INTRODUCTION

SHEENA: Hi, I hope everyone is safe and sound during this troubling times. I’m Sheena
Mae D. Serrano from BS Criminology 2a and my I call on my partner to introduce
himself.

JERRY: Thankyou Partner! I’m Jerry V. Ortigue also from bs criminology 2a. We were
here today to be your presenter for the day.

SHEENA: PD 1612 became the talk of the country last year after it was revealed that
the issue of robbery and thievery in the Philippines remained rampant even after the
enactment of this law way back 1979.

SHEENA: Various lawmakers under the tutelage of Senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III
are now vying for a higher penalty in hopes to put an end to this.

SHEENA: In order to understand more about this law, let us first look back into how this
law came to existence.

JERRY: During the regime of the then President Ferdinand Marcos, reports from law
enforcement agencies revealed that there were rampant robbery and thievery of
government and private properties.

JERRY: It was also later known that such robbery and thievery have become profitable
because of the existence of ready buyers, commonly known as ”FENCES”.

JERRY: Problems have emerged in punishing these criminals because under existing
laws, offense can only be A FENCE CAN ONLY BE PROSECUTED AS AN
ACCESORY. BECAUSE OF THIS LIGHT PENALTY AND THE NEED TO IMPOSE A
HEAVIER SANCTION.

SHEENA: President Marcos enacted PD 1612 or the Anti-Fencing law.

SHEENA: After 41 years, this law remained operational and unamended. However,
there is now pending bill in the Senate.

 SENATE BILL NO. 1812, ANTI-FENCING LAW AS AMENDED

SHEENA: Senate Bill Np. 1812 was introduced by Sen. Koko Pimentel III on May 21,
2018.

SHEENA: It mainly aims to adjust the values of property that serve as the basis for
penalties under this existing law.

SHEENA: This is to avoid a situation where a fence, who is a mere accessory to

robbery and theft, will be punished more severely than a robber or a thief.
SHEENA: Now penalties stipulated under anti-fencing law are not to be underestimated.
It is divided into six (6) categories.

JERRY:

1. The penalty of prison mayor or six (6) years and one (1) day to 12 year of
imprisonment is imposed if the value of the property involved is more than
12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos. Otherwise, the penalty
provided will be imposed in its maximum period, with an additional of one
year for each additional 10,000 pesos.
- For example, if the value of the property is 42,000 pesos and the maximum
penalty provided by the law is 22,000 pesos. This leaves an excess of 20,000
pesos.
- In this example, there will be an additional of two (2) years for the additional
20,000 excess. However, the total penalty imposed shall not go beyond 20
years. For such cases, the penalty will be reclusion temporal or 12 years and
one (1) day to 20 years which is not the penalty provided for by law.
- In addition, the accessory penalty of civil interdiction during the period of
sentence or perpetual absolute disqualification will be added to the penalty.
42,000
- 22, 000
Php 20, 000

2. The penalty of prison correctional or six (6) months and one (1) day to six
(6) years in its medium and maximum periods will be imposed, if the value
of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not
exceeding 12,000 pesos.
3. The penalty of prison correccional or six (6)n months and one (1) day to
six (6) years in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the
property involved is more than 200 pesos but is not beyond 6,000 pesos.
4. The penalty of arresto mayor or one (1) month and one (!) day to 30 days
of imprisonment in its medium period to prison correccional in its minimum
period will be imposed, if the value of the property involved is over 50,
pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos.
5. The penalty of arresto mayor or one (1) month and one (1) day to 30 days
of imprisonment in its medium period will be imposed, if such value is over
five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos.
6. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value does not
exceed 5 pesos.

QUESTION

SHEENA: We have talked about a subsequent penalties, but what exactly is the Anti-
Fencing law? And no, it is not related to any sport.
 READING SLIDE

SHEENA: What is 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.

SHEENA: A “fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or

other organization who/which commits the act of fencing.

EXPLANATION

SHEENA: Which leads to a question, who are then liable under this law? Any person
may be liable under this law for as long they have committed the act of fencing. In strict
technical terms, these persons are called fences. They can be any person, firm
association or partnership or other organization or someone who commits the act of
fencing.

QUESTION

JERRY: Now, when can a person be held liable under this law?

ANSWER

JERRY: In The Philippines, in order for a person to be held liable under PD 1612, all of
the elements of this crime should be present.

JERRY:

READING SLIDE (Elements)

1. A robbery or theft has been committed.
2. The accused, who is not a principal or 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 said crime;
3. The accused knows 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
4. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for
another.
 EXPLANATION

JERRY: It should be taken note that fencing is a crime involving moral turpitude. Simply
put, it is a conduct that shocks public conscience because it does not fall within the
moral standards of society. It is heavily emphasized in a third element.

- EXPLANATION

SHEENA: Actual knowledge of the fact that the property was stolen displays the same
degree of malicious deprivation of another’s property as that of the crimes of robbery
and theft.

SHEENA: All of these are crimes against moral turpitude as all display the same degree
of perversion or the lack of moral standards.

SHEENA: Basically, if you are someone who bought a car that is stolen from another
and you knew that the car was stolen one way or another, then you have the same guilt
as that of the person who stole the car.

SHEENA: Although your participation varied from that of the robber or the thief, you still
had the same willful intent which is to wrongfully prejudice another for personal gain.

SHEENA:This holds true, even if you did not have actual knowledge, but mere
knowledge of the property’s origin.

SHEENA: In the case of Rolando P. Dela Torre vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121592. July
5, 1996 the supreme court of the Philippines ruled,

SHEENA: “When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of the

offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of the high probability of its
existence unless he actually believes that it does not exist.”

EXPLANATION

SHEENA: This then leads us to the presumption regarding the crime of fencing. The
court presumes the fact that a property of dubious origins should already be a warning
for cautious buyers in buying it.

READING SLIDE
SHEENA: Fencing is a malum prohibitum. It is an offense prohibited by statute but not
inherently evil or wrong.

EXPLANATION

SHEENA: In this kind of offense, the intent of the offender is immaterial. The act is
punished merely because the state deems it as illegal.

READING SLIDE (Presumption of Fencing)

JERRY: “Hence, the 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.”

JERRY: “The law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles as mere
possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing.”

QUESTION

SHEENA: Now, imagine this. A person comes to you crying and asking for advice. He
was accused as someone who bought a phone that was allegedly stolen by another.

SHEENA: Now, the owner of the phone is filing a criminal complaint of fencing against
him.

SHEENA: WHAT WILL BE YOUR ADVICE?

SHEENA: Well, you can provide pieces of evidence that are convincing and sufficient
enough to prove that your client acted in good faith. Lack of knowledge that an item has
been the subject of robbery and thievery is incomplete. This presumption can be
rebutted only if the accused can provide sufficient and convincing evidence that he
acted in good faith.

QUESTIONS

JERRY: You can easily claim that such items are not stolen goods. So how then are
you able to identify that such item is a proceed of robbery or thievery?

SHEENA: Fencing may be evident when the buyer bought the article at a price way
below ordinary prices, as well as the time and the place of the sale. These
circumstances normally exist to forewarn a reasonably vigilant buyer that the article may
have been derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft.
 EXPLANATION (DIFFENCES OF ROBBERY, THEFT AND FENCING)

SHEENA: Because of how interrelated these crimes are, often times there is confusion
as to the difference between robbery, theft and fencing.

READING SLIDE

JERRY: 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.

JERRY: Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being
stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of
it permanently.

JERRY: Fencing in the other hand, is the buying, selling or possession of any proceeds
of the crime of Robbery and theft.

EXPLANATION

JERRY: The crimes of robbery, theft and fencing are clearly then 3 different offenses.

JERRY: True, the object property in fencing must have been previously taken by means
of robbery, theft or fencing but the place where the robbery or theft occurs is
inconsequential.

EXAMPLE

JERRY: Now, let us put this into perspective. Let’s say Gusion stole a bag by pointing a
knife towards Lesley, demanding her to give her bag while she was on her way home
from work. Afraid for her life, she immediately gave her bag to Gusion. Gusion then ran
off by boarding a motorcycle. Two days following the robbery, Gusion sold the phone
which was inside the bag to his sister, Angela. Without him knowing that Angela and
Lesley were actually classmates. Angela brought the phone to school and the was
identified by Lesley as hers.

JERRY: What are then the liabilities of Gusion and Angela in this scenario?
SHEENA: Wll in this case, Gusion may be liable for robbery while angela will be liable
for PD 1612 or the Anti-Fencing law.

SHEENA: Gusion through violence and intimidation stole Lesley’s bag. Angela although
she did not participate in the crime of robbery will be liable for Anti-Fencing law because
the phone was a proceed of the crime of robbery. Angela being the sister of Gusion
should have known the dubious origins of the phone and should have been cautious in
deciding to buy it.

EXPLANATION

SHEENA: Now that we know the in and outs of this law. As seller, consumers and
buyers, it is expected of us to be vigilant in knowing the origins of the goods or items
that we have, sell or buy.

ENDING

JERRY: Well, this ends for our today’s report.

SHEENA: Stay safe everyone and have a great day! Don’t forget to always wash you
hands.