Fencing Cases: When Possession of Stolen Goods Proves Knowledge and Intent

The Philippine Supreme Court, in Masil v. People (G.R. No. 241837, January 5, 2022), reaffirmed that mere possession of stolen goods can be enough to convict a person of fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612, the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979. The ruling clarifies how courts determine whether a buyer "knew or should have known" that items were derived from theft or robbery—a crucial question for junk shop owners, second-hand dealers, and anyone who regularly buys goods from third parties.

The Facts of the Case

In July 2010, a passenger jeepney was taken by its hired driver, who failed to return it. The owner reported the theft to the police. Days later, a tip led authorities to a junk shop where a man was caught dismantling the jeepney. That man admitted that other parts had already been sold to another junk shop owned by the petitioner.

Police proceeded to the petitioner's shop, where they recovered the dismantled parts—including an injection pump, fan blade, rocker arm, and air breather—which the owner's husband had previously marked for identification. The petitioner admitted buying the parts from his co-accused but denied knowing the items were stolen. He was charged with and convicted of fencing.

The Elements of Fencing

Section 2 of PD 1612 defines fencing as the act of any person who, with intent to gain, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes of any article of value which he knows, or should have known, was derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft.

The Supreme Court reiterated the four essential elements: (1) a crime of robbery or theft was committed; (2) the accused, not being a principal or accomplice in that crime, dealt with the stolen property; (3) the accused knew or should have known the property was stolen; and (4) there was intent to gain.

What "Should Have Known" Means

The Court explained that "should have known" refers to what a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence ought to ascertain in the performance of a duty. Circumstances that forewarn a vigilant buyer include the time and place of the sale, the nature and condition of the goods, and the legality of the source.

Here, the petitioner was a junk shop owner who bought motor vehicle parts. The Court found that he ought to have known the protocols for buying such items. Notably, Section 6 of PD 1612 requires establishments dealing in goods to secure a clearance or permit from the local police station commander before offering items for sale, particularly when dealing with unlicensed suppliers. The petitioner failed to show he asked for any proof of ownership of the jeepney parts—something his business experience should have prompted him to do.

Presumption of Fencing from Possession

The Court emphasized that fencing is malum prohibitum (an act wrong because prohibited by law). PD 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from mere possession of stolen property. The law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles; possession alone is enough to trigger the presumption.

The petitioner's defense of denial was weak. He never disputed that the parts were found in his shop and admitted buying them from his co-accused. The Court reiterated that denial cannot prevail over positive identification and other credible evidence.

The Penalty and the Indeterminate Sentence Law

The stolen parts were valued at P17,500.00. Under Section 3(a) of PD 1612, fencing property worth more than P12,000.00 but not exceeding P22,000.00 carries the penalty of prision mayor.

Because PD 1612 adopts the penalty nomenclature of the Revised Penal Code, the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its medium period. The Court sentenced the petitioner to an indeterminate term of six years, eight months, and one day of prision mayor in its minimum period, as minimum, to eight years, eight months, and one day of prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum.

The Court also noted an important legislative gap: Republic Act No. 10951 adjusted the values of property for penalties under the Revised Penal Code, but did not adjust the thresholds in PD 1612. This means a fence can sometimes be punished more severely than the principal thief—a matter the Court flagged for Congress to address.

Practical Takeaways

• Possession alone can convict. Under PD 1612, if stolen goods are found in your possession, the law presumes you are a fence. You bear the burden of rebutting that presumption with credible evidence.
• Document your purchases. Buyers of second-hand goods, especially motor vehicle parts, should ask for proof of ownership and keep records. Failure to do so can be used as evidence that you "should have known" the items were stolen.
• Know your industry rules. If your business deals in goods that may come from unlicensed sources, secure the required permits or clearances. Ignorance of these protocols does not excuse liability.
• Denial is a weak defense. Courts give more weight to positive identification and circumstantial evidence. A bare denial, without supporting proof, will rarely overcome the prosecution's case.
• Penalties can be severe. Even for relatively modest amounts, fencing carries prison terms measured in years. The value thresholds in PD 1612 have not been updated by RA 10951, so penalties remain steep.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.