Practice question
A junk-shop operator buys identifiable stolen parts for resale from an unlicensed supplier under circumstances that would warn a reasonably prudent buyer of their illegal source. The prosecution proves the predicate theft, identity of the parts, the operator's receipt and intent to gain, and that he was not a principal or accomplice in the theft. He claims only that nobody expressly told him the parts were stolen. Which is correct?
- The lack of an express warning automatically requires acquittal.
- The court must assess whether he should have known the criminal source; express admission of knowledge is unnecessary.
- The court must ignore all surrounding circumstances.
- Any resale business is immune from PD 1612.
- Only a completed profitable resale can establish intent to gain.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1979/pd_1612_1979.html — Section 2(a).
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/jan2022/gr_241837_2022.html — Masil v. People, G.R. 241837, January 5, 2022, Court resolution.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.