Ofelia, engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was charged with violation of PD 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found in possession of recently stolen jewelry valued at Pl 00,000.00 at her jewelry shop. Her defense is that she merely bought the same from Antonia and produced a receipt covering the sale. She presented other receipts given to her by Antonia representing previous transactions. Convicted of the charge, Ofelia appealed, arguing that her acquisition of the jewelries resulted from a legal transaction and that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have known that the pieces of jewelry which she bought from Antonia were proceeds of the crime of theft.
[a] What is a “fence” under PD 1612? (2.5%)
[b] Is Ofelia liable under the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain. (2.5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
(a) A fence under PD 1612 is any person or entity committing fencing; and (b) Ofelia is not liable under the Anti-Fencing Law. Under Section 2(b) of PD 1612, a fence includes any person or entity that deals in items derived from
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 is a 'fence' under Presidential Decree No. 1612?
Under PD 1612, a fence is any person or entity dealing in items known or that should be known to be proceeds of theft or robbery.
What legal effect does possession of stolen goods have under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1612?
Possession of stolen goods constitutes prima facie evidence of fencing under Section 5 of PD 1612.
How may an accused overcome the statutory presumption of fencing established under PD 1612?
The presumption of fencing is rebutted by showing good faith and legitimate acquisition through sales receipts.
What element must the prosecution affirmatively prove if the statutory presumption of fencing is successfully rebutted?
Choices available with full access.
Why is a jewelry dealer who presents sales receipts from a regular seller NOT liable for fencing?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Definition of Fence
Under Section 2(b) of Presidential Decree No. 1612, or the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979, a fence includes any person, firm, association, or corporation 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, item, object, or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. The fence benefits from the stolen property.
2. Presumption of Fencing
Under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1612, possession of any article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. This statutory presumption shifts the burden of evidence to the accused to prove that the property was acquired legally without knowledge of its illicit origin. However, the presumption is disputable and may be overcome by competent evidence, such as legitimate sales receipts or proof of regular business dealings in good faith, establishing lack of knowledge or notice of the stolen nature of the property.
3. Rebutting Fencing Presumption
To successfully rebut the prima facie presumption of fencing, an accused trader may present receipts, invoices, or documentation evidencing a bona fide commercial transaction entered into in the ordinary course of business. When an accused jewelry buyer produces genuine receipts from a regular seller covering both current and prior transactions, good faith is established. In such cases, the prosecution can no longer rely solely on the statutory presumption and must present independent, affirmative proof that the buyer actually knew or should have known that the items were proceeds of theft or robbery.