The Fencing Law and the Presumption in Dealing With Stolen Goods

The Anti-Fencing Law, or Presidential Decree No. 1612, is a crucial piece of Philippine legislation that targets individuals who profit from dealing in stolen goods. While the law primarily aims to punish those who buy or sell items derived from robbery or theft, it also creates a powerful legal presumption: mere possession of stolen property can be enough to convict a person of fencing. This article examines a 2013 Supreme Court decision that clarifies how this presumption works and why a businessman's failure to exercise due diligence led to his conviction.

The Facts of the Case

In February 1995, Francisco Azajar discovered that all 38 truck tires stored in his warehouse in Parañaque had been stolen. He reported the robbery to the police. While conducting his own search, Azajar found that a store in Paco, Manila, called Jong's Marketing, was selling tires matching the description of his stolen property. He recognized one tire by its chalk marking and serial number.

A buy-bust operation was arranged. A poseur-buyer purchased one tire from the store owner, Jaime Ong, and then asked for more. Ong instructed his helpers to bring out 12 more tires from his warehouse. Azajar confirmed that all these tires were the ones stolen from him. Ong was arrested and charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law.

The Issue: Was Ong Guilty of Fencing?

The central question for the Court was whether the prosecution had proven all the elements of fencing, particularly whether Ong knew or should have known that the tires were stolen. Ong argued that he bought the tires from a certain Ramon Go, who issued him a sales invoice, and that he had no knowledge of their illegal origin.

The Ruling: The Presumption of Fencing

The Supreme Court denied Ong's appeal and affirmed his conviction. The Court outlined the four essential elements of fencing: (1) a crime of robbery or theft occurred; (2) the accused dealt in the stolen goods; (3) the accused knew or should have known the goods were stolen; and (4) there was intent to gain.

The Court found all elements present. While Ong was not the robber, he was found in possession of the stolen tires. The crucial element was "constructive knowledge." The Court explained that "should know" means a person of reasonable prudence would ascertain the fact. As a tire dealer for 24 years, Ong should have been suspicious when an unknown seller approached him to sell 13 tires at a low price, without any proof of ownership, and the entire transaction was completed in just one day.

The Disputable Presumption and the Receipt Defense

The Court emphasized Section 5 of P.D. 1612, which states that mere possession of stolen goods is prima facie evidence of fencing. This presumption can be rebutted, and Ong attempted to do so by presenting a sales invoice from his seller.

However, the Court noted that this defense is disputable. The prosecution successfully proved that the company named on the invoice, Gold Link, was fictitious. Ong also admitted he failed to secure the necessary clearance from the police station, a requirement under Section 6 of P.D. 1612 for stores dealing in second-hand goods. His failure to follow this procedure and his lack of diligence in verifying the legitimacy of his purchase meant he could not overcome the legal presumption against him.

Practical Takeaways

• Knowledge can be presumed. You don't need to be caught red-handed knowing goods are stolen. The law presumes you know if a reasonable person in your position would have been suspicious.
• The "receipt" defense is weak. A sales invoice is not a magic shield. If the seller or the transaction is dubious, a receipt may not protect you from a fencing charge.
• Due diligence is a legal duty. For businesses dealing in second-hand goods, securing police clearances and verifying the seller's identity and ownership of the goods are not just best practices—they are legal requirements that can be your best defense.
• Mere possession is powerful evidence. The law creates a strong presumption of fencing from possession alone. The burden shifts to the accused to explain how they came into possession of the goods legitimately.

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