Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Iñigo for P500,000. While driving his newly-bought car, Roberto met a minor accident that made the examination of his vehicle’s Registration Certificate necessary. When the policeman checked the plate, chassis and motor numbers of the vehicle against those reflected in the Registration Certificate, he found the chassis and motor numbers to be different from what the Registration Certificate stated. The Deed of Sale covering the sale of the Fortuner, signed by Iñigo, also bore the same chassis and motor numbers as Roberto’s Registration Certificate. The chassis and motor numbers on the Fortuner were found, upon verification with the Land Transportation Office, to correspond to a vehicle previously reported as carnapped.
Roberto claimed that he was in good faith; Iñigo sold him a carnapped vehicle and he did not know that he was buying a carnapped vehicle.
If you were the prosecutor, would you or would you not charge Roberto with a crime? (7%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
I would charge Roberto with violation of the Anti-Fencing Law under PD 1612. Under Section 2 of PD 1612, fencing is committed by any person who buys, receives, possesses, or deals in any article of value which he knows,
Unlock the full Criminal Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What constitutes the crime of Fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612?
Fencing involves buying, possessing, or dealing in property known or that should be known as stolen.
Why is good faith NOT a valid defense against a charge of violating the Anti-Fencing Law?
PD 1612 is a special penal law classified as malum prohibitum, rendering good faith inapplicable.
What level of knowledge regarding the stolen origin of property is required under PD 1612?
PD 1612 requires either actual knowledge or constructive knowledge that the item was stolen.
What presumption arises from the possession of any good or article derived from robbery or theft under PD 1612?
Choices available with full access.
Why did Roberto have constructive knowledge that the Fortuner was a carnapped vehicle?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Anti-Fencing Law
Under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1612, known as the Anti-Fencing Law, fencing is committed by any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes of, or buys and sells, or in any other manner deals in any article of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to be derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. Possession of stolen property creates a prima facie presumption of fencing.
2. Mala Prohibita Defense
Offenses defined and penalized under special penal laws, such as Presidential Decree No. 1612, are generally classified as mala prohibita. In crimes mala prohibita, criminal intent is not an essential element, and the defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent is untenable. The mere performance of the prohibited act, or the failure to exercise due diligence that results in committing the prohibited act, consummates the felony regardless of the offender's subjective state of mind.
3. Constructive Knowledge Duty
Under Presidential Decree No. 1612, actual knowledge that the item is stolen is not required; it is sufficient that the buyer should have known that the property was derived from robbery, theft, or carnapping. A buyer of a motor vehicle has a legal duty to exercise due diligence by verifying the motor and chassis numbers stamped on the vehicle against the registration certificate. Failure to verify discrepancies constitutes constructive knowledge of the vehicle's stolen origin.