SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 210266, June 07, 2017
ANTHONY DE SILVA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
The possession and use of a counterfeit credit card is considered access device fraud and is punishable by law. To successfully sustain a conviction for possession and use of a counterfeit access device, the prosecution must present not only the access device but also any evidence that proves that the access device is counterfeit.
This resolves a Petition1 for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision2 dated July 4, 2013 and Resolution3 dated November 26, 2013 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction of petitioner Anthony De Silva Cruz (Cruz) by the Regional Trial Court4 for violation of Republic Act No. 8484, otherwise known as the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998.
Cruz was charged with violation of Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484, which provide:
SECTION 9. Prohibited Acts. — The following acts shall constitute access device fraud and are hereby declared to be unlawful:Cruz was arraigned on October 17, 2006, where he pleaded not guilty for each charge.6 Trial on the merits ensued.7
(a) producing, using, trafficking in one or more counterfeit access devices; (e) possessing one or more counterfeit access devices or access devices fraudulently applied for[.]
The Informations against him read:
Under Criminal Case No. 06-0479
That on or about the 18th day of April 2006, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control a counterfeit access device (Citibank Visa Card with No. 4539 7207 8677 7008) in violation of the aforecited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
. . . .
Under Criminal Case No. 06-0480
That on or about the 18th day of April 2006, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use a counterfeit Citibank Visa Card with No. 4539 7207 8677 7008 an access device, in buying from complainant Duty Free Philippines herein represented by Redentor M. Quejada, one (1) pair of Ferragamo shoes worth US$363.00, to the damage and prejudice of the complainant in the aforementioned amount of US$363.00 or P18,876.00 more or less.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
. . . .
Under Criminal Case No. 06-0481
That on or about the 18th day of April 2006, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use a counterfeit Citibank Visa Card with No. 4539 7207 8677 7008 an access device, in buying from complainant Duty Free Philippines herein represented by Redentor M. Quejada, two (2) bottles of perfume worth US$96.00, to the damage and prejudice of the complainant in the aforementioned amount of US$96.00 or P4,992.00 more or less.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the Court finds the accused ANTHONY DE SILVA CRUZ as follows:Aggrieved, Cruz appealed to the Court of Appeals. On July 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals rendered the Decision34 denying the appeal and upholding Cruz's conviction.
(1) Under Criminal Case No. 06-0479, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 9, par. (a) of Republic Act No. 8484, as stated in the Information, and accordingly hereby penalizes the said accused to suffer indeterminate sentence of fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) and imprisonment of six (6) years prision correccional as minimum, to ten (10) years prision mayor as maximum.
(2) Under Criminal Case No. 06-0480, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 9, par. (a) of Republic Act No. 8484 as stated in the Information, and accordingly hereby sentences the said accused to suffer indeterminate sentence of fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) and imprisonment often (10) years prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years prision mayor as maximum.
(3) Under Criminal Case No. 06-0481, NOT GUILTY of the offense of Violation of Section 9, par. (a) of Republic Act No. 8484 as charged in the Information, and accordingly hereby acquits the said accused therefrom.
SO ORDERED.33
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City in Criminal Case Nos. 06-0479 & 06-0480 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.Cruz moved for reconsideration, but the Motion was denied in the Resolution40 dated November 26, 2013.
In Criminal Case Nos. 06-0479, accused-appellant ANTHONY DE SILVA CRUZ is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 9(e) of R.A. No. 8484 and is sentenced to a prison term of six (6) years, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 06-0480, accused-appellant ANTHONY DE SILVA CRUZ is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 9(a) of the R.A. No. 8484 and is sentenced to a prison term often (10) years, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of US$726.00 or P37,752.00.
SO ORDERED.39 (Emphasis in the original)
any card, plate, code, account number, electronic serial number, personal identification number, or other telecommunications service, equipment, or instrumental identifier, or other means of account access that can be used to obtain money, good, services, or any other thing of value or to initiate a transfer of funds (other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument).55Since a credit card is "any card, plate, coupon book, or other credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, property, labor or services or anything of value on credit,"56 it is considered an access device.
SECTION 9. Prohibited Acts. - The following acts shall constitute access device fraud and are hereby declared to be unlawful:A counterfeit access device is "any access device that is counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or forged, or an identifiable component of an access device or counterfeit access device."57 Under Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484, the possession and use of an access device is not illegal. Rather, what is prohibited is the possession and use of a counterfeit access device. Therefore, the corpus delicti of the crime is not merely the access device, but also any evidence that proves that it is counterfeit.
(a) producing, using, trafficking in one or more counterfeit access devices; (e) possessing one or more counterfeit access devices or access devices fraudulently applied for[.]
SECTION 10. Penalties. — Any person committing any of the acts constituting access device fraud enumerated in the immediately preceding section shall be punished with:Petitioner, having been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 10 years as minimum to 12 years as maximum and a fine of US$726.00 for violation of Section 9(a) of Republic Act No. 8484. He was also sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years as minimum to 10 years as maximum and a fine of P10,000.00 for violation of Section 9(e) of Republic Act No. 8484.62
(a) a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or twice the value obtained by the offense, whichever is greater and imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and not more than ten (10) years, in the case of an offense under Section 9 (b)-(e), and (g)-(p) which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under Section 9; (b) a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or twice the value obtained by the offense, and imprisonment for not less than ten (10) years and for not more than twelve (12) years, in the case of an offense under Section 9 (a), and (f) of the foregoing section, which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under Section 9[.]61
The rule is that no evidence shall be allowed during trial if it was not identified and pre-marked during trial. This provision, however, allows for an exception: when allowed by the court for good cause shown. There is no hard and fast rule to determine what may constitute "good cause," though this Court has previously defined it as any substantial reason "that affords a legal excuse."65
2. The parties shall submit, at least three (3) days before the pre-trial, pre-trial briefs containing the following: . . . . d. The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the purpose thereof. (No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of a party's evidence-in-chief other than those that had been earlier identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial, except if allowed by the court for good cause shown)[.]
The prosecution was able to present and mark during pre-trial Citibank's certification that the access device used was counterfeit. It is this certification that makes the possession and use of the access device illegal. Therefore, the trial court determined that the access device could still be presented at trial since it merely formed part of an exhibit that had already been presented and marked during pre-trial.
Court: Additional direct? Pros. Rodriguez: Yes, additional direct. For identification only of the credit card. The credit card is already here. Atty. De Guia: Your Honor, we would like to put our continuing objection to the presentation of the credit card because it was not presented during pre-trial. Pros. Rodriguez: This credit card, Your Honor, is part of Exhibit "F," Your Honor. Atty. De Guia: In fact, Your Honor, if I am not mistaken, this is supposed to be the cross-examination already of the . . . Pros. Rodriguez: We made a reservation considering that this document was not available during pre-trial, Your Honor. Atty. De Guia: Precisely, Your Honor, that's our objection. Pros. Rodriguez: But it forms part of Exhibit F, Your Honor, the Certification that this card is not a genuine card of the Citibank. Atty. De Guia: But then precisely, Your Honor, the prosecutor is alleging that this credit card is actually the document, their failure to present them during pre-trial and mark properly, this is the consequence of their omission, Your Honor, with due respect. Pros. Rodriguez: During the pre-trial, this card was not available at that time. At that time this card was not yet available, it was in the custody of the police. The police never turned over this card to us. Atty. De Guia: That's precisely the reason, Your Honor, that the prosecution had ample time to present their case, make their case before filing this complaint, this information. And their failure should be taken against them, Your Honor. The rule on pre-trial order is mandatory, Your Honor. Any other evidence not presented in the pre-trial shall be excluded. Pros. Rodriguez: The defense is very desperate, Your Honor, on technicalities, but then this card forms part of Exhibit F where it is specifically mentioned. Court: It should form part of exhibit? Pros. Rodriguez: Exhibit F, Your Honor, the Certification that this card is not the . . . Court: The certification of Citibank? Pros. Rodriguez: Yes, that this card is not a genuine card. So this is F-1. Court: How come that it will be certification? That card? Pros. Rodriguez: No, that this card is not the - because this is a . . . Court: What is the certification of the Citibank Exhibit F? Does it mention that that card is part? Pros. Rodriguez: Yes. Your Honor. At this point, exhibiting to this Honorable Court Exhibit "F" reads that, "Citibank Visa Card with embossed account number 4539-7207-8677-7008," which is the physical evidence in this case presented to this Court, is a counterfeit, Your Honor. So, this is only part of Exhibit F. Court: Okay, the Court will allow that. Arty. De Guia: We will just put our continuing objection on record, Your Honor.66 (Emphasis supplied)
In today's hearing, the accused through counsel manifested that despite the resolution of the Demurrer to Evidence, the defense will not be presenting evidence. In view whereof [sic], the defense having considered as waiving the right to present evidence, this case is now submitted for decision.86The burden of proof was on the prosecution. Petitioner did not even need to present evidence. To successfully sustain a conviction, the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence, and not on the weakness of the defense.87 The prosecution's evidence in this case was enough to overcome the presumption of innocence.
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated May 29, 2017.
[1Rollo, pp. 9-27.
2 Id. at 28-41.
3 Id. at 42-43.
4 Id. at 46-56.
5 Id. at 46-47, Regional Trial Court Decision.
6 Id. at 47.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 49 and 55.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 48 and 55.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 55.
13 Id. at 30.
14 Id. at 48.
15 Id. at 48.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 50.
21 Id. at 31.
22 Id. at 51.
23 Id. at 50-51.
24 Id. at 49.
25 Id. at 49.
26 Id. at 53.
27 Id. at 31. A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (2004), Proposed Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures.
28 Id. at 31-32.
29 Id. at 31.
30 Id. at 32.
31 Id. at 46-56. The Decision, docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-0479, was penned by Presiding Judge Fortunito L. Madrona of Branch 274 of the Regional Trial Court, Parañaque.
32 Id.at 55.
33 Id. at 56.
34 Id. at 28-41. The Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 33756, was penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta (Chair) and Francisco P. Acosta of the Tenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
35 Id. at 35.
36 Id. at 36.
37 Rep. Act No. 8484 (1998), sec. 10 provides:
SECTION 10. Penalties. — Any person committing any of the acts constituting access device fraud enumerated in the immediately preceding section shall be punished with:
(a) a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or twice the value obtained by the offense, whichever is greater and imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and not more than ten (10) years, in the case of an offense under Section 9 (b)-(e), and (g)-(p) which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under Section 9; (b) a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or twice the value obtained by the offense, and imprisonment for not less than ten (10) years and for not more than twelve (12) years, in the case of an offense under Section 9 (a), and (f) of the foregoing section, which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under Section 9; and (c) a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or twice the value obtained by the offense, or imprisonment for not less than twelve (12) years and not more than twenty (20) years, or both, in the case of any offense under Section 9, which occurs after a conviction for another offense under said subsection, or an attempt to commit the same.
[38Rollo, p. 39.
39 Id. at 40.
40 Id. at 42-43. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Francisco P. Acosta of the Former Tenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
41 Id. at 9-27.
42 Id. at 19.
43 Id. at 20-23.
44 Id. at 23-24.
45 Id. at 92, Comment.
46 Id. at 94.
47 Id. at 95.
48 Id. at 95-96.
49 Id. at 107.
50 Id. at 110-127. The Entry of Appearance was notjd by this Court in a Resolution dated August 31, 2016.
51 Id. at 118.
52 Id. at 121-123.
53 Id. at 115-118.
54 Id. at 124.
55 Rep. Act No. 8484 (1998), sec. 3(a).
56 Rep. Act No. 8484 (1998), sec. 3(f).
57 Rep. Act No. 8484 (1998), sec. 3(b).
58Rollo, pp. 35 and 55.
59 Id.
60 Id.
61 Rep. Act No. 8484 (1998), sec. 10.
62Rollo, p. 40.
63 Re: Proposed Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures (2004).
64Rollo, p. 16.
65Fortune Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108119, January 19, 1994, 229 SCRA 355, 371 [Per J. Regalado, Second Division].
66Rollo, pp. 57-61, TSN dated August 1, 2007.
67 Id. at 20-21.
68 Id. at 49.
69See Caluag v. People, 599 Phil. 717, 724-725 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division], citing Lamis v. Ong, 504 Phil. 84, 90 (2005) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division].
70See Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225, 232 (1990) [Per J. Bidin, Third Division]: "(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record."
71Rollo, p. 49.
72 Id. at 48.
73 Id. at 21-22.
74 Id. at 22.
75 Id.
76See People v. Diu, 708 Phil. 218, 232 (2013) [Per J. De Castro, First Division]: "Thus, it has been an established rule in appellate review that the trial court's factual findings - including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions drawn from the factual findings - are accorded great respect and even conclusive effect. These factual findings and conclusions assume greater weight if they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals."
77People v. Dalinog, 262 Phil.98, 111 (1990) [Per C.J. Fernan, Third Division], citing People v. Anquillano, 233 Phil. 456, 460-461 (1987) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
78Rollo, pp. 121-122.
79See Dimarucot v. People, 645 Phil. 218, 227 (2010) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third Division].
80Rollo, pp. 121-122.
81 Id. at 57-61, TSN dated August 1, 2007. Petitioner's counsel on record for this hearing is a certain Atty. De Guia, although the pre-trial order (Id. at 44-45) states that petitioner's counsel is Arty. Edwin Michael P. Musico.
82 Id. at 49 and 51.
83 Id. at 31.
84 Id. at 128-132.
85 Id. at 133.
86 Id.
87See People v. Magallanes, 231 Phil. 89, 98 (1987) [Per J. Paras, Second Division].