PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.

1612 March 2, 1979

ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979

I. FULL TEXT OF PD 1612

WHEREAS, reports from law enforcement agencies reveal that there is rampant
robbery and thievery of government and private properties;
WHEREAS, such robbery and 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 an accessory
after the fact and punished lightly;
WHEREAS, is imperative to impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by 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:
Sec. 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, 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.

b. "Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or 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 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 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. Liability of 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. 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.

Sec. 6. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles. 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

SECTION 6 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612, KNOWN AS THE ANTI-
FENCING LAW.

Pursuant to Section 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 Terms
1. "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 Permit

1. 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, manager or 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 Permits

1. The Station Commanders concerned shall require the owner of a store or the
president, manager or responsible officer-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 Section 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 Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612,
no fee shall be charged.
IV. Appeals
Any 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. Penalties
1. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by Section 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 Section 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
Section 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 Power

It 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 Section 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
Permits
1. 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:

II. EXPLANATIONS

Q. What is fencing?

A. "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. Sec. 2

Q. Who may be liable for the anti-fencing law?

A. "Fence" includes any person, firm, association, corporation or partnership or

other organization who/which commits the act of fencing. Sec. 2 b.

Q. Who are liable if the subject is a juridical person (e.g. Company,

partnership and association) under the anti- fencing law?

A. The president or the manager or any officer thereof who knows or should
have known the commission of the offense shall be liable.

Q. What constitutes a prima facie case for the crime of fencing?

A. 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. Sec. 5.

Q. Who are obliged to secure a prior clearance/permit to sell second hand

articles?

A. 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.

Q. Who bears the responsibility of issuing permit or clearance to sell

second hand items?

A. The station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city
where such store, establishment or entity is located.

Q. What are considered as “used secondhand article”?

A. 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. Rules and Regulation of P.D. 1612
Q. DEFINE “UNLICENSED DEALER/SUPPLIER”?

A. 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.

Q. May an individual engaged in buying and selling of second hand items

be considered as “store” under pd. 1612?

A. Yes. “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.

Q. Define “buy and sell”?

A. Shall refer to the transaction whereby one purchases used secondhand

articles for the purpose of resale to third persons.

Q. Define “station commander” under PD 1612?

A. "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.

Q. If the applicant for clearance or permit is a corporation, association or

firm, under whose name shall it be issued?

A. 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 thereof.

Q. 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, is there a need to secure another permit or clearance for its branch?

A. Yes. Said branch or subsidiary shall secure the required clearance or permit.
II par. 3
Q. What are the procedures for the procurement of clearances or permits?

A. STEP 1 .The Station Commanders concerned shall require the owner of a

store or the president, manager or responsible officer-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:

a. an initial affidavit within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice for
the purpose thereof and

b. subsequent affidavits once every fifteen (15) days within five (5)
days after the period covered, which shall contain:

c. 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.

d. 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.

e. The place where the articles are presently deposited or kept in

stock.

STEP 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.

c. 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.

STEP 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.

STEP 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.

Q. In cases wherein the permit or clearance is denied by the station

commander what is the remedy available to the applicant?
A. Any party aggrieved by the action taken by the Station Commander may
elevate the decision taken in the case to the proper INP District Superintendent
( now to the PD’s or DD’s) and, if he is still dissatisfied therewith may take the
same on appeal to the INP Director (now RD’s) . The decision of the INP
Director may also be appealed to the INP Director-General ( now Chief,PNP)
whose decision may likewise be appealed to the Minister of National Defense
(now DILG Secretary). The decision of the Minister of National Defense (DILG
Secretary) 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

Q. What is the extent of the visitorial power of the station commander?

A. It 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 Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 and of these rules and
regulations.

Q. What are other duties imposed upon the station commanders and
district directors following action on applications for clearances?

A. 1. 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.

Q. What are the penalties to be imposed under p.d. 1612?

A. Penalties 1. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required
by Section 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 Section 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 Section 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.
 III. SAMPLE AFFIDAVIT/FORMS:
INITIAL AFFIDAVIT REQUIRED BY P.D. 1612

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN M.M.)

AFFIDAVIT
 I, James Dean of legal age, Chinese Citizen, married, with business address at
490 Connecticut St., Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila, after having been sworn in
oath depose and say:

1. That I am the registered owner of the SAVE ON SURPLUS SHOP S.O.S.

situated in the abovementioned address;

2. That I am engage in the buying and selling second hand goods with the
following inventory and description:

TYPE QUANTITY

Monitor, 200 pcs.

CPU 50
AVR 100
Printer 30
Computer Table 5

3. That I have acquired said goods from ________________ with address

at_________________________________________;

4. That I am intending to sell said goods on _______________

at_________________________________;

5. That said goods are now in place at __________________ and readily

available for inspection by the Station Commander pursuant to P.D. 1612;

6. That I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truthfulness of the foregoing

facts and for the purpose of obtaining the necessary clearance pursuant to P.D. 1612.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

JAMES DEAN
AFFIANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___day of July at

_______________ .

NOTARY PUBLIC

APPLICATION FORM UNDER P.D. 1612

NAME OF APPLICANT :__________________________

(For Individual)

FOR CORPORATIONS: __________________________

( Name of President or Manager or Officer in Charge)
ADDRESS:______________________________________
_______________________________________________

List of Articles to be sold:

Quantity Description Source/s

Dealers’ Name
Address

Mark One / Attached proof of legitimacy of acquisition:

Official Reciept _____ Deed of Donation:______

Sales Invoice _____ Others/ Specify _______________________
Deed of Sale _____ ____________________________________

CERTIFIED CORRECT BY: ____________DATE:___________________

Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE ______
_____________________PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICE

DATE:_______________________
 DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR CLEARANCE UNDER PD 1612

The Application for Clearance under PD 1612, filed before this office by
______________________ on ________day of _______________ 2003, is
hereby DENIED due to the following reasons to wit:

_______Failure to present a complete inventory of second hand goods and

source of goods.
_______ Failure to attach the required proof of legitimacy of acquisition.
_______ Failure to 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 .
_______The Goods or articles are included in the list of reported stolen goods.

Other Reasons for DENIAL:________________________________________

________________________________________

ROY G MONEDA
Police Senior Inspector

SAMPLE OF APPEAL FORM

Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE_________
______________________ PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICE

RE: APPEAL ON THE DECISION OF DENIAL OF CLEARANCE

 UNDER PD 1612.

Comes now, the undersigned appellant unto this Office, respectfully moves and
pray that the subject Decision of DENIAL by the ___________________ Police Office,
be REVERSED AND SET ASIDE to the following reasons to wit:

1. That all the requirements for under PD 1612 has been fully complied;
2. That the reason for the DENIAL has become moot and academic when the
Proof of Legitimacy was later on presented. Attached herewith is a copy of
Deed of Absolute sale as Annex “A”
3. That the Station Commander Failed to appreciate all the documents which
the undersigned has submitted;
4. That the required publication was already been satisfied. Attached herewith
is the affidavit of Publication as Annex “B”

Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the DENIAL OF

CLEARANCE be set aside and a new clearance be issued in favor of the
Undersigned.
Manila, March 4, 1999.
ALEX T. SANTOS
Appellant

IV. FLOW CHART IN THE ISSUANCE OF CLEARANCE

UNDER PD 1612
 FILE APPLICATION FORM Appeal to
W/ AFFIDAVIT DILG SEC.
TO THE STATION
COMMANDER (FINAL)

EVALUATION
BY THE
STATION
COMMANDER

Appeal to
DENY/
GRANT/ C, PNP
REQ. ADDTL PUBLICATION IF
DOCUMENT NECESSARY
S

ISSUANCE
APPEAL TO Appeal to
Provincial PNP
OF PERMIT
director or Regional
OR DENIAL
District Director Director
OF
CLEARANCE

V. JURISPRUDENCE ON ANTI-FENCING LAW

CASE # 1

G.R. No. 77368 October 5, 1993

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.

HON. JOSE C. DE GUZMAN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL

COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 93, AND SPOUSES DANILO A.
ALCANTARA AND ISABELITA ESGUERRA-ALCANTARA, respondents.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

VITUG, J.:p

Is the crime of "fencing" a continuing offense that could allow the filing of an
information therefor in the place where the robbery or theft is committed and
not necessarily where the property, unlawfully taken is found to have later been
acquired?
The above query is the sole issue in this Petition for certiorari and mandamus
filed by the People of the Philippines, praying for the reversal, annulment and
setting aside of the Order of 28 February 1986 1 of the respondent Judge, who
has ruled in the negative, as well as his Order, dated 21 March 1986, 2 denying
the motion for reconsideration. The petitioner prays that the respondent Judge
be directed to assume jurisdiction over, and to proceed with the trial of, the
criminal case.

On 09 September 1985, robbery was committed in Quezon City in the house of

Jose L. Obillos, Sr., where various pieces of precious jewelry alleged to be worth
millions of pesos were taken. An information, dated 30 September 1985, was
instituted against the perpetrators in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 101, docketed thereat asCriminal Case No. G.R. No. 42078. 3
Subsequently, an information, dated 22 October 1985, for violation of
Presidential Decree No. 1612, otherwise known as the "Anti-Fencing Law," was
also filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 93, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 42433, against herein respondent spouses Danilo A. Alcantara
and Isabelita Esguerra-Alcantara, from whose possession the jewelries stolen
were recovered in Antipolo, Rizal. 4

The trial court, acting on the motion to quash filed by the accused [now private
respondents], issued the now questioned order of 28 February 1986, viz:

Before the Court is a Motion to Quash, filed by the accused thru counsel, praying
that the information filed against both accused be quashed, on the ground that
the Court has no jurisdiction to try the offense charged. Among others, the
motion alleges, that as per police investigation, the crime took place in Antipolo,
Rizal. For this reason, Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612 is an
independent crime, separate and distinct from that of Robbery. The accused
claims, likewise, that jurisdiction to try the same is with the Court within which
territorial jurisdiction, the alleged fencing took place.

The Prosecution filed an opposition thereto, 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. The
prosecution claims further, that the consideration in the enactment of PD 1612
was to impose a heavier penalty on persons who profit by the effects of the
crimes robbery or theft.
On this point, we should not lose sight of the fact that in all criminal
prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
Municipality or Province wherein the offense was committed, or anyone of the
essential ingredients thereof took place. 5

Since the alleged act of fencing took place in Antipolo, Rizal, outside the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and considering that all criminal prosecutions
must be instituted and tried in the Municipality or Province where the offense
took place, this Court, necessarily, does not have jurisdiction over the instant
case.
Wherefore, the above-entitled case is hereby QUASHED, without prejudice to the
filing of the corresponding action against the accused in the Court having proper
jurisdiction.

The private prosecutor's motion for reconsideration was denied in the court's
order of 21 March 1986.

Hence, the instant petition.

The Solicitor General argues that since an essential element of the crime of
fencing is the commission of robbery, in this case committed in Quezon City, the
information therefor filed in said City accords with the provisions of Rule 110 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, and the refusal of the Court a quo to
assume and exercise jurisdiction thereover constitutes a serious error of law and
a grave abuse of discretion. He theorizes that fencing is a "continuing offense."
He explains that the Anti-Fencing Law has been enacted for the purpose of
imposing a heavier penalty on persons who profit from the effects of the crime of
robbery or theft, no longer merely as accessories under Article 19, paragraph 1,
of the Revised Penal Code, but as equally guilty with the perpetrators of the
robbery or theft itself.

In People vs. Ledesma, 6 we said:

. . . A "continuous crime" is a single crime consisting of a series ofacts arising
from a single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division. According
to Cuello Calon, when the actor, there being unity of purpose and of right
violated, commits diverse acts each of which, although of a delictual character
merely constitutes a partial execution of a single particular delict, such
concurrence of delictual acts is called a "delito continuado." 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.

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. 7 "Fencing", upon the other hand, 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. 8

The crimes of robbery and fencing are clearly then two distinct offenses. 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
depend 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. It may not be suggested, for instance, that, in the crime of
bigamy which presupposes a prior subsisting marriage of an accused, the case
should thereby be triable likewise at the place where the prior marriage has been
contracted. 9

We are not unaware of a number of instances 10 when the Court would allow a
change of venue in criminal cases "whenever the interest of justice and truth so
demand, and there are serious and weighty reasons to believe that a trial by the
court that originally had jurisdiction over the case would not result in a fair and
impartial trial and lead to a miscarriage of justice." 11 Here, however, we do not
see the attendance of such compelling circumstances, nor are we prepared to
state that the lower court gravely abused its discretion in its questioned orders.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus is DISMISSED,

and the orders appealed from are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 122195 July 23, 1998

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and DENNIS COO, respondents.

MENDOZA, J.:p

Petitioner seeks a review of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with
modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 51, and the
subsequent resolution which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
It appears that on July 23, 1984, private respondent Dennis Coo purchased six (6) tons of
assorted scrap aluminum wires and allied accessories from the New Alloy Metal
Company in Manila. The assorted goods were shipped to Bacolod City and were there
received by Coo on July 30, 1984. However, the next day, July 31, 1984, the goods were
seized by elements of the 331st PC from Coo's residence and deposited in the PC
headquarters. 2

On August 6, 1984, the PC Provincial Commander filed a criminal complaint against Coo
for violation of the anti-fencing law. However, the Investigating Fiscal dismissed it for
insufficiency of evidence. 3 Upon representation of petitioner NPC, the complaint was re-
investigated, 4 resulting in the filing of an Information before the Regional Trial Court of
Bacolod City, Branch 48.
On August 23, 1985, the trial court rendered a decision acquitting Coo on the ground that
the wares belonged to him. 5 Notwithstanding this decision, petitioner got the property
from the PC Headquarters. 6 Private respondent wrote petitioner NPC demanding the
return of the wares. Because of petitioner's refusal to return the subject property, private
respondent Coo filed a complaint for replevin against NPC and its officers in the
Regional Trial Court of BacolodCity. 7

After posting a surety bond for P120,000.00, Coo was able to obtain possession of the
seized items on August 5, 1986. 8 After trial, Coo was declared the owner and possessor
of the aluminum wires and allied accessories. 9
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision with the modification
that Alfredo Arzaga, Jr. and Zosimo Briones, NPC's Branch Manager and NPC's officer-
in-charge for Negros Occidental, respectively, were absolved from any liability in their
personal capacity and the awards of compensatory and moral damages were deleted.
Instead, NPC was ordered to pay nominal damages and attorney's fees. 10

NPC moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied. Hence, this petition for review
on certiorari. 11
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in relying on the decision in the
criminal case acquitting Dennis Coo for its ruling that the aluminum conductor wires in
question belonged to him. Petitioner claims that the acquittal was based on reasonable
doubt and, therefore, was not conclusive of the ownership of the goods. On the other
hand, according to petitioner, the following facts support its claim that the aluminum
wires bought by Coo from the New Alloy Metal Company were different from those
seized by the PC from Coo and delivered to NPC: 12

1. The sales invoice as well as the way bill submitted by private respondent indicates
that the assorted scrap aluminum wires were delivered to private respondent Coo's factory
while the property seized by the PC was found in Coo's residence.
2. The sales invoice covers only six (6) tons of scrap aluminum wires while the
properly seized by the PC weighs nine (9) tons.
3. The sales invoice only states "aluminum wires," while the property seized from
Coo's residence consisted not only of aluminum wires but included transmission
hardware as well.

4. The "fact" that in the entire Philippines only petitioner NPC imports and uses
aluminum conductor wires rated 795 MCR ACSR and 336 MCR ACSR.
From these premises, NPC concludes that the property seized by the PC and later turned
over to it is not the same as that covered by the sales invoice and the way bill which
private respondent presented in court. 13 The Court of Appeals thus overlooked or
misapprehended the aforesaid material facts. 14
Petitioner also contends that although it may be argued that private respondent uses
aluminum wires as raw materials in manufacturing kitchen utensils, the business in which
he is engaged, he has not explained why he also purchased transmission line hardware
which his business obviously does not need. It maintains that the aluminum conductor
wires and handware were pilfered from its transmission towers which had been blown
down. 15

Private respondent denies petitioner's allegations and argues that the issues raised by the
petitioners are factual and insubstantial.
We find the petition to be without merit.
First. It should be pointed out that the petitioner does not dispute the value of the
invoice and way bill either here or in the court below. Neither does it question their
genuineness. What it questions is whether the property subject of the case is the same
property covered by the said documents.

Petitioner calls attention to the fact that the goods covered by the documents were
delivered to private respondent's warehouse, whereas the goods seized by the PC were
taken from his residence. 16 This has, however, already been explained by Coo during
cross-examination 17 at the trial of the case: The goods were moved to his residence
because the warehouse had already become overcrowded. In addition, petitioner points
out that the documents only cover six (6) tons of scrap aluminum, while what was seized
weighed nine (9) tons. 18

In his Comment, private respondent Coo points out that the receipt issued by the PC
raiding team listed the items seized from Coo a five (5) tons of assorted aluminum
conductor wires. 19
Indeed, the affidavit 20 of a member of the PC raiding team, which is appended to the
private respondent's Rejoinder in this case, states that the property seized weighed "about
5 tons." This has not been denied by petitioner. Moreover, it is important to note that in
the stipulation of facts, both the petitioner and private respondent agreed that the very
same property subject of the criminal case is the property subject of the present civil case,
without reference to its weight. 21 The records do not in fact show that this question was
ever raised in the court below. It was only in the petitioner's Appellants-Brief 22 in the
Court of Appeals where such a question was raised. Clearly, the records do not support
the claim that the property seized from private respondent's residence weight nine (9)
tons. 23

Petitioner makes much of the fact that the documents state "scrap aluminum" while the
property seized consisted of "aluminum conductor wires and transmission hardware." 24
Thus, the invoice and way bill show that they cover "Scrap asst. alum. wire" /"Assorted
Scrap alum. wires." 25 The word "scrap' is define as "manufactured articles or parts
rejected for imperfection or discarded because of excessive wear or lack of demand and
useful only as raw material for reprocessing." 26 The term is broad enough to cover
different types of property as long as they are rejected or discarded and useful only as raw
material for reprocessing. Indeed, the petitioner's own witness, Rolando Bulfa, a property
custodian of petitioner, described the property turned over by the PC to PNC as "all
already broken." 27 Thus, the fact that the documents describe the property a "scrap" is
consistent with the description given by petitioner's own witness. It is of no moment that
the seized property consisted of aluminum wires and transmission hardware. What is
important is the condition of the materials, that is, all broken up and hence useful only as
raw material for reprocessing.

It should also be pointed out that it is common practice for scrap material to be sold and
bought by lot. They are not normally bought sorted out. Hence, it is quite possible that
transmission hardware formed part of the property sold to private respondent Coo. It is
not surprising that aluminum conductor wires are attached to such hardware. As for the
fact that the documents refer specifically to said wires and not the hardware, it is
understandable since the wires were the ones private respondent Coo primarily wanted to
buy form the establishment.

Lastly, petitioner points out that if Coo claims the property to be needed as raw material
in the manufacture of kitchen utensils, it cannot be argued that transmission hardware
would also be needed. 28
This is mere opinion. Moreover, as already pointed out, it is a practice that scrap material
is bought by lot. Hence, assuming petitioner is correct that transmission hardware is not
needed in private respondent's business, the fact that such type of ware is found with the
aluminum scrap wires seized from private respondent's residence is not enough to find
that the subject property belonged to it and not to private respondent.

As a general rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive
upon the Supreme Court, and the Court will not normally disturb such factual unless the
findings of the court are palpably unsupported by the evidence on record or unless the
judgment itself is based on a misapprehension of facts. 29

The present case not falling under the exceptions, the general rule applies.
Petitioner claims to be the only entity in the Philippines that imports and uses aluminum
conductor wires such as those subject of the presentcontroversy, 30 and that the purchase
price for the aluminum wires indicated in the invoice presented by private respondent
Coo was only P5.00 per kilo when the going price for aluminum scrap during 1984 was
already P19.00 a kilo.
These are mere allegations of witnesses who are not experts. They are not supported by
any evidence. The witnesses cannot even state with certainty that the property belongs to
NPC. All they can say that the subject property is similar to that used by petitioner NPC
in its power transmission lines.

Anent the claim that NPC has exclusive access to the type of aluminum wires subject of
the case, the Court of Appeals found that the petitioner conducts public biddings, 31 thus
implying that petitioner does not have exclusive access to the material in question.

The trial court correctly found that private respondent Coo had proven by a
preponderance of evidence that he and not petitioner NPC is entitled to the possession of
the subject property. It pointed out that while private respondent had consistently
presented his documentary evidence showing his purchase of the property and its delivery
to his residence, petitioner merely relied on mere opinions and assumptions unsupported
by any concrete evidence. It correctly observed that while there may be no denying the
fact that the petitioner may be using a similar type of hardware as that involved in the
present case, no iota of evidence was ever presented to show that the particular items
involved in the case belong to it. 32

As against documents presented by the private respondent and the judgment in the
criminal case acquitting him, the petitioner presented only its employees whose
testimonies consisted merely of assumptions and opinions.

By preponderance of evidence is meant simply evidence which is of greater weight, or

more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. 33

Clearly, private respondent Coo has provided evidence of greater weight than the
petitioner relevant to the determination of who is entitled to the possession of the subject
property.

At any rate, in a case for replevin, it is sufficient that the plaintiff prove entitlement to
legal possession. It is not necessary to prove ownership.

It is worth stressing at this point, that a suit for replevin is founded solely on the claim
that the defendant wrongfully withholds the property sought to be recovered. It lies to
recover possession of personal chattels that are unlawfully detained. "To detain" is
defined as to mean "to hold or keep in custody," and it has been held that there is tortious
taking whenever there is an unlawful meddling with the property, or an exercise or claim
of dominion over it, without any pretense of authority or right; this, without manual
seizing of the property is sufficient. Under the Rules of Court, it is indispensable in
replevin proceeding that the plaintiff must show by his own affidavit that he is entitled to
the possession of property, that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant,
alleging the cause of detention, that the same has not been taken for tax assessment, or
seized under execution, or attachment, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure,
and the actual value of the property. 34
A perusal of the way bill shows that the consignee is private respondent. Hence, it is
sufficient to support the claim that private respondent is entitled to a writ of replevin. It is
evidence that he is entitled to the possession of the property subject of this case.
Anent the requirement that the personal property be unlawfully detained by another not
entitled to its possession, it is to be remembered that petitioner NPC was the complainant
in the criminal case against private respondent and, as such, knew of the decision in the
case. As a consequence of the said decision, private respondent Coo should have been
given possession of the subject property. 35 However, petitioner NPC refused to
relinquish possession of the same even after the decision in the criminal case declaring
Coo to be the owner of the goods. It is thus wrongfully withholding possession of the
property, thus entitling private respondent to the writ of replevin.

Second. The petitioner also assigns as error respondent Court of Appeals' order to
pay respondent Coo nominal damages and attorney's fees. Petitioner contends that it
cannot be held liable for damages because the law requires that one be injure by a
wrongful act or omission of another in order to be entitled to compensation. It argues that
it was not guilty of any wrongful act but that it was merely exercising its legal right when
it recovered possession of the aluminum wires and the hardware. At any rate, it is
claimed, petitioner acted in good faith when it refused to release the said property. 36

As already discussed, after private respondent Coo had shown that he was entitled to
possession of the property, it became the duty of petitioner to yield possession of the
goods. Article 2221 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff,
which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized,
and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

Based on this provision petitioner is liable to private respondent for nominal damages.

Nor did the Court of Appeals err in awarding attorney's fees to private respondent,
considering that petitioner's refusal to return the property compelled private respondent to
incur expenses to protect his interest. 37 Moreover, petitioner acted in gross and evident
bad faith in refusing to satisfy private respondent's plainly valid, just, and demandable
claim. 38
In view of the foregoing ruling, the contention that the Court of Appeals erred in not
awarding expenses of litigation and attorney's fees in favor of petitioner NPC is clearly
without merit. 39

WHEREFORE, the decision dated March 28, 1995 and the resolution dated September
29, 1995 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Regalado, Melo, Puno and Martinez, JJ., concur.