ANTI-FENCING LAW

Bar Exam Questions and Suggested Answers on Fencing (Anti-Fencing Law) 

QUESTION (2013):

No. VI. 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:

I will charge Roberto with violation of Anti-Fencing Law. The elements of “fencing” are: 1) a robbery or theft has been committed; 2) the accused, who took no part in the robbery or theft, “buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article or object taken” during that robbery or theft; 3) the accused knows or should have known of that the thing was derived form that crime; and 4) by the deal he makes he intends to gain for himself or for another. Here, someone carnapped the vehicle, old it to Roberto who did not take part in the crime. Roberto should have known also that the car was stolen because it was not properly documented as the deed of sale and registration certificate did not reflect the correct numbers of the vehicle's engine and chassis. Apparently, he made no effort to check the papers covering his purchase. Lastly, Roberto's defense of good faith is flawed because Presidential Decree 1612 is a special law and, therefore, its violation in regarded as malum prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent (Dimat v. People, GR No. 181184, January 25, 2012).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The facts given show that Roberto “bought” the car form Inigo; that a “deed of sale” covering the subject vehicle was executed by Inigo; that there is also a copy of the “Registration Certificate”; that Roberto aver, too, of being a buyer in good faith and lacking of any knowledge that the subject car is a carnapped vehicle.

As against the foregoing, there is only a certificate from the Land Transportation Office showing that the vehicle had been previously reported as carnapped.

Consequently, in light of the satisfactory explanation of Roberto of his possession of the vehicle, the presumption of authorship of the theft upon a person found in possession of the stolen personal property finds no application in the instant case. There is, thus, no probable cause or evidence to warrant the prosecution of Roberto for any wrongdoing.

QUESTION (2010):

No. V. Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, more popularly known as "ukay-ukay." Among the items found by the police in a raid of her store in Baguio City were brand-new Louie Feraud blazers.

Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will the charge prosper? Why or why not? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the charge of “fencing” will not prosper. “Fencing” is committed when a person, with intent to gain foe himself or for another, deals in any manner with an article of value which he knows or should be known to him to have been derived from the proceeds of theft or robbery (Sec. 2, PD 1612). Thus, for a charge of fencing to prosper, it must first be established that a theft or robbery of the article subject of the alleged “fencing” has been committed – fact which I wanting in this case. It should be noted that the suspect is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, which are in the nature of movable property carries with it a prima facie presumption of ownership. The presumption of “fencing” arises only when the article or item involved is the subject of a robbery or thievery (Sec. 5, PD 1612).

QUESTION (2009):

No. XI. c. In a prosecution for fencing under P.D. 1612, it is a complete defense for the accused to prove that he had no knowledge that the goods or articles found in his possession had been the subject of robbery.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

False, fencing is committed if the accused “should have known” that the goods or articles had been the subject of theft or robbery (P.D. No. 1612[a]). Mere possession of the stolen goods gives rise to the prima facie presumption of fencing.



Source: 
"A Compilation of the Questions and Suggested Answers in the Philippine Bar Examinations 2007-2013 in Criminal Law", Compiled and Arranged by Rollan, Faith Chareen and Salise, Hector Christopher (University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law), ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX (2007, 2009, 2010) & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (2008)