The crime of fencing; malum prohibitum; penalty
Fencing is defined under Section 2 of PD 1612 as "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
the crime of robbery or theft."[1]
The following are the essential elements of the crime of fencing: (a) a crime
of robbery or theft has been committed; (b) the accused, who is not a
principal or an 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; (c) 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 (d) there is, on the part of the
accused, an intent to gain for oneself or for another.[2]
The following are the essential elements of the crime of fencing: (a) a crime
of robbery or theft has been committed; (b) the accused, who is not a
principal or an 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; (c) 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 (d) there is, on the part of the
accused, an intent to gain for oneself or for another.[2]
It is required that the accused knew or should have known that the articles,
items, objects or anything of value had been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft. The term "should have known" denotes that a person
of reasonable prudence and intelligence ought to ascertain a fact in
performance of his duty to another or govern his conduct upon the assumption
that such fact exists.[3]
Finally, fencing is malum prohibitum. Consequently, PD 1612 creates a prima
facie 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 the property.[4] In short, the law does not require proof of
purchase of the stolen articles, as mere possession thereof is enough to
give rise to a presumption of fencing.[5]
Under Section 3(a) of PD 1612, the penalty for Fencing is prision mayor if
the value of the property involved is more than P12,000.00 but not exceeding
P22,000.00, thus:
SECTION 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 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.
While the offense of Fencing is defined and penalized by PD 1612, a special
penal law, the penalty provided therein is taken from the nomenclature in
the Revised Penal Code (RPC).[6] In Peralta v. People,[7] the Court
judiciously discussed the proper treatment of penalties found in special
penal laws vis-à-vis Act No. 4103, viz.:
Meanwhile, Sec. 1 of Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), provides that if the offense is ostensibly punished under a special law, the minimum and maximum prison term of the indeterminate sentence shall not be beyond what the special law prescribed. Be that as it may, the Court had clarified in the landmark ruling of People v. Simon that the situation is different where although the offense is defined in a special law, the penalty therefore is taken from the technical nomenclature in the RPC. Under such circumstance, the legal effects under the system of penalties native to the Code would also necessarily apply to the special law.[8]
Evidently, if the special penal law adopts the nomenclature of the penalties
under the RPC, the ascertainment of the indeterminate sentence will be based
on the rules defined under the RPC.[9] Given that the value of the property
involved in this case is P17,500.00, the penalty to be imposed is prision
mayor in its medium period, which ranges from eight (8) years and one (1)
day to ten (10) years.[10]
[1] Estrella v. People, G.R. No. 212942, June 17, 2020, citing Tan v.
People, 372 Phil. 93, 102 (1999), citing Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 304
Phil. 219, 228-229 (1994) and People v. Judge De Guzman, 297 Phil. 993,
997-998 (1993).
[2] Cahulogan v. People, 828 Phil. 742, 748 (2018); Ong v. People, 708 Phil.
565, 571 (2013), citing Capili v. CA, 392 Phil. 577, 592 (2000) and Tan v.
People, 372 Phil. 93, 102-103 (1999).
[3] https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2023/05/masil-v-people-gr-no-241837-january-05.html.
[4] Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 304 Phil. 219, 229 (1994).
[5] Dunlao v. People, 329 Phil. 613, 620 (1996).
[6] Cahulogan v. People.
[7] Estrella v. People.
[8] 817 Phil. 554 (2017).
[9] Quimvel v. People, 808 Phil. 889 (2017).
[10] Estrella v. People.