ANTI-FENCING LAWOF 1979(PD NO. 1612)DEFINITIONFencing as defined in Sec. 2 of PD No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows or should be known to him, or to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.(Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, GR 111426, 11 July 94).BRIEF HISTORY OF PD 1612 OR THE ANTI-FENCING LAWPresidential Decree No. 1612 or commonly known as the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 was enacted under the authority of therein President Ferdinand Marcos. The law took effect on March 2, 1979. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Anti-Fencing Law were subsequently formulated and it took effect on June15, 1979.THE PURPOSE OF ENACTING PD 1612The Anti-Fencing Law was made to curtail and put an end to the rampant robbery of government and private properties. With the existence of ready buyers, the business of robbing and stealing have become profitable. Hence, a law was enacted to also punish those who buy stolen properties. For if there are no buyers then the malefactors could not profit from their wrong doings.WHAT IS FENCING LAW AND HOW IT CAN BE COMMITTEDFencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal 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. A Fence includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other organization who/ which commits the act of fencing.WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THE CRIME OF FENCING; AND ITS PENALTIES:The person liable is the one buying, keeping, concealing and selling the stolen items. If the fence is a corporation, partnership, association or firm, the one liable is the president or the manager or the officer who knows or should have know the fact that the offense was committed.The law provide for penalty range for persons convicted of the crime of fencing. Their penalty depends on the value of the goods or items stolen or bought:A.The penalty ofprision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed 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.B.The penalty ofprision correccionalin its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12, 000 pesos;C.The penalty ofprision correccionalin its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos;D.The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period toprision correccionalin its minimum period, if the value of the property involved is over 50 but not exceeding 200 pesos;E.The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos.F.The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.RULES REGARDING BUY AND SELL OF GOODS PARTICULARLY SECOND HAND GOODSThe law requires the establishment engaged in the buy and sell of goods to obtain a clearance or permit to sell used second hand items, to give effect to the purpose of the law in putting an end to buying and selling stolen items. Failure of which makes the owner or manager liable as a fence.The Implementing Rules provides for the guidelines of issuance of clearances or permits to sell used or secondhand items. It provided for the definition of the following terms:Used secondhand article shall refer to any goods, article, items, object or anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier, regardless of whether the same has actually or in fact been used.Unlicensed dealer/supplier shall refer to any persons, partnership, firm, corporation, association or any other entity or establishment not licensed by the government to engage in the business of dealing in or of supplying the articles defined in the preceding paragraph;Store, establishment or entity shall be construed to include any individual dealing in the buying and selling used secondhand articles, as defined in paragraph hereof;Buy and Sell refer to the transaction whereby one purchases used secondhand articles for the purpose of resale to third persons;Station Commander shall refer to the Station Commander of the Integrated National Police within the territorial limits of the town or city district where the store, establishment or entity dealing in the buying and selling of used secondhandPROCEDURE FOR SECURING PERMIT/CLEARANCEThe Implementing Rules provided for the method of obtaining clearance or permit. No fee will be charged for the issuance of the clearance/permit. Failure to secure clearance/permit shall be punished as a fence, that may result to the cancellation of business license.1.TheStation Commander shall require the owner of a store or the President, manager or responsible officer in having in stock used secondhand articles, to submit aninitialaffidavit within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice for the purpose thereof and subsequent affidavits once every fifteen (15) days within five (5) days after the period covered, which shall contain:a.complete inventory of such articles including the names and addresses from whom the articles were acquired.b.Full list of articles to be sold or offered for sale including the time and place of salec.Place where the articles are presently deposited.The Station Commander may, require the submission of an affidavit accompanied by other documents showing proof of legitimacy of acquisition.2.Those who wish to secure the permit/clearance, shall file an application with the Station Commander concerned, which states:a.name, address and other pertinent circumstancesb.article to be sold or offered for sale to the public and the name and address of the unlicensed dealer or supplier from whom such article was acquired.c.Include the receipt or document showing proof of legitimacy of acquisition.3.TheStation Commander shall examine the documents attached to the application and may require the presentation of other additional documents, if necessary, to show satisfactory proof of the legitimacy of acquisition of the article, subject to the following conditions:a.if the Station Commander is not satisfied with the proof of legitimacy of acquisition, he shall cause the publication of the notice, at the expense of the one seeking clearance/permit, in a newspaper of general circulation for two consecutive days, stating:articles acquired from unlicensed dealer or supplierthe names and addresses of the persons from whom they wereacquiredthat such articles are to be sold or offered for sale to the public at the address of the store, establishment or other entity seeking the clearance/permit.4.If there are no newspapers in general circulation, the party seeking the clearance/permit shall, post a notice daily for one week on the bulletin board of the municipal building of the town where the store, firm, establishment or entity is located or, in the case of an individual, where the articles in his possession are to be sold or offered for sale.5.If after 15 days, upon expiration of the period of publication or of the notice, no claim is made to any of the articles enumerated in the notice, the Station Commander shall issue the clearance or permit sought.6.If before expiration of the same period for the publication of the notice or its posting, it shall appear that any of the articles in question is stolen property, the Station Commander shall hold the article in restraint as evidence in any appropriate case to be filed.Articles held in restraint shall kept and disposed of as the circumstances of each case permit. In any case it shall be the duty of the Station Commander concerned to advise/notify the Commission on Audit of the case and comply with such procedure as may be proper under applicable existing laws, rules and regulations.7.The Station Commander shall, within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the application, act thereon by either issuing the clearance/permit requested or denying the same. Denial of an application shall be in writing and shall state in brief the reason/s thereof.8.Any party not satisfied with the decision of the Station Commander may appeal the same within 10 days to the proper INP (now PNP) District Superintendent and further to the INP (now PNP) Director. The decision of the Director can still be appealed top the Director-General, within 10 days, whose decision may be appealed with the Minister (now Secretary) of National Defense, within 15 days, which decision is final.PRESUMPTIONMere possession of any good, article, item, object or anything fo value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery, shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.ELEMENTSA crime of robbery or theft has been committed;The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possess, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime;The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, or object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; andThere is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.(Dizon-Pamintuan vs People, GR 111426, 11 July 94)As regards the first element, the crime of robbery or theft should have been committed before crime of fencing can be committed. The person committing the crime of robbery or theft, may or may not be the same person committing the crime of fencing. As in the case of D.M. Consunji, Inc., vs. Esguerra, quantities of phelonic plywood were stolen and the Court held that qualified theft had been committed. In People vs. Lucero there was first a snatching incident, where the bagof Mrs. Maripaz Bernard Ramolete was snatch in the public market of Carbon, Cebu City, where she lost a Chinese Gold Necklace and pendant worth some P4,000.00 to snatchers Manuel Elardo and Zacarias Pateras. The snatchers sold the items to Manuel Lucero. Consequently, Lucero was charged with violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. However, in this case, no eyewitness pointed to Lucero as the perpetrator and the evidence of the prosecution was not strong enough to convict him.The second element speaks of the overt act of keeping, buying, receiving, possessing, acquiring, concealing, selling or disposing or in any manner deals with stolen items. It is thus illustrated in the case of Lim vs. Court of Appeals, where the accused, Juanito Lim stored and kept in his bodega and subsequently bought or disposed of the nine (9) pieces of stolen tires with rims owned by Loui Anton Bond.The accused known or should have known that the goods were stolen. As pointed out in the case of People vs. Adriatico, the court in convicting Norma Adriatico, stated that it was impossible for her to know that the jewelry were stolen because of the fact that Crisilita was willing to part with a considerable number of jewelry at measly sum, and this should have apprised Norma of the possibility that they were stolen goods. The approximate total value of the jewelry were held to be at P20,000.00, and Norma having bought it from Crisilita for only P2,700. The court also considered the fact that Norma engage in the business of buying and selling gold and silver, which business is very well exposed to the practice of fencing. This requires more than ordinary case and caution in dealing with customers. As noted by the trial court:. . .the Court is not inclined to accept the accuseds theory of buying in good faith and disclaimer of ever seeing, much more, buying the other articles. Human experience belies her allegations as no businessman or woman at that, would let go of such opportunities for a clean profit at the expense of innocent owners.The Court in convicting Ernesto Dunlao Sr., noted that the stolen articles composed of farrowing crates and G.I. pipes were found displayed on petitioners shelves inside his compound. (Dunalao, Sr. v. CA, 08/22/96)In the case ofPeople v. Muere(G.R.12902, 10/18/94), the third element was not proven. This case involves the selling of alleged stolen Kenwood Stereo Unit in the store Danvir Trading, owned by the spouses Muere. The store is engaged in buying and selling of second hand merchandise located at Pasay Road, Makati. The said stereo was bought from Wynns Audio, an existing establishment. The court held that there is no proof that the spouses Muere, had knowledge of the fact that the stereo was stolen. The spouses Muere purchased the stereo from a known merchant and the unit is displayed for sale in their store. These actions are not indicative of a conduct of a guilty person.On the same vein, the third element did not exist in the case ofD.M. Consunji, Inc.(Consunji v. Esguerra, 07/30/96) where the subject of the court action are the alleged stolen phelonic plywood owned by D.M. Consunji, Inc., later found to be in the premises of MC Industrial Sales and Seato trading Company, owned respectively by Eduardo Ching and the spouses Sy. Respondents presented sales receipts covering their purchase of the items from Paramount Industrial, which is a known hardware store in Caloocan, thus they had no reason to suspect that the said items were products of theft.The last element is that there is intent to gain for himself or for another. However, intent to gain need not be proven in crimes punishable by a special law such as the Anti-Fencing Law. The crimes punishable by special laws are called actsmala prohibita. The rule on the subject is that inacts mala prohibita,the only inquiry is that, has the law been violated? (in Gatdner v. People, as cited in US v. Go Chico, 14 Phils. 134) When the act is prohibited by law, intent is immaterial.Likewise,doloor deceit is immaterial in crimes punishable by special statute like the Anti-Fencing Law. It is the act itself which constitutes the offense and not the motive or intent. Intent to gain is a mental state, the existence if which is demonstrated by the overt acts of the person. The mental state is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act. (Dunlao v. CA) again, intent to gain is a mental state, the existence of which is demonstrated by the overt acts of person, as the keeping of stolen items for subsequent selling.A FENCE MAY BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE RPC OR PD 1612The state may thus choose to prosecute him either under the RPC or PD NO. 1612 although the preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is amalum prohibitum, and PD No. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property.(supra)MERE POSSESSIONOF STOLEN ARTICLE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF FENCINGSince Sec. 5 of PD NO. 1612 expressly provides that mere possession of any good, article, item, object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing it follows that the accused is presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the items found in her possession were the proceeds of robbery or theft.The presumption does not offend the presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law.DISTINCTION BETWEEN FENCING AND ROBBERYThe law on fencing does not require the accused to have participation in the criminal design to commit or to have been in any wise involved in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft.Neither is the crime of robbery or theft made to depend on an act of fencing in order that it can be consummated.(People v De Guzman, GR 77368).Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything.On the other hand, fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or shall be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.FENCING AS A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.In violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, actual knowledge by the fence of the fact that property received is stolen displays the same degree of malicious deprivation of ones rightful property as that which animated the robbery or theft which by their very nature are crimes of moral turpitude. (Dela Torre v. COMELEC 07/05/96)Moral turpitude can be derived from the third element accused knows or should have known that the items were stolen. Participation of each felon, one being the robber or the thief or the actual perpetrators, and the other as the fence, differs in point in time and degree but both invaded ones peaceful dominion for gain. (Supra) Both crimes negated the principle of each persons duty to his fellowmen not to appropriate things that they do not own or return something acquired by mistake or with malice. This signifies moral turpitude with moral unfitness.In the case of Dela Torre, he was declared disqualified from running the position of Mayor in Cavinti, Laguna in the last May 8, 1995 elections because of the fact of the disqualification under Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code, of persons running for elective position -Sec. 40 Disqualifications (a) Those sentenced by final judgement for an offense involving moral turpitudeDela Torre was disqualified because of his prior conviction of the crime of fencing wherein he admitted all the elements of the crime of fencing.ESSENCE OF VIOLATION OF PD 1612, SEC. 2 OR ANTI-FENCINGPD 1612, Section 2 thereof requires that the offender buys or otherwise acquires and then sells or disposes of any object of value which he knows or should he known to him to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.(Caoili v CA; GR 128369, 12/22/97)PROOF OF PURCHASE WHEN GOODS ARE IN POSSESSION OF OFFENDER NOT NECESSARY IN ANTI-FENCINGThe law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by petitioner, as mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing.It was incumbent upon petitioner to overthrow this presumption by sufficient and convincing evidence.(Caoili v. CA; GR 128369, 12/22/97)

MALACAANGM a n i l aPRESIDENTIALDECREENo. 1612ANTI-FENCINGLAW OF 1979WHEREAS, reports fromlaw enforcementagencies reveal that there is rampant robbery and thievery of government and private properties;WHEREAS, suchrobberyand thievery have become profitable on the part of the lawless elements because of the existence of ready buyers, commonly known as fence, of stolen properties;WHEREAS, under existing law, a fence can be prosecuted only as anaccessoryafter the factand punished lightly;WHEREAS, is imperative to impose heavy penalties on persons whoprofitby the effects of the crimes of robbery and theft.NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E.MARCOS, President of the Philippines by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree as part of the law of the land the following:Section 1.Title. This decree shall be known as the Anti-Fencing Law.Sec. 2.Definition of Terms. The following terms shall mean as follows:(a) "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shallbuy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal,sellor dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other mannerdealin 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.(b) "Fence" includes any person, firm, associationcorporationor partnership or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing.Sec. 3.Penalties. Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder indicated:(a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but thetotalpenalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the RevisedPenal Codeshall also be imposed.(b) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos.(c) The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos.(d) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos.(e) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos.(f) The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.Sec. 4.Liabilityof Officials of Juridical Persons. If the fence is a partnership, firm, corporation or association, the president or the manager or any officer thereof who knows or should have known the commission of the offense shall be liable.Sec. 5.Presumption of Fencing. Merepossessionof any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall beprima facieevidence of fencing.Sec. 6.Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second HandArticles. For purposes of this Act, all stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article item, object of anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such store, establishment or entity is located. The Chief of Constabulary/Director General, Integrated National Police shall promulgate such rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this section. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by this section or who violates any of the provisions of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall upon conviction be punished as a fence.Sec. 7.Repealing Clause. All laws or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.Sec. 8.Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect upon approval.Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of March, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-nine.RULES AND REGULATIONS TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF Sec. 6 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612, KNOWN AS THE ANTI-FENCING LAW.Pursuant to Sec. 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1612, known as the Anti-Fencing Law, the following rules and regulations are hereby promulgated to govern the issuance of clearances/permits to sell used secondhand articles obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof:I. Definition of Terms1. "Used secondhand article" shall refer to any goods, article, item, object or anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier, regardless of whether the same has actually or in fact been used.2. "Unlicensed dealer/supplier" shall refer to any persons, partnership, firm, corporation, association or any other entity or establishment not licensed by the government to engage in the business of dealing in or of supplying the articles defined in the preceding paragraph.3. "Store", "establishment" or "entity" shall be construed to include any individual dealing in the buying and selling used secondhand articles, as defined in paragraph hereof.4. "Buy and Sell" refer to the transaction whereby one purchases used secondhand articles for the purpose of resale to third persons.5. "Station Commander" shall refer to the Station Commander of the Integrated National Police within the territorial limits of the town or city district where the store, establishment or entity dealing in the buying and selling of used secondhand articles is located.II. Duty to Procure Clearance or Permit1. No person shall sell or offer to sell to the public any used secondhand article as defined herein without first securing a clearance or permit for the purpose from the proper Station Commander of the Integrated National Police.2. 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,manageror other responsible officer-in-charge thereof.3. 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 shall secure the required clearance or permit.4. 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 thereof, or the covering receipt, or equivalent document, of which is fake, falsified or irregularly obtained, shall be presumed as having been acquired from an unlicensed dealer or supplier and the possessor or holder thereof must secure the required clearance or permit before the same can be sold or offered for sale to the public.III. Procedure for Procurement of Clearances or Permits1. The Station Commanders concerned shall require the owner of a store or the president, manager or responsibleofficer-in-charge of a firm, establishment or other entity located within their respective jurisdictions and in possession of or having in stock used secondhand articles as defined herein, to submit an initial affidavit within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice for the purpose thereof and subsequent affidavits once every fifteen (15) days within five (5) days after the period covered, which shall contain:(a) A complete inventory of such articles acquired daily from whatever source and the names and addresses of the persons from whom such articles were acquired.(b) A full list of articles to be sold or offered for sale as well as the place where the date when the sale or offer for sale shall commence.(c) The place where the articles are presently deposited or kept in stock.The Station Commander may, at his discretion when the circumstances of each case warrant, require that the affidavit submitted be accompanied by other documents showing proof of legitimacy of the acquisition of the articles.2. A party required to secure a clearance or permit under these rules and regulations shall file an application therefor with the Station Commander concerned. The application shall state:(a) The name, address and other pertinent circumstances of the persons, in case of an individual or, in the case of a firm, corporation, association, partnership or other entity, the name, address and other pertinent circumstances of the president, manager or officer-in-charge.(b) The article to be sold or offered for sale to the public and the name and address of the unlicensed dealer or supplier from whom such article was acquired.In support of the application, there shall be attached to it the corresponding receipt or other equivalent document to show proof of the legitimacy of acquisition of the article.3. The Station Commander shall examine the documents attached to the application and may require the presentation of other additional documents, if necessary, to show satisfactory proof of the legitimacy of acquisition of the article, subject to the following conditions:(a) If the legitimacy of acquisition of any article from an unlicensed source cannot be satisfactorily established by the documents presented, the Station Commander shall, upon approval of the INP Superintendent in the district and at the expense of the party seeking the clearance/permit, cause the publication of a notice in a newspaper of general circulation for two (2) successive days enumerating therein the articles acquired from an unlicensed dealer or supplier, the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were acquired and shall state that such articles are to be sold or offered for sale to the public at the address of the store, establishment or other entity seeking the clearance/permit. In places where no newspapers are in general circulation, the party seeking the clearance or permit shall, instead, post a notice daily for one week on the bulletin board of the municipal building of the town where the store, firm, establishment or entity concerned is located or, in the case of an individual, where the articles in his possession are to be sold or offered for sale.(b) If after 15 days, upon expiration of the period of publication or of the notice referred to in the preceding paragraph, no claim is made with respect to any of the articles enumerated in the notice, the Station Commander shall issue the clearance or permit sought.(c) If, before expiration of the same period for publication of the notice or its posting, it shall appear that any of the articles in question is stolen property, the Station Commander shall hold the article in restraint as evidence in any appropriate case to be filed. Articles held in restraint shall be kept and disposed of as the circumstances of each case permit, taking into account all considerations of right and justice in the case. In any case where any article is held in restraint, it shall be the duty of the Station Commander concerned to advise/notify the Commission on Audit of the case and comply with such procedure as may be proper under applicable existing laws, rules and regulations.4. The Station Commander concerned shall, within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the application, act thereon by either issuing the clearance/permit requested or denying the same. Denial of an application shall be in writing and shall state in brief the reason/s therefor.5. The application, clearance/permit or the denial thereof, including such other documents as may be pertinent in the implementation of Sec. 6 of P.D. No. 1612 shall be in the forms prescribed in Annexes "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E" hereof, which are made integral parts of these rules and regulations.6. For the issuance of clearances/permit required under Sec. 6 of P.D. No. 1612, no fee shall be charged.IV. AppealsAny party aggrieved by the action taken by the Station Commander may elevate the decision taken in the case to the proper INP District Superintendent and, if he is still dissatisfied therewith may take the same on appeal to the INP Director. The decision of the INP Director may also be appealed to the INP Director-General whose decision may likewise be appealed to the Minister of National Defense. The decision of the Minister of National Defense on the case shall be final. The appeal against the decision taken by a Commander lower than the INP Director-General should be filed to the next higher Commander within ten (10) days from receipt of notice of the decision. The decision of the INP Director-General should be appealed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of the decision.V. Penalties1. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by Sec. 6 of P.D. 1612 or who violates any of the provisions of these rules and regulations shall upon conviction be punished as a fence.2. The INP Director-General shall recommend to the proper authority the cancellation of the business license of the erring individual, store, establishment or the entity concerned.3. Articles obtained from unlicensed sources for sale or offered for sale without prior compliance with the provisions of Sec. 6 of P.D. No. 1612 and with these rules and regulations shall be held in restraint until satisfactory evidence or legitimacy of acquisition has been established.4. Articles for which no satisfactory evidence of legitimacy of acquisition is established and which are found to be stolen property shall likewise be held under restraint and shall, furthermore, be subject to confiscation as evidence in the appropriate case to be filed. If, upon termination of the case, the same is not claimed by their legitimate owners, the article/s shall be forfeited in favor of the government and made subject to disposition as the circumstances warrant in accordance with applicable existing laws, rules and regulations. The Commission on Audit shall, in all cases, be notified.5. Any personnel of the Integrated National Police found violating the provisions of Sec. 6 of P.D. No. 1612 or any of its implementing rules and regulations or who, in any manner whatsoever, connives with or through his negligence or inaction makes possible the commission of such violations by any party required to comply with the law and its implementing rules and regulations, shall be prosecuted criminally without prejudice to the imposition of administrative penalties.VI. Visitorial PowerIt shall be the duty of the owner of the store or of the president, manager or responsible officer-in-charge of any firm, establishment or other entity or of an individual having in his premises articles to be sold or offered for sale to the public to allow the Station Commander or his authorized representative to exercise visitorial powers. For this purpose, however, the power to conduct visitations shall be exercise only during office or business hours and upon authority in writing from and by the INP Superintendent in the district and for the sole purpose of determining whether articles are kept in possession or stock contrary to the intents of Sec. 6 of P.D. No. 1612 and of these rules and regulations.VII. Other Duties Imposed Upon Station Commanders and INP District Superintendent and Directors Following Action on Applications for Clearances or Permits1. At the end of each month, it shall be the duty of the Station Commander concerned to:(a) Make and maintain a file in his office of all clearances/permit issued by him.(b) Submit a full report to the INP District Superintendent on the number of applications for clearances or permits processed by his office, indicating therein the number of clearances/permits issued and the number of applications denied. The report shall state the reasons for denial of an application and the corresponding follow-up actions taken and shall be accompanied by an inventory of the articles to be sold or offered for sale in his jurisdiction.2. The INP District Superintendent shall, on the basis of the reports submitted by the Station Commander, in turn submit quarterly reports to the appropriate INP Director containing a consolidation of the information stated in the reports of Station Commanders in his jurisdiction.3. Reports from INP District Superintendent shall serve as basis for a consolidated report to be submitted semi-annually by INP Directors to the Director-General, Integrated National Police.4. In all cases, reports emanating from the different levels of the Integrated National Police shall be accompanied with full and accurate inventories of the articles acquired from unlicensed dealers or suppliers and proposed to be sold or offered for sale in the jurisdictions covered by the report.These implementing rules and regulations, having been published in a newspaper of national circulation, shall take effect on June 15, 1979.FOR THE CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY DIRECTOR-GENERAL, INP:

FIRST DIVISION[G.R. No. 134298. August 26, 1999]RAMON C. TAN,petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondent.D E C I S I O NPARDO,J.:The case before the Court is an appealviacertiorarifrom adecisionof theCourt of Appeals*affirming that of the RegionalTrial Courtof Manila, Branch 19,**convicting petitioner of thecrimeof fencing.Complainant Rosita Lim is theproprietorof BuenoMetal Industries, located at 301 Jose Abad Santos St., Tondo, Manila, engaged in the business of manufacturing propellers or spare parts for boats. Manuelito Mendez was one of the employees working for her. Sometime in February 1991, Manuelito Mendez left the employ of the company. Complainant Lim noticed that some of the welding rods, propellers and boat spare parts, such as bronze and stainless propellers andbrass screwswere missing. She conducted an inventory and discovered that propellers and stocks valued at P48,000.00, more or less, were missing. Complainant Rosita Lim informed Victor Sy, uncle of Manuelito Mendez, of the loss. Subsequently, Manuelito Mendez was arrested in the Visayas and he admitted that he and his companion Gaudencio Dayop stole from the complainants warehouse some boat spare parts such as bronze and stainless propellers and brass screws. Manuelito Mendez asked for complainants forgiveness. He pointed to petitioner Ramon C. Tan as the one who bought the stolen items and who paid the amount of P13,000.00, in cash to Mendez and Dayop, and they split the amount with one another. Complainant did not file a case against Manuelito Mendez and Gaudencio Dayop.On relation of complainant Lim, an Assistant City Prosecutor ofManilafiled with the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 19, an information against petitioner charging him with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) committed as follows:That on or about the last week of February 1991, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the saidaccused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously knowingly receive, keep, acquire and possess several spare parts and items forfishing boatsall valued at P48,130.00 belonging to Rosita Lim, which he knew or should have known to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of theft.Contrary to law.Upon arraignment on November 23, 1992, petitioner Ramon C. Tan pleaded not guilty to the crime charged and waived pre-trial. To prove the accusation, the prosecutionpresented the testimonies of complainant Rosita Lim, Victor Sy and the confessed thief, Manuelito Mendez.On the other hand, thedefensepresented Rosita Lim and Manuelito Mendez as hostile witnesses and petitioner himself. The testimonies of the witnesses were summarized by the trial court in its decision, as follows:ROSITA LIM stated that she is the owner of Bueno Metal Industries, engaged in thebusinessof manufacturing propellers, bushings,welding rods, among others (Exhibits A, A-1, and B). That sometime in February 1991, after one of her employees left the company, she discovered that some of the manufactured spare parts were missing, so that on February 19, 1991, an inventory was conducted and it was found that some welding rods and propellers, among others, worth P48,000.00 were missing. Thereafter, she went to Victor Sy, the person who recommended Mr. Mendez to her. Subsequently, Mr. Mendez was arrested in the Visayas, and upon arrival in Manila, admitted to his having stolen the missing spare parts sold then to Ramon Tan. She then talked to Mr. Tan, who denied having bought the same.When presented on rebuttal, she stated that some of theirstockswere bought under the name of Asia Pacific, the guarantor of their Industrial Welding Corporation, and stated further that whether the stocks are bought under the name of the said corporation or under the name of William Tan, her husband, all of these items were actually delivered to the store at 3012-3014 Jose Abad Santos Street and all paid by her husband.That for about one (1) year, there existed a business relationship between her husband and Mr. Tan. Mr. Tan used to buy from them stocks of propellers while they likewise bought from the former brass woods, and that there is no reason whatsoever why she has to frame up Mr. Tan.MANUELITO MENDEZ stated that he worked as helper at Bueno Metal Industries from November 1990 up to February 1991. That sometime in the third week of February 1991, together with Gaudencio Dayop, his co-employee, they took from the warehouse of Rosita Lim some boatspare parts, such as bronze andstainless propellers, brass screws, etc. They delivered said stolen items to Ramon Tan, who paid for them in cash in the amount of P13,000.00. After taking his share (one-half (1/2) of the amount), he went home directly to the province. When he received a letter from his uncle, Victor Sy, he decided to return to Manila. He was then accompanied by his uncle to see Mrs. Lim, from whom he begged for forgiveness on April 8, 1991. On April 12, 1991, he executed an affidavit prepared by a certain Perlas, a CIS personnel, subscribed to before a Notary Public (Exhibits C and C-1).VICTORY [sic] SY stated that he knows both Manuelito Mendez and Mrs. Rosita Lim, the former being the nephew of his wife while the latter is his auntie. That sometime in February 1991, his auntie called up and informed him about the spare parts stolen from the warehouse by Manuelito Mendez. So that he sent his son to Cebu and requested his kumpadre, a police officer of Sta. Catalina, Negros Occidental, to arrest and bring Mendez back to Manila. When Mr. Mendez was brought to Manila, together with Supt. Perlas of the WPDC, they fetched Mr. Mendez from the pier after which they proceeded to the house of his auntie. Mr. Mendez admitted to him having stolen the missing items and sold to Mr. Ramon Tan in Sta. Cruz, Manila. Again, he brought Mr. Mendez to Sta. Cruz where he pointed to Mr. Tan as the buyer, but when confronted, Mr. Tandeniedthe same.ROSITA LIM, when called to testify as a hostile witness, narrated that she owns Bueno Metal Industries located at 301 JoseAbadSantos Street, Tondo, Manila. That two (2) days after Manuelito Mendez and Gaudencio Dayop left, her husband, William Tan, conducted an inventory and discovered that some of the spare parts worthP48,000.00 were missing. Some of the missing items were under the name of Asia Pacific and William Tan.MANUELITO MENDEZ, likewise, when called to testify as a hostile witness, stated that he received a subpoena in the Visayas from the wife of Victor Sy, accompanied by a policeman of Buliloan, Cebu on April 8, 1991. That he consented to come to Manila to askforgivenessfrom Rosita Lim. That in connection with this case, he executed an affidavit on April 12, 1991, prepared by a certain Atty. Perlas, a CIS personnel, and the contents thereof were explained to him by Rosita Lim before he signed the same before Atty. Jose Tayo, a Notary Public, at Magnolia House, Carriedo, Manila (ExhibitsC and C-1).That usually, it was the secretary of Mr. Tan who accepted the items delivered to Ramon Hardware. Further, he stated that the stolen items from the warehouse were placed in a sack and he talked to Mr. Tan first over the phone before he delivered the spare parts. It was Mr. Tan himself who accepted the stolen items in the morning at about 7:00 to 8:00 oclock and paid P13,000.00 for them.RAMON TAN, the accused, in exculpation, stated that he is a businessman engaged in selling hardware (marine spare parts) at 944 Espeleta Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila.He denied having bought the stolen spare parts worthP48,000.00 for he never talked nor met Manuelito Mendez, the confessed thief. That further the two (2) receipts presented by Mrs. Lim are not under her name and the other two (2) are under the name of William Tan, the husband, all in all amounting toP18,000.00. Besides, the incident was not reported to the police (Exhibits 1 to 1-g).He likewise denied having talked to Manuelito Mendez over the phone on the day of the delivery of the stolen items and could not have accepted the said items personally for everytime (sic) goods are delivered to his store, the same are being accepted by his staff. It is not possible for him to be at his office at about 7:00 to 8:00 oclock in the morning, because he usually reported to his office at 9:00 oclock. In connection with this case, he executed a counter-affidavit (Exhibits 2 and 2-a).[1]On August 5, 1996, the trial court rendered decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused RAMON C. TAN is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979, otherwise known as Presidential Decree No. 1612, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor and to indemnify Rosita Lim the value of the stolen merchandise purchased by him in the sum of P18,000.00.Costs against the accused.SO ORDERED.Manila, Philippines, August 5, 1996.(s/t) ZENAIDA R. DAGUNAJudgePetitioner appealed to the Court ofAppeals.After due proceedings, on January 29, 1998, the Court of Appeals rendered decision finding no error in the judgment appealed from, and affirming the same intoto.In due time, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration; however, on June 16, 1998, the Court of Appeals denied the motion.Hence, this petition.The issue raised is whether or not the prosecution has successfully established the elements of fencing as against petitioner.[2]We resolve the issue in favor of petitioner.Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of P.D. No. 1612 is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from theproceedsof the crime of robbery or theft.[3]Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon things.[4]The crime of theft is committed if the taking is without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things.[5]The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participated in the criminal design to commit, or to have been in any wise involved in the commission of, the crime of robbery or theft.[6]Before the enactment of P. D. No. 1612 in 1979, the fence could only be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact of robbery or theft, as the term is defined in Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, but the penalty was light as it was two (2) degrees lower than that prescribed for the principal.[7]P. D. No. 1612 was enacted to impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by the effects of the crimes of robbery and theft. Evidently, the accessory in the crimes of robbery and theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or under P.D. No. 1612. However, in the latter case, the accused ceases to be a mere accessory but becomes a principal in the crime of fencing. Otherwise stated, the crimes of robbery and theft, on the one hand, and fencing, on the other, are separate and distinct offenses.[8]The State may thus choose to prosecute him either under the Revised Penal Code or P. D. No. 1612, although the preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing ismalum prohibitum, and P. D. No. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing[9]and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property.[10]In Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People of the Philippines, we set out the essential elements of the crime of fencing as follows:1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime;3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and4. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.[11]Consequently, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused by establishing the existence of all the elements of the crime charged.[12]Short of evidence establishing beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the essential elements of fencing, there can be no conviction for such offense.[13]It is an ancient principle of our penal system that no one shall be found guilty of crime except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt (Perez vs. Sandiganbayan, 180 SCRA 9).[14]In this case, what was the evidence of the commission of theft independently of fencing?Complainant Rosita Lim testified that she lost certain items and Manuelito Mendez confessed that he stole those items and sold them to the accused. However, Rosita Lim never reported the theft or even loss to the police. She admitted that after Manuelito Mendez, her former employee, confessed to the unlawful taking of the items, she forgave him, and did not prosecute him. Theft is a public crime. It can be prosecutedde oficio, or even without a private complainant, but it cannot be without a victim. As complainant Rosita Lim reported no loss, we cannot hold for certain that there was committed a crime of theft. Thus, the first element of the crime of fencing is absent, that is, a crime of robbery or theft has been committed.There was no sufficient proof of the unlawful taking of anothers property. True, witness Mendez admitted in an extra-judicial confession that he sold the boat parts he had pilfered from complainant to petitioner. However, an admission or confession acknowledging guilt of an offense may be given in evidence only against the person admitting or confessing.[15]Even on this, if given extra-judicially, the confessant must have the assistance of counsel; otherwise, the admission would be inadmissible in evidence against the person so admitting.[16]Here, the extra-judicial confession of witness Mendez was not given with the assistance of counsel, hence, inadmissible against the witness. Neither may such extra-judicial confession be considered evidence against accused.[17]There must be corroboration by evidence ofcorpus delictito sustain a finding of guilt.[18]Corpus delictimeans the body or substance of the crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been actually committed.[19]The essential elements of theft are (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking away was done with intent of gain; (4) the taking away was done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things (U. S. vs. De Vera, 43 Phil. 1000).[20]In theft,corpus delictihas two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.[21]In this case, the theft was not proved because complainant Rosita Lim did not complain to the public authorities of the felonious taking of her property. She sought out her former employee Manuelito Mendez, who confessed that he stole certain articles from the warehouse of the complainant and sold them to petitioner. Such confession is insufficient to convict, without evidence ofcorpus delicti.[22]What is more, there was no showing at all that the accused knew or should have known that the very stolen articles were the ones sold to him. One is deemed to know a particular fact if he has the cognizance, consciousness or awareness thereof, or is aware of the existence of something, or has the acquaintance with facts, or if he has something within the minds grasp with certitude and clarity. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence unless he actually believes that it does not exist. On the other hand, the words should know denote the fact that a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty to another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such fact exists. Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness about a fact. Since the court cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and state with certainty what is contained therein, it must determine such knowledge with care from the overt acts of that person.And given two equally plausible states of cognition or mental awareness, the court should choose the one which sustains the constitutional presumption of innocence.[23]Without petitioner knowing that he acquired stolen articles, he can not be guilty of fencing.[24]Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential elements of fencing, and thus petitioner is entitled to an acquittal.WHEREFORE,the Court REVERSES andSETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 20059 and hereby ACQUITS petitioner of the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 92-108222 of the Regional Trial Court, Manila.Costsde oficio.SO ORDERED.Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan,andYnares-Santiago, JJ.,concur.Republic of thePhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 190475 April 10, 2013JAIME ONG y ONG,Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.D E C I S I O NSERENO,CJ.:Before the Court is an appeal from theDecision1dated 18 August 2009 of theCourt of Appeals(CA), which affirmed the Decision2dated 06 January 2006 of the RegionalTrial Court(RTC), Branch 37, Manila. The RTC had convicted accused Jaime Ong y Ong (Ong) of the crime of violation of Presidential Decree No. (P.O.) 1612, otherwise known as. the Anti-Fencing Law.Ong was charged in an Information3dated 25 May 1995 as follows:That on or about February 17, 1995, in the City of Manila, Philippines. the saidaccused, with intent of gain for himself or for another. did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously receive and acquire from unknown person involving thirteen (13) truck tires worthP65, 975.00, belonging to FRANCISCO AZAJAR Y LEE, and thereaftersellingOne (1)truck tireknowing the same to have been derived from the crime of robbery.CONTRARY TO LAW.Upon arraignment, Ong entered a plea of "not guilty." Trial on the merits ensued, and the RTC found him guilty beyondreasonable doubtof violation of P.D. 1612. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered, this Court finds that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused JAIME ONG y ONG beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612 also known as Anti-Fencing Law and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 10 years and 1 day to 16 years with accessory penalty of temporary disqualification.SO ORDERED.4Dissatisfied with the judgment, Ong appealed to theCA. After a review of the records, the RTCs finding of guilt was affirmed by theappellate courtin a Decision dated 18 August 2009.Ong then filed the instant appeal before this Court.The FactsThe version of theprosecution, which was supported by the CA, is as follows:Private complainant was the owner of forty-four (44)Firestonetruck tires, described as T494 1100 by 20 by 14. He acquired the same for the total amount ofP223,401.81 from Philtread Tire and RubberCorporation, a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing andmarketingof Firestone tires. Private complainant's acquisition was evidenced bySales InvoiceNo. 4565 dated November 10, 1994 and an Inventory List acknowledging receipt of the tires specifically described by their serial numbers. Private complainant marked the tires using a piece of chalk before storing them inside the warehouse in 720San JoseSt., corner Sta. Catalina St., Barangay San Antonio Valley 1, Sucat, Paraaque, owned by his relative Teody Guano. Jose Cabal, Guano's caretaker of the warehouse, was in charge of the tires. After appellant sold six (6) tires sometime in January 1995, thirty-eight (38) tires remained inside the warehouse.On February 17, 1995, private complainant learned from caretaker Jose Cabal that all thirty-eight (38) truck tires were stolen from the warehouse, the gate of which was forcibly opened. Private complainant, together with caretaker Cabal, reported the robbery to the Southern Police District atFortBonifacio.Pending thepolice investigation, private complainant canvassed from numerous business establishments in an attempt to locate the stolen tires. On February 24, 1995, private complainant chanced upon Jong's Marketing, a store selling tires in Paco, Manila, owned and operated by appellant. Private complainant inquired if appellant was selling any Model T494 1100 by 20 by 14 ply Firestone tires, to which the latter replied in the affirmative. Appellant brought out a tire fitting the description, which private complainant recognized as one of the tires stolen from his warehouse, based on the chalk marking and the serial number thereon. Private complainant asked appellant if he had any more of such tires in stock, which was again answered in the affirmative. Private complainant then left the store and reported the matter to Chief Inspector Mariano Fegarido of the Southern Police District.On February 27, 1995, the Southern Police District formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation on appellant'sstorein Paco, Manila. The team was composed of six (6) members, led by SPO3 Oscar Guerrero and supervised by Senior Inspector Noel Tan. Private complainant's companion Tito Atienza was appointed as the poseur-buyer.On that same day of February 27, 1995, the buy-bust team, in coordination with the Western Police District, proceeded to appellant's store in Paco, Manila. The team arrived thereat at around 3:00 in the afternoon. Poseur-buyer Tito Atienza proceeded to the store while the rest of the team posted themselves across the street. Atienza asked appellant if he had any T494 1100 by 20 by 14 Firestone truck tires available. The latter immediately produced one tire from his display, which Atienza bought forP5,000.00. Atienza asked appellant if he had any more in stock.Appellant then instructed his helpers to bring out twelve (12) more tires from his warehouse, which was located beside his store. After the twelve (12) truck tires were brought in, private complainant entered the store, inspected them and found that they were the same tires which were stolen from him, based on theirserial numbers. Private complainant then gave the prearranged signal to the buy-bust team confirming that the tires in appellant's shop were the same tires stolen from the warehouse.After seeing private complainant give the pre-arranged signal, the buy-bust team went inside appellant's store. However, appellant insisted that his arrest and the confiscation of the stolen truck tires be witnessed by representatives from the barangay and his own lawyer. Resultantly, it was already past 10:00 in the evening when appellant, together with the tires, was brought to the police station for investigation and inventory. Overall, the buy-bust team was able to confiscate thirteen (13) tires, including the one initially bought by poseur-buyer Tito Atienza. The tires were confirmed by private complainant as stolen from his warehouse.5For his part, accused Ong solely testified in his defense, alleging that he had been engaged in thebusinessof buying and selling tires for twenty-four (24) years and denying that he had any knowledge that he was selling stolen tires in Jong Marketing. He further averred that on 18 February 1995, a certain Ramon Go (Go) offered to sell thirteen (13) Firestone truck tires allegedly from Dagat-dagatan, Caloocan City, forP3,500 each. Ong bought all the tires forP45,500, for which he was issued a SalesInvoicedated 18 February 1995 and with the letterhead Gold Link Hardware & General Merchandise (Gold Link).6Ong displayed one (1) of the tires in his store and kept all the twelve (12) others in his bodega. The poseur-buyer bought the displayed tire in his store and came back to ask for more tires. Ten minutes later, policemen went inside the store, confiscated the tires, arrested Ong and told him that those items were stolen tires.7The RTC found that the prosecution had sufficiently established that all thirteen (13) tires found in the possession of Ong constituted a prima facie evidence of fencing. Having failed to overcome the presumption by mere denials, he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of P.D. 1612.8On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTCs findings with modification by reducing the minimum penalty from ten (10) years and one (1) day to six (6) years of prision correcional.9OUR RULINGThe Petition has no merit.Fencing is defined in Section 2(a) of P.D. 1612 as the "act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal 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 thecrimeof robbery or theft."The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; (2) the accused, who is not a principal or on accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; (3) the accused knew or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and (4) there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another.10We agree with the RTC and the CA that the prosecution has met the requisite quantum of evidence in proving that all the elements of fencing are present in this case.First, the owner of the tires, private complainant Francisco Azajar (Azajar), whose testimony was corroborated by Jose Cabal - the caretaker of the warehouse where the thirty-eight (38) tires were stolen testified that the crime of robbery had been committed on 17 February 1995. Azajar was able to prove ownership of the tires through Sales Invoice No. 456511dated 10 November 1994 and anInventory List.12Witnesses for the prosecution likewise testified that robbery was reported as evidenced by their Sinumpaang Salaysay13taken at the Southern Police District at Fort Bonifacio.14The report led to the conduct of a buy-bust operation at Jong Markerting, Paco, Manila on 27 February 1995.Second, although there was no evidence to link Ong as the perpetrator of the robbery, he never denied the fact that thirteen (13) tires of Azajar were caught in his possession. The facts do not establish that Ong was neither a principal nor an accomplice in the crime of robbery, but thirteen (13) out of thirty-eight (38) missing tires were found in his possession. This Court finds that the serial numbers of stolen tires corresponds to those found in Ongs possession.15Ong likewise admitted that he bought the said tires from Go of Gold Link in the total amount of 45,500 where he was issued Sales Invoice No. 980.16Third, the accused knew or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. The words "should know" denote the fact that a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty to another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such fact exists.17Ong, who was in the business of buy and sell of tires for the past twenty-four (24) years,18ought to have known the ordinary course of business in purchasing from an unknown seller. Admittedly, Go approached Ong and offered to sell the thirteen (13) tires and he did not even ask for proof of ownership of the tires.19The entire transaction, from the proposal to buy until the delivery of tires happened in just one day.20His experience from the business should have given him doubt as to the legitimate ownership of the tires considering that it was his first time to transact with Go and the manner it was sold is as if Go was just peddling the thirteen (13) tires in the streets.In Dela Torre v. COMELEC,21this Court had enunciated that:Circumstances normally exist to forewarn, for instance, a reasonably vigilant buyer that the object of the sale may have been derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft. Such circumstances include the time and place of the sale, both of which may not be in accord with the usual practices of commerce. The nature and condition of the goods sold, and the fact that the seller is not regularly engaged in the business of selling goods may likewise suggest the illegality of their source, and therefore should caution the buyer. This justifies the presumption found in Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 that "mere possession of any goods, . . ., object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing" a presumption that is, according to the Court, "reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise from the established fact of . . . possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft." xxx.22Moreover, Ong knew the requirement of the law in selling second hand tires.1wphi1Section 6 of P.D. 1612 requires stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buying and selling of any good, article, item, object or anything else of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof to secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where that store, establishment or entity is located before offering the item for sale to the public. In fact, Ong has practiced the procedure of obtaining clearances from the police station for some used tires he wanted to resell but, in this particular transaction, he was remiss in his duty as a diligent businessman who should have exercised prudence.In his defense, Ong argued that he relied on the receipt issued to him by Go.1wphi1Logically,and for all practical purposes, the issuance of a sales invoice or receipt is proof of a legitimate transaction and may be raised as a defense in the charge of fencing; however, that defense is disputable.23In this case, the validity of the issuance of the receipt was disputed, and the prosecution was able to prove that Gold Link and its address were fictitious.24Ong failed to overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution and to prove the legitimacy of the transaction. Thus, he was unable to rebut the prima facie presumption under Section 5 of P.D. 1612.Finally, there was evident intent to gain for himself, considering that during the buy-bust operation, Ong was actually caught selling the stolen tires in his store, Jong Marketing.Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612 creates a prima fqcie presumption of fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any good, article, item, object or anything of value, which has been the subject of robbery or theft; and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the25property.The RTC and the CA correctly computed the imposable penalty based onP5,075 for each tire recovered, or in the total amount ofP65,975. Records show that Azajar had purchased forty-four (44) tires from Philtread in the total amount ofP223,40 1.81.26Section 3 (p) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court provides a disputable presumption that private transactions have been fair and regular. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the ordinary course of business is not overturned in the absence of the evidence challenging the regularity of the transaction between Azajar ,and Phil tread.In tine, after a careful perusal of the records and the evidence adduced by the parties, we do not find sufficient basis to reverse the ruling of the CA affirming the trial court's conviction of Ong for violation of P.D. 1612 and modifying the minimum penalty imposed by reducing it to six ( 6) years of prision correccional.WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 30213 is hereby AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.

PEOPLE VS GUZMAN"Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal 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. Is the crime of fencing a continuing offense of the crime of robbery or theft as to allow the filing of a complaint or information for its commission in the place where the robbery or theft is committed and not necessarily where the property unlawfully taken is found to have been acquired? This is the issue resolved in this case the spouses Rudy and Ludy.

The case stemmed from therobberycommitted inQuezon Cityon September 9, 2004 in the house of Mr. Ortega where various pieces of precious jewelry allegedly worth millions of pesos, were taken. On September 30, 1981 after police sleuthing, the suspects were identified and charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 101. Follow up investigation led to the recovery of the stolen pieces of jewelry from Rudy and Ludy who were found to have possession of them in Antipolo, Rizal. So on October 22, 1985 an Information for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612) was filed against Rudy and Ludy also before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 93.

Rudy and Ludy filed amotionto quash the information filed against them in the RTC of Quezon City. The argued that theCourthas no jurisdiction to try the offense charged because as perpolice investigation, the crime took place in Antipolo, Rizal. So, the spouses claimed that the charge should have been filed with the Antipolo RTC within whose jurisdiction the alleged fencing took place. They reasoned out that fencing is an independent crime separate and distinct from that of Robbery.

TheProsecutionopposed the motion to quash, alleging among others that there is nothing in the law which prohibits the filing of a case of fencing in the court under whose jurisdiction the principal offense of robbery was committed. He theorizes that fencing is a "continuing offense" and the Anti-Fencing Law was enacted for the purpose of imposing a heavier penalty on persons whoprofitfrom the effects of the crime of roberry or theft, no longer as mere accessories but as principals equally guilty with the perpetrators of the robbery or theft.

But the RTC of Quezon City agreed with thespousesand quashed the Information filed against them. The RTC said that since the alleged act of fencing took place in Antipolo, Rizal, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and considering that allcriminalprosecutions must be instituted and tried in the municipality or province where the offense took place, it has no jurisdiction over the case.

Was the RTC of Quezon City correct?

Yes.

Fencing is not a continuing offense where the commission of robbery or theft is an essential element. A continuing crime is a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution orintentnot susceptible of division. For it to exist, there should be plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; unity of penal provision infringed upon or violated; unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penal provision are united in one and the same intent leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim.

The crimes of robbery and fencing are clearly two distinctoffenses. Robbery is defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code (Art.293) as the "taking of the property belonging to another with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything" Fencing is defined and penalized by a special law (PD 1612, Anti-Fencing Law). The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participated in the criminal design to commit, or to have been in any wise involved in the commission of, the crime of robbery or theft. Neither is the crime of robbery or theft made to defend on an act of fencing in order that it can be consummated. True, the object property in fencing must have been previously taken by means of either robbery or theft but the place where the robbery or theft occurs is inconsequential.

Thus RTC of Quezon City does not have jurisdiction over the fencing case allegedly committed by Rudy and Ludy in Antipolo Rizal. And there are no compelling circumstances or serious and weighty reasons to believe that a trial by the RTC in Antipolo would not result in a fair and impartial trial and would lead to a miscarriage of justice. Neither does the interest of truth and justice demand a change of venue from Antipolo to Quezon City. So the RTC of QC did not gravely abuse its discretion in quashing the fencing case without prejudice to the filing of the corresponding action against Rudy and Ludy in the Court having proper jurisdiction.(People vs. De Guzman, G.R. 77368, October 5, 1993)