Fencing Under P.D. 1612: Possession Alone Can Establish Guilt

The Supreme Court, in Dunlao v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 111343, August 22, 1996), affirmed the conviction of a scrap metal dealer for violating the Anti-Fencing Law (Presidential Decree No. 1612). The ruling is a clear reminder that under this special law, the prosecution need not prove intent to gain or an actual purchase—mere possession of stolen goods, coupled with the failure to rebut the legal presumption of fencing, can be enough for conviction.

The Facts of the Case

Ernestino P. Dunlao, Sr., a licensed retailer and wholesaler of scrap iron in Davao City, was accused of fencing after employees of Lourdes Farms, accompanied by police officers, found stolen farrowing crates and G.I. pipes in his compound. The items, valued at P20,000.00, had been stolen from Lourdes Farms. Dunlao voluntarily surrendered the items when confronted.

He was charged under Section 2(a) of P.D. 1612, which 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 know, to have been derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft.

The Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution had proven all the elements of fencing beyond reasonable doubt. Dunlao argued that the prosecution failed to prove that he purchased the items and that he knew they were stolen. He also claimed he acted in good faith, saying a stranger on a jeep unloaded the pipes in front of his shop and never returned.

The Ruling: Possession Is Prima Facie Evidence

The Supreme Court upheld Dunlao's conviction. The Court emphasized two key points.

First, intent to gain need not be separately proved in crimes punished by special laws like P.D. 1612. The Court distinguished between acts mala in se (wrong in themselves), where intent governs, and acts mala prohibita (wrong because the law forbids them), where the only inquiry is whether the law has been violated. Citing Lim v. Court of Appeals, the Court noted that dolo (intent) is not required in crimes punished by a special statute; it is the act alone, irrespective of motive, that constitutes the offense.

Second, the law does not require proof of an actual purchase. Under Section 5 of P.D. 1612, mere possession of any item that has been the subject of robbery or theft is prima facie evidence of fencing. This presumption shifts the burden to the accused to explain possession with sufficient and convincing evidence.

Why the Defense Failed

Dunlao's defense—a bare denial and an improbable story about a stranger unloading pipes and leaving them—was not enough to overturn the presumption. The Court found his testimony incredible for several reasons:

• He did not bother to ascertain the identity of the person who left the items.
• The stolen articles were found displayed on shelves inside his compound, which the Court said suggests an intention to sell them.
• He brought the items inside his compound voluntarily, without any agreement on how they would be disposed of.

The Court also rejected his claim that the pipes were worth only P200.00. A prosecution witness, a purchaser for Lourdes Farms, estimated the value at P59,000.00 based on the number of crates and fabrication costs. The trial court, however, used the P20,000.00 alleged in the information, which the Supreme Court found to be a more realistic estimate, especially since it took a dump truck to haul the items away.

Practical Takeaways

• Possession is powerful evidence. Under P.D. 1612, if you are found in possession of stolen goods, the law presumes you are a fence. You must present credible, convincing evidence to rebut this presumption.
• A mere denial is not enough. Courts are unlikely to believe a bare denial or an implausible story, especially when the circumstances—such as displaying the goods or failing to identify the seller—suggest otherwise.
• Good faith is a defense, but it must be shown. A licensed scrap dealer with years of experience cannot simply claim ignorance. The law expects business owners to exercise diligence in their transactions.
• Intent to gain is presumed. In crimes mala prohibita like fencing, the prosecution does not need to prove that you intended to profit. The mere act of possessing stolen goods, knowing or should have known they were stolen, is enough.
• Value matters for penalties. The value of the stolen property affects the penalty imposed. Courts will rely on credible estimates, not the accused's self-serving assertions.

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