Tips

The Presidential Decree No. 1612 (PD 1612), otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, is a law that embodies the Philippine government’s desire and effort to curb the rampant robbery and thievery of government and private properties. With this law, the government hopes to put a stop to the illicit trade of stolen goods by penalizing ready buyers, in an attempt to reduce the incidence of robbery and thievery since the economic incentive of the venture will be disrupted, rendering it unprofitable. 

Buying premium second hand goods, from clothing to electronic items and even vehicles, can save you a lot of money since most items are being sold at a fraction of the original cost. However, the attractive setup isn’t always safe. If you buy from unlicensed sellers, you may end up with a lot of troubles, or worse, even a criminal case. In this guide, let’s take a look at the key aspects of the Presidential Decree No. 1612, commonly referred to as the Anti-Fencing Law, and understand how it addresses the practice of fencing and deters related criminal activities. 

Understanding the Philippine Anti-Fencing Law

The Anti-Fencing Law, or Presidential Decree No. 1612, is a law signed into existence on June 11, 1979, by then-President Ferdinand Marcos. It was designed to provide a legal framework to curb the rampant trade of stolen goods. It essentially penalizes individuals who knowingly engage in fencing—an act defined under Section 2 of PD 1612 as the acquisition, concealment, receipt, or sale of stolen property, object, or vehicles, with the intent to gain. By criminalizing these activities, the law aims to disrupt the cycle of theft and discourage individuals from participating in the market for stolen items.

Benefits of the Anti-Fencing Law (PD No 1612)

With the Anti-Fencing Law in place, the people can expect the following benefits:

• Deterrence of Theft

The law acts as a deterrent to theft by addressing the market for stolen goods. Knowing that dealing with stolen property is a criminal offense discourages individuals from engaging in theft-related activities.

• Protection of Property Rights

By criminalizing the act of fencing or dealing with stolen goods, the law reinforces the importance of respecting property rights. This helps in maintaining a sense of security for individuals and businesses regarding their possessions.

• Economic Impact

The law contributes to a safer and more stable economic environment by disrupting the illegal trade of stolen items. This, in turn, minimizes the economic incentives for engaging in theft-related activities.

• Law Enforcement and Justice

It provides law enforcement agencies with a legal basis to investigate and prosecute individuals involved in the illicit trade of stolen goods. This enhances the justice system’s ability to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions.

• Enhances Community Safety

The Anti-Fencing Law contributes to community safety by reducing the circulation of stolen items in the market. This has a positive impact on local communities, creating an environment where residents feel more secure.

• Fair Business Practices

Legitimate businesses benefit from the law as it promotes fair business practices. It discourages the involvement of individuals or entities in the buying and selling of low-priced stolen goods, ensuring a level playing field for law-abiding businesses.

• Public Confidence

The existence and enforcement of the Anti-Fencing Law build public confidence in the legal system. Citizens are more likely to trust that their rights are protected, and criminals involved in fencing activities will face legal consequences.

Fencing vs. Carnapping

In the Philippines, “fencing” especially when it involves motor vehicles, is an entirely separate criminal offense from “carnapping.” Though these two both involve theft-related crimes, they are distinct criminal offenses with specific legal implications. 

Here’s the difference:

Legal Definitions

• Fencing is an act regulated by the Anti-Fencing Law (Presidential Decree No. 1612). The law criminalizes the act of acquiring, receiving, buying, selling, or assisting in the sale of stolen property. Fencing is committed when the act involves knowingly dealing with stolen goods.
• Carnapping, on the other hand, is an act governed by the New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 (Republic Act No. 10883). The New Anti-Carnapping Act specifically addresses the theft of motor vehicles, including cars, motorcycles, and other similar vehicles by imposing stiffer penalties. 

Nature of Offense

• Fencing, as an act, centers around the handling and trade of stolen property after the theft has occurred, focusing on those who facilitate the illegal trade of stolen items. perpetuation of theft by providing an illicit market for stolen items.
• Carnapping, on the other hand, refers to the actual theft of motor vehicles, with the perpetrator taking someone else’s vehicle without consent.

Intent Requirement

• Fencing: For an act to be considered fencing, it requires the perpetrator to have knowledge that the property, object, or motor vehicle involved is stolen. The emphasis is on knowingly participating in the trade of stolen goods or proceeds from a robbery or theft.
• Carnapping: An act is considered carnapping if the crime focuses on the act of physically stealing a motor vehicle, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property.

PD 1612: Key Provisions

The Anti-Fencing Law is an essential tool in the fight against theft and illicit trade. It discourages individuals from participating in criminal enterprises that rely on the illegal trade of property. 

Some of the key provisions or fundamental aspects of the law include:

• If the value of the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of prision mayor or imprisonment for six years and one day to twelve years.
• If the value of the property involved exceeds 22,000 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of prision mayor plus one year for each additional 10,000 pesos, but the total penalty shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal or imprisonment for twelve years and one day to twenty years along with the accessory penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
• If the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of prision correccional or imprisonment for six months and one day to six years in its medium and maximum periods.
• If the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of prision correccional or imprisonment for six months and one day to six years in its minimum and medium periods.
• If the value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional or imprisonment for six months and one day to six years in its minimum period,
• If the value of the object is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of arresto mayor or imprisonment for one month and one day to six months in its medium period.
• If the value of the object does not exceed 5 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of arresto mayor or imprisonment for one month and one day to six months in its minimum period.

Penalties

The penalties for violating the Anti-Fencing Law are significant. Those found guilty of fencing stolen property may face imprisonment and fines, the severity of which depends on the value of the stolen items involved. The law seeks not only to punish wrongdoers but also to serve as a deterrent to others who might consider engaging in similar criminal activities.

Here’s the list of penalties imposed against fences under the law:

For individuals who were found guilty of fencing, the following punishments shall apply:

• If the value of the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of prision mayor or
• If the value of the property involved exceeds 22,000 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of prision mayor plus one year for each additional 10,000 pesos, but the total penalty shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
• If the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods
• If the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
• If the value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period,
• If the value of the object is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period.
• If the value of the object does not exceed 5 pesos, offenders can expect the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period.

Protection Against Fencing Charges

If Section 5 of PD 1612 provides a presumption that mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value, which has been the subject of robbery or thievery, is considered an act of fencing, then how can a lawful entrepreneur protect himself and his customers?

Well, the person who has possession of the stolen property has the burden to show that he did not know or could not have known that the property was stolen, and there is no intent to gain on his part. But, the law also offers a way out. According to PD 1612, any store, business, or entity engaged in the purchase and sale of goods, items, or valuables obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier must obtain the necessary Clearance or Permit to Sell or Use Second Hand Articles from the station commander of the police authority in the town or city where such store, establishment or entity is located — before offering the same for sale to the public. Failure to obtain the required clearance or permit, or any violation of the rules and regulations established under this section, will result in criminal penalties, treating the offender as a fence upon conviction.

Things to Remember When Securing the Clearance or Permit to Sell Second Hand Items

Regardless if you are a business, store, or an individual selling a second hand or used object or motor vehicle, you must ensure that your products are secured from licensed sellers. Otherwise, you need to remember these things:

• No person shall sell or offer to sell to the public any used secondhand article without first securing a clearance or permit for the purpose of selling from the proper Station Commander of the Integrated National Police (INP).
• If the person seeking the clearance or permit is a partnership, firm, corporation, or association or group of individuals, the clearance or permit shall be obtained by or in the name of the president, manager or other responsible officer-in-charge of the said store.
• If a store, firm, corporation, partnership, association or other establishment or entity has a branch or subsidiary and the used secondhand article is acquired by such branch or subsidiary for sale to the public, the said branch or subsidiary must first secure the required clearance or permit.
• Any goods, article, item, or object or anything of value acquired from any source for which no receipt or equivalent document evidencing the legality of its acquisition could be presented by the present possessor or holder, or the covering receipt, or equivalent document is fake, falsified or irregularly obtained, shall be considered as having been acquired from an unlicensed dealer or supplier and the possessor or holder must first secure the required clearance or permit before the same can be sold or offered for sale to the public.

Challenges and Criticisms

While the Anti-Fencing Law plays a crucial role in the fight against theft and illicit trade, it is not without its challenges and criticisms. Some argue that the law may inadvertently penalize innocent individuals who unknowingly purchase stolen items. Striking a balance between holding wrongdoers accountable and protecting the rights of those unaware of the stolen nature of the goods remains a continuous challenge.

Summary

The Presidential Decree No. 1612, or the Anti-Fencing Law, stands as a testament to the Philippine government’s commitment to combating theft and the illegal trade of stolen goods. By addressing the root causes of criminal enterprises and targeting the market for stolen items, the law contributes to the broader goals of justice, security, and the well-being of communities. As society evolves, so too must our legal frameworks, and the Anti-Fencing Law remains a vital instrument in adapting to the challenges of robbery and thievery, as well as illegal black market trade, in the modern world.