The Anti-Fencing Law Explained: Criminal Risks of Purchasing Discounted Office Equipment

Introduction: why “good deals” can become criminal cases

Procurement teams often face pressure to cut costs, and deeply discounted laptops, printers, office chairs, routers, and other office equipment can look like easy savings. Under Philippine law, however, buying or possessing items that turn out to be stolen can expose a buyer—not only a seller—to prosecution for fencing, even if the buyer claims there was no intent to commit a crime.

This article explains how Presidential Decree No. 1612 (the Anti-Fencing Law) works, why it is strictly enforced, and what procurement teams should do to avoid criminal exposure when purchasing office equipment from unfamiliar or suspicious suppliers.

Governing law: what “fencing” means under P.D. No. 1612

Fencing covers acts such as buying, receiving, possessing, keeping, acquiring, concealing, selling, or disposing of items derived from robbery or theft, when the person knew or should have known that the items came from robbery or theft, usually with intent to gain. This is the core rule recognized in Supreme Court decisions applying P.D. No. 1612, including People v. Masil, G.R. No. 241837 (2022), and Aviar v. People, G.R. No. 241837 (2022).

The Anti-Fencing Law is treated as a malum prohibitum offense in the sense that the law punishes the prohibited act because it is prohibited, and not because of a showing of “criminal intent” in the same way as traditional felonies. Still, the prosecution must prove that the accused knew or should have known the property was stolen, which can be shown by suspicious circumstances. This is discussed in Dimat v. People, G.R. No. 181184 (2012).

The legal risk for buyers: possession can trigger a presumption

A major feature of P.D. No. 1612 is the rule that mere possession of goods stolen by robbery or theft can be prima facie evidence of fencing. This doctrine is consistently applied in Supreme Court rulings, including Ong v. People, G.R. No. 190475 (2013), Cahulogan v. People, G.R. No. 225695 (2018), and Estrella v. People, G.R. No. 212942 (2020).

For procurement teams, the takeaway is straightforward: once the prosecution shows that the office equipment was stolen and it is found in the buyer’s possession, the buyer may have to present a convincing explanation and documents to rebut the presumption of fencing.

Elements prosecutors typically need to prove (and what can defeat the case)

While the presumption is powerful, conviction still requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the elements of fencing, including that the property was in fact the product of robbery or theft. The Supreme Court has recognized that failure to establish theft/robbery or the complainant’s ownership can be fatal. This point is emphasized in Lim v. People, G.R. No. 211977 (2016).

Why procurement teams are vulnerable: “should have known” and red flags

Courts look at whether the buyer should have known the goods were stolen. This is often inferred from circumstances that a prudent buyer would treat as red flags. In Ong v. People, G.R. No. 190475 (2013), the Court stressed that a person engaged in buying and selling is expected to exercise due diligence; even a sales invoice may not protect a buyer who ignores suspicious circumstances.

Common scenarios involving discounted office equipment

Below are typical procurement situations where fencing exposure may arise:

• “Corporate pull-out” laptops offered at very low prices by a non-regular supplier without clear provenance.
• Bulk office printers and routers sold “as-is, where-is” with no serial number listing, no warranty, and cash-only payment terms.
• Second-hand office furniture delivered with removed asset tags, missing ownership history, or inconsistent supporting documents.
• “Brand new” IT equipment sold below market with pressure to close immediately and refusal to identify the source.

Supplier permits and “clearance/permit to sell”: what P.D. No. 1612 requires

P.D. No. 1612 includes a compliance mechanism aimed at businesses dealing in second-hand or used items. Under Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612, stores or entities dealing in the buy-and-sell of goods obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier must secure the necessary clearance or permit from the proper local police authority before offering the items for sale to the public. The law further provides that failure to secure the required clearance/permit can result in punishment as a fence (P.D. No. 1612, Sec. 6).

For procurement teams, this matters in two ways:

• It is a strong signal that the law expects heightened caution in the used/discount market.
• If your supplier operates in a space covered by Section 6 but cannot show required authorizations, the transaction becomes riskier and may later be characterized as suspicious conduct.

Documentation that helps rebut suspicion (and what is often not enough)

Procurement files should be built with the expectation that, if questioned, the buyer must show good faith and traceability. The Supreme Court has warned that documents like invoices do not automatically erase liability if surrounding circumstances are suspicious (Ong v. People, G.R. No. 190475 (2013)).

Suggested due diligence checklist for procurement teams

The following steps help reduce the likelihood that a purchase will be treated as fencing or as a suspicious acquisition:

Due diligence item	What to obtain / verify	Why it matters
Supplier identity verification	Government-issued IDs of signatories; proof of business existence; consistent address and contact details	Reduces risk of dealing with fly-by-night sellers often associated with stolen goods
Legitimacy of source	Written explanation of provenance (e.g., trade-in, auction, liquidation); prior owner details where appropriate	Helps rebut the inference that you “should have known” the items were stolen
Serial number and asset tag audit	List of serial numbers matched to delivered items; photos upon delivery; check for tampered tags	Stolen equipment commonly involves altered identifiers
Sales and delivery documents	Detailed invoice, delivery receipt, acceptance report, payment trail through bank transfers	Supports traceability; cash-only deals heighten suspicion
Clearances/permits where applicable	If supplier deals in used/second-hand goods, check whether applicable police clearance/permit requirements are complied with under P.D. No. 1612, Sec. 6	Failure to secure required clearances can be punished “as a fence” (P.D. No. 1612, Sec. 6)

What to do if you discover the items may be stolen

If there are credible signs that delivered equipment is stolen (e.g., confirmed match with a reported theft, tampered serial numbers, or a law enforcement inquiry), stop distribution and escalation should be immediate. Early legal advice matters because possession is a major evidentiary fact under the Anti-Fencing Law, and the presumption may apply once stolen character is established (Estrella v. People, G.R. No. 212942 (2020); Cahulogan v. People, G.R. No. 225695 (2018)).

Conclusion: procurement savings should not come with criminal exposure

P.D. No. 1612 places real criminal risk on buyers and possessors of stolen goods, not just professional “fences.” For procurement teams, the most defensible approach is to treat unusually cheap office equipment as a compliance risk requiring documentation, supplier verification, and traceable transactions. Where procurement involves used or second-hand markets, attention to the clearance/permit expectations under Section 6 of P.D. No. 1612 is a strong guardrail against purchases that can later be framed as fencing.

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

 Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines.  You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.