Under Presidential Decree No. 1612, the Anti-Fencing Law, it is a separate crime — called “fencing” — to buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell, or deal in any item you know, or should have known, came from robbery or theft, with intent to gain. You do not have to be the one who stole it. The law creates a legal shortcut for prosecutors: mere possession of stolen goods is prima facie evidence of fencing, meaning the burden shifts to the possessor to explain how they legitimately acquired the item. The penalty scales with the value of the property involved, mirroring the framework used for theft.
What “fencing” means
Section 2 of PD 1612 defines fencing as the act of any person who, with intent to gain for themselves or another, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes of — or in any other manner deals in — any article, item, object, or anything of value which they know, or should have known, to have been derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft. A “fence” under the law includes any person, firm, association, corporation, partnership, or other organization that commits this act.
The “should have known” standard is important: the law does not require proof that the buyer or possessor had actual, certain knowledge the item was stolen. Constructive knowledge — circumstances that would have put a reasonably prudent person on notice — is enough.
The presumption that shifts the burden
Section 5 is the provision that makes this law particularly consequential: “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.” In practice, this means someone found in possession of stolen goods does not get the benefit of the doubt automatically — they carry the burden of explaining, with a credible account, how they came to legitimately possess the item (a receipt, a documented sale, a gift with a traceable source), or risk being convicted of fencing based on the possession itself.
Circumstances that commonly trigger a fencing case
- Buying a phone, laptop, or vehicle part at a price far below fair market value, with no receipt and a vague or evasive explanation from the seller;
- A pawnshop, secondhand dealer, or online marketplace seller accepting goods without verifying the seller's ownership or requiring proof of purchase;
- Purchasing items with serial numbers scratched off, altered, or otherwise tampered with; and
- Buying from an informal, unregistered seller under circumstances (late-night sale, insistence on cash only, refusal to meet in a public place) that would put a reasonable buyer on guard.
The penalty structure
Section 3 scales the penalty to the value of the property involved, using the same graduated bracket structure the Revised Penal Code historically used for theft — from arresto mayor for very low-value items up to prision mayor (and its accessory penalties) for higher-value property, with the penalty increasing by one year for every additional bracket of value beyond the base threshold, capped at a maximum of twenty years. Because PD 1612 predates the 2017 inflation adjustment that Republic Act No. 10951 applied specifically to the Revised Penal Code's own provisions, and RA 10951 did not separately amend PD 1612's value brackets, the exact peso thresholds courts currently apply in a fencing case are a technical question best confirmed with counsel rather than assumed from the decree's original 1979 text.
Why this matters for ordinary buyers
The Anti-Fencing Law is not aimed only at professional pawnshops and secondhand dealers — an ordinary buyer of a deeply discounted gadget from an online marketplace or a street vendor can be swept into a fencing charge if the item turns out to be stolen and the buyer cannot show they took reasonable steps to verify its legitimate origin. Keeping receipts, insisting on some proof of ownership from the seller (especially for higher-value electronics and vehicle parts), and being wary of prices that are too good to be true are the practical safeguards the law effectively demands.
Defense against a fencing charge
Because the presumption under Section 5 is rebuttable, the defense in a fencing case typically centers on presenting credible evidence of how the item was acquired — receipts, chat or messaging records with the seller, testimony establishing a legitimate transaction — to overcome the presumption that mere possession creates.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I have to steal something myself to be charged under the Anti-Fencing Law? No. The Anti-Fencing Law punishes buying, receiving, possessing, or dealing in an item you know or should have known came from robbery or theft — you do not need to be the original thief.
Is it enough for police to find stolen goods in my possession to charge me with fencing? Mere possession of stolen goods is treated as prima facie evidence of fencing under Section 5 of PD 1612, which shifts the burden to the possessor to credibly explain how the item was legitimately acquired.
Can I be charged with fencing if I genuinely didn't know an item was stolen? The law's standard includes items you 'should have known' were stolen, based on circumstances a reasonably prudent buyer would have noticed — not just items you had actual certainty about.
Does the penalty for fencing depend on the value of the item? Yes, PD 1612 Section 3 scales the penalty to the value of the property involved, similar to the bracket structure historically used for theft under the Revised Penal Code.
This commentary is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your situation, please consult a licensed attorney.
If you have questions about your rights or options under Philippine law, our firm is available to assist. You may reach us via Viber or WhatsApp, call us at 0995 433 5550, or send an email to vivasnobles@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.