DE SILVA CRUZ v PEOPLE

Anthony De Silva Cruz Vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 210266 

June 7, 2017 

FACTS: 

This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision dated July 4, 2013 and Resolution dated November 26, 2013 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction of petitioner Anthony De Silva Cruz (Cruz) by the Regional Trial Court 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 the Section 9. 

Prohibited Acts. - The following acts shall constitute access device fraud and are hereby declared to be unlawful: (a) producing, using, trafficking in one or more counterfeit access devices; and (e) possessing one or more counterfeit access devices or access devices fraudulently applied for. He was charged with Criminal Case No. 06-0479, Criminal Case No. 06-0480 and Criminal Case No. 06-0481. Cruz was arraigned on October 17, 2006, where he pleaded not guilty for each charge. 

According to the prosecution, on April 18, 2006, at around 7:30 p.m., Cruz allegedly tried to purchase two (2) bottles of Calvin Klein perfume worth US$96.00 from Duty Free Philippines Fiesta Mall. Danilo Wong (Wong), the cashier at the Perfume Section, testified that Cruz paid for the purchase using a Citibank Visa credit card. The transaction was approved, although Wong doubted the validity of the credit card since the number at the back was not aligned. At around 8:00 p.m., Cruz allegedly tried to purchase a pair of Ferragamo shoes worth US$363.00. Ana Margarita Lim (Lim), the cashier on duty, facilitated the sales transaction. Cruz paid for the purchase using a Citibank Visa credit card bearing the name "Gerry Santos," with credit card number 4539 7207 8677 7008. When Lim asked for Cruz's Duty Free shopping card, Cruz presented a shopping card with the name of "Rodolfo Garcia." Lim asked for another identification card, and Cruz gave her a driver's license bearing the name "Gerry Santos." 

Lim proceeded to the mall's Electronic Section to swipe the credit card for approval. The card was approved, but she noticed that the last four (4) digits of the card were not properly embossed and its validity date started in November 2006. She called Citibank to verify the credit card. Upon verification, Citibank informed Lim that the credit card was counterfeit and that the real Gerry Santos was the Head of Citibank's Fraud Risk Management Division. Lim was advised to transfer the matter to the Security Department. Redentor Quejada, Security Supervisor of Duty Free Philippines, testified that he and two (2) other guards held Cruz and his companion, Rodolfo De Silva Cruz, at the security office until the representative from Citibank arrived. 

At around 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Gerardo T. Santos, Head of Citibank's Fraud Risk Management Division, arrived with members of the Philippine National Police - Criminal Investigation Detective Group, together with a certain Atty. Abad Santos, who was allegedly Cruz's lawyer. Before Redentor Quejada could turn Cruz over to the police, Cruz tried to escape with the help of Atty. Abad Santos. The security officers, however, were able to close the mall's main gate, which prevented their escape. Cruz and Rodolfo De Silva Cruz were turned over to the Criminal Investigation Detective Group and brought to Camp Crame for questioning. Citibank Visa credit card number 4539 7207 8677 7008 was also turned over to the Criminal Investigation Detective Group. Gerardo T. Santos testified that he first heard of Cruz's name in May 2004. Cruz and his wife Aileen were then managing Antonely's Fabric Warehouse and were involved in incidents related to credit card fraud. 

Santos did not file a case against them for lack of basis. He came across Cruz's name again in 2005, with regard to a fraudulent transaction with a Thai restaurant in Shoemart Megamall. He also testified that the credit card number was validly issued to a certain Jessamine Bongat, and that the counterfeit credit card had been previously used on several fraudulent occasions.  

ISSUE: 

Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was guilty of violating Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484. Corollary to this is whether the counterfeit access device can still be presented in trial despite not having been presented and marked during pre-trial. 

HELD: 

Yes. Petitioner was found in possession of Citibank Visa credit card number 4539 7207 8677 7008, which bore the name "Gerry Santos." 

He used the same credit card to purchase Ferragamo shoes worth US$363.00 at Duty Free Fiesta Mall. Citibank Visa credit card number 4539 7207 8677 7008 was later proven to be a counterfeit access device. Republic Act No. 8484, otherwise known as the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998, defines an access device as: 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 instrurnent). Since 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," it is considered an access device. 

Section 9(a) and (e) make the possession and use of a counterfeit access device as "access device fraud" that is punishable by law: SECTION 9. Prohibited Acts. - The following acts shall constitute access device fraud and are hereby declared to be unlawful: (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. 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. Possession of a counterfeit access device is punishable by imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and not more than 10 years and a fine of ₱l0,000.00 or twice the value obtained by the offense, whichever is higher. On the other hand, use of a counterfeit access device is punishable by imprisonment of not less 10 years but not more than 12 years and a fine of ₱l0,000.00 or twice the value obtained by the offense, whichever is higher. 

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 (₱l0,000.00) 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 (₱l0,000.00) 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. 

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 ofPl0,000.00 for violation of Section 9(e) of Republic Act No. 8484.