stolen property, the Station Commander shall hold the article in restraint as evidence in any
appropriate case to be filed.
Articles held in restraint shall kept and disposed of as the circumstances of each case permit. In any case it shall be
the duty of the Station Commander concerned to advise/notify the Commission on Audit of the case and comply with
such procedure as may be proper under applicable existing laws, rules and regulations.
7. The Station Commander shall, within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the application, act thereon by either
issuing the clearance/permit requested or denying the same. Denial of an application shall be in writing and shall
state in brief the reason/s thereof.
8. Any party not satisfied with the decision of the Station Commander may appeal the same within 10 days to the
proper INP (now PNP) District Superintendent and further to the INP (now PNP) Director. The decision of the Director
can still be appealed top the Director-General, within 10 days, whose decision may be appealed with the Minister
(now Secretary) of National Defense, within 15 days, which decision is final.
PRESUMPTION
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object or anything fo value which has been the subject of robbery or
thievery, shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
ELEMENTS
A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives,
possess, 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 said crime;
The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, or object or anything of value has been derived
from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
1. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.(Dizon-
Pamintuan vs People, GR 111426, 11 July 94)
 As regards the first element, the crime of robbery or theft should have been committed before crime of fencing can
be committed. The person committing the crime of robbery or theft, may or may not be the same person committing
the crime of fencing. As in the case ofD.M. Consunji, Inc., vs. Esguerra, quantities of phelonic plywood were
stolen and the Court held that qualified theft had been committed. In People vs. Lucero there was first a snatching
incident, where the bag of Mrs. Maripaz Bernard Ramolete was snatch in the public market of Carbon, Cebu City,
where she lost a Chinese Gold Necklace and pendant worth some P4,000.00 to snatchers Manuel Elardo and
Zacarias Pateras. The snatchers sold the items to Manuel Lucero. Consequently, Lucero was charged with violation
of the Anti-Fencing Law. However, in this case, no eyewitness pointed to Lucero as the perpetrator and the evidence
of the prosecution was not strong enough to convict him.
The second element speaks of the overt act of keeping, buying, receiving, possessing, acquiring, concealing, selling
or disposing or in any manner deals with stolen items. It is thus illustrated in the case of Lim vs. Court of Appeals,
where the accused, Juanito Lim stored and kept in his bodega and subsequently bought or disposed of the nine (9)
pieces of stolen tires with rims owned by Loui Anton Bond.
The accused known or should have known that the goods were stolen. As pointed out in the case of People vs.
Adriatico, the court in convicting Norma Adriatico, stated that it was impossible for her to know that the jewelry were
stolen because of the fact that Crisilita was willing to part with a considerable number of jewelry at measly sum, and
this should have apprised Norma of the possibility that they were stolen goods. The approximate total value of the
jewelry were held to be at P20,000.00, and Norma having bought it from Crisilita for only P2,700. The court also
considered the fact that Norma engage in the business of buying and selling gold and silver, which business is very
well exposed to the practice of fencing. This requires more than ordinary case and caution in dealing with customers.
As noted by the trial court:
“. . . the Court is not inclined to accept the accused’s theory of buying in good faith and disclaimer of ever seeing,
much more, buying the other articles. Human experience belies her allegations as no businessman or woman at that,
would let go of such opportunities for a clean profit at the expense of innocent owners.’’
The Court in convicting Ernesto Dunlao Sr., noted that the stolen articles composed of farrowing crates and G.I. pipes
were found displayed on petitioner’s shelves inside his compound. (Dunalao, Sr. v. CA, 08/22/96)
In the case of People v. Muere (G.R.12902, 10/18/94), the third element was not proven. This case involves the
selling of alleged stolen Kenwood Stereo Unit in the store Danvir Trading, owned by the spouses Muere. The store is
engaged in buying and selling of second hand merchandise located at Pasay Road, Makati. The said stereo was
bought from Wynn’s Audio, an existing establishment. The court held that there is no proof that the spouses Muere,
had knowledge of the fact that the stereo was stolen. The spouses Muere purchased the stereo from a known
merchant and the unit is displayed for sale in their store. These actions are not indicative of a conduct of a guilty
person.
On the same vein, the third element did not exist in the case of D.M. Consunji, Inc.(Consunji v. Esguerra,
07/30/96) where the subject of the court action are the alleged stolen phelonic plywood owned by D.M. Consunji, Inc.,
later found to be in the premises of MC Industrial Sales and Seato trading Company, owned respectively by Eduardo
Ching and the spouses Sy. Respondents presented sales receipts covering their purchase of the items from
Paramount Industrial, which is a known hardware store in Caloocan, thus they had no reason to suspect that the said
items were products of theft.
The last element is that there is intent to gain for himself or for another. However, intent to gain need not be proven in
crimes punishable by a special law such as the Anti-Fencing Law. The crimes punishable by special laws are called
“acts mala prohibita“. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala prohibita,  the only inquiry is that, has the
law been violated? (in Gatdner v. People, as cited in US v. Go Chico, 14 Phils. 134) When the act is prohibited by
law, intent is immaterial.
Likewise, dolo  or deceit is immaterial in crimes punishable by special statute like the Anti-Fencing Law. It is the act
itself which constitutes the offense and not the motive or intent. Intent to gain is a mental state, the existence if which
is demonstrated by the overt acts of the person. The mental state is presumed from the commission of an unlawful
act. (Dunlao v. CA) again, intent to gain is a mental state, the existence of which is demonstrated by the overt acts of
person, as the keeping of stolen items for subsequent selling.
A FENCE MAY BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE RPC OR PD 1612
The state may thus choose to prosecute him either under the RPC or PD NO. 1612 although the preference for the
latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is a malum prohibitum, and PD No. 1612 creates a
presumption of fencing and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property. (supra)
MERE POSSESSION OF STOLEN ARTICLE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF FENCING
Since Sec. 5 of PD NO. 1612 expressly provides that “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” it follows that the
accused is presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the items found in her possession were the proceeds of
robbery or theft. The presumption does not offend the presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FENCING AND ROBBERY
The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participation in the criminal design to commit or to have
been in any wise involved in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft.  Neither is the crime of robbery or theft
made to depend on an act of fencing in order that it can be consummated. (People v De Guzman, GR 77368).
Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or
intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything.
On the other hand, fencing 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 shall be known to him, to have been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
FENCING AS A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.
In violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, actual knowledge by the “fence” of the fact that property received is stolen
displays the same degree of malicious deprivation of one’s rightful property as that which animated the robbery or
theft which by their very nature are crimes of moral turpitude. (Dela Torre v. COMELEC 07/05/96)
Moral turpitude can be derived from the third element – accused knows or should have known that the items were
stolen. Participation of each felon, one being the robber or the thief or the actual perpetrators, and the other as the
fence, differs in point in time and degree but both invaded one’s peaceful dominion for gain. (Supra) Both crimes
negated the principle of each person’s duty to his fellowmen not to appropriate things that they do not own or return
something acquired by mistake or with malice. This signifies moral turpitude with moral unfitness.
In the case of Dela Torre, he was declared disqualified from running the position of Mayor in Cavinti, Laguna in the
last May 8, 1995 elections because of the fact of the disqualification under Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code, of
persons running for elective position -”Sec. 40 Disqualifications – (a) Those sentenced by final judgement for an
offense involving moral turpitude…”
Dela Torre was disqualified because of his prior conviction of the crime of fencing wherein he admitted all the
elements of the crime of fencing.
ESSENCE OF VIOLATION OF PD 1612, SEC. 2 OR ANTI-FENCING
PD 1612, Section 2 thereof requires that the offender buys or otherwise acquires and then sells or disposes of any
object of value which he knows or should he known to him to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft. (Caoili v CA; GR 128369, 12/22/97)
PROOF OF PURCHASE WHEN GOODS ARE IN POSSESSION OF OFFENDER NOT NECESSARY IN ANTI-
FENCING
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.
It was incumbent upon petitioner to overthrow this presumption by sufficient and convincing evidence.  (Caoili v. CA;
GR 128369, 12/22/97)