Practice question
A warehouse manager knowingly accepts goods proved stolen for profitable resale by the corporation. All other fencing elements are proved. The manager claims immunity because the corporation, rather than the manager personally, would gain. Which is correct?
- Only the manager’s personal commission can establish intent to gain.
- Corporate gain is expressly exempt.
- A completed dividend is always required.
- The gain-for-another language defeats that particular defense.
- Acceptance of stolen goods can never be fencing.
Legal references
- PD 1612, Sections 2 and 4, acts of fencing and responsible officers of juridical persons: https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1979/pd_1612_1979.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.