DUNLAO VS.

CA
FACTS:
Dunlao was a duly licensed retailer and wholesaler of scrap iron. One day the private
respondent Mrs. Lourdes Du asked his eployees to !o to the preises of Dunlao since
they were infored that the pipes and soe farrowin! crates that was stolen fro the
can "e found in Dunlao#s preises. A case was filed a!ainst Dunlao "ut he ar!ues that the
a.$ prosecution failed to esta"lish the fact that% in receivin! and possessin! the su"&ect
ites% ".$that he was otivated "y !ain or c.$ that he purchased the said articles.
'SS()S:
*hether the petitioner is !uilty of violatin! the anti+fencin! law.
,)LD:
-)S. (nder .residential Decree /0/1%

2fencin! is the act of any person who% with
intent to !ain for hiself or for another% shall "uy% receive% possess% keep% ac3uire%
conceal% sell or dispose of% or shall "uy and sell% or in any other anner deal in any
article% ite% o"&ect or anythin! of value which he knows% or should "e known to hi% to
have "een derived fro the proceeds of the crie of ro""ery or theft.2
AS TO FACT OF .OSS)SS'O4
There is no 3uestion that the farrowin! crates and assorted len!ths of 5.'. pipes were
found in the preises of petitioner which !ave rise to the presuption of fencin! under
the law. 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.
'4T)4T TO 5A'4
'ntent to !ain need not "e proved in cries punisha"le "y a special law such as ..D.
/0/1. The law has lon! divided cries into acts wron! in theselves called 2acts ala in
se%2 and acts which would not "e wron! "ut for the fact that positive law for"ids the%
called 2acts ala prohi"ita.2
0
This distinction is iportant with reference to the intent
with which a wron!ful act is done. The rule on the su"&ect is that in acts mala in se, the
intent !overns% "ut in acts mala prohibita% the only in3uiry is% has the law "een violated6
7
*hen an act is ille!al% the intent of the offender is iaterial.
AS TO .8OOF OF .(8C,AS)
The law does not re3uire proof of purchase of the stolen articles% as ere possession
thereof is enou!h to !ive rise to a presuption of fencin!. 't was incu"ent upon
petitioner to overthrow this presuption "y sufficient and convincin! evidence "ut he
failed to do so. All petitioner could offer% "y way of re"uttal% was a ere denial and his
incredi"le testiony that a person a"oard a &eep unloaded the pipes in front of his
esta"lishent and left the there.