Anti-Fencing Law in the Philippines: Possession and Legal Presumptions

The Anti-Fencing Law makes it a crime to buy, receive, or deal in stolen property — even for someone who did not commit the original theft. A key feature of the law is its presumption rule: mere possession of stolen goods is prima facie evidence of fencing. This means the burden shifts to the possessor to prove lack of knowledge and intent. The Supreme Court's ruling in Dunlao v. Court of Appeals illustrates how this presumption operates in practice.

What the Law Says

The Anti-Fencing Law defines fencing as the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or another, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes of any article known or should have been known to be derived from robbery or theft. The law covers any "article, item, object, or anything of value" taken in those crimes.

A crucial provision establishes the presumption: mere possession of stolen goods is prima facie evidence of fencing. Once possession is shown, the accused must prove they did not know the goods were stolen and had no intent to profit from them. This rule is a powerful enforcement tool, but it places a heavy burden on the accused.

The Dunlao Case

Ernestino Dunlao, a scrap metal dealer, was convicted after police and employees of Lourdes Farms found farrowing crates and G.I. pipes stolen from the farm in his yard. Dunlao claimed that men in a jeep unloaded the items at his property, asked him to keep them temporarily, and never returned. He insisted he was merely holding them for safekeeping.

The trial court convicted him, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. The Court emphasized three points:

• Intent is immaterial for mala prohibita crimes. Fencing is prohibited because the law says so, not because it is inherently wrong. When an act is illegal, the offender's intent is irrelevant.
• Mere possession triggers the presumption. The law does not require proof of purchase. Possession alone is enough to presume fencing.
• Dunlao's explanation was not credible. The Court found it suspicious that he displayed the items openly and never verified the identity of the strangers who left them.

The trial court's observation, quoted approvingly by the Supreme Court, noted the "dubious aura of illegitimacy" when a person accepts items from total strangers without any agreement on sale, disposal, or compensation.

The Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita Distinction

Crimes mala in se, such as murder or theft, are inherently wrong and require proof of criminal intent. Crimes mala prohibita, like fencing, are wrong because a statute prohibits them. In the latter, the act itself is the crime; intent need not be proven. This distinction is central to understanding why Dunlao's conviction stood despite his claims of good faith.

Practical Takeaways

• Possession of stolen goods creates a legal presumption of fencing. The burden is on the possessor to prove lack of knowledge and intent.
• Ignorance is not automatically a defense. A buyer must take reasonable steps to ensure goods are not stolen.
• Verify the source. Ask for proof of ownership, receipts, or other documentation from the seller.
• Be wary of deals that seem too good to be true. Prices significantly below market value should raise red flags.
• Document transactions. Keep records of the sale, the seller's information, and a description of the goods.
• Report suspicious offers. Contact the police if someone tries to sell goods that may be stolen.

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