Cruz vs. People

Possession and use of an access device constitutes access device fraud only when the device is proven to be counterfeit, the counterfeit character forming part of the corpus delicti, and a device not pre-marked during pre-trial may still be admitted when the trial court finds good cause shown. Applied to the proven possession and use of Citibank Visa Card No. 4539 7207 8677 7008, certified by Citibank as counterfeit and corroborated by physical defects and verification, criminal liability under Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484 was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Anthony De Silva Cruz was a purchaser-customer at Duty Free Philippines Fiesta Mall in Parañaque City, which sells merchandise through cashiers and accepts credit cards issued by banks such as Citibank. Redentor M. Quejada served as Security Supervisor of Duty Free Philippines, while Gerardo T. Santos headed Citibank's Fraud Risk Management Division. Republic Act No. 8484, the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998, defines credit cards as access devices and declares unlawful the producing, using, trafficking in, and possessing of counterfeit access devices.

Anthony De Silva Cruz was charged in three Informations with violation of Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484 for allegedly possessing and using a counterfeit Citibank Visa Card No. 4539 7207 8677 7008 on April 18, 2006 in Parañaque City. The charges involved two purchases from Duty Free Philippines Fiesta Mall: (a) two bottles of perfume worth US$96.00 or ₱4,992.00, and (b) one pair of Ferragamo shoes worth US$363.00 or ₱18,876.00.

According to the prosecution, at around 7:30 p.m. on April 18, 2006, Cruz tried to purchase two bottles of Calvin Klein perfume at the Perfume Section, paying with a Citibank Visa credit card. Cashier Danilo Wong testified that the transaction was approved, although he doubted the card's validity because the number at the back was not aligned. At around 8:00 p.m., Cruz tried to purchase a pair of Ferragamo shoes, facilitated by cashier Ana Margarita Lim. He paid with a Citibank Visa card bearing the name Gerry Santos and number 4539 7207 8677 7008, presented a Duty Free shopping card in the name of Rodolfo Garcia when asked, and then gave a driver's license bearing the name Gerry Santos when asked for another identification card.

Lim swiped the card for approval at the mall's Electronic Section. The card was approved, but she noticed that its last four digits were not properly embossed and its validity date started in November 2006. She called Citibank to verify, and was informed that the card was counterfeit and that the real Gerry Santos was the Head of Citibank's Fraud Risk Management Division. She was advised to refer the matter to the Security Department. Security Supervisor Redentor Quejada testified that he and two other guards held Cruz and his companion Rodolfo De Silva Cruz at the security office until Citibank representative Gerardo T. Santos arrived between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. with members of the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation Detective Group and a certain Atty. Abad Santos, said to be Cruz's lawyer. Before turnover to the police, Cruz tried to escape with Atty. Abad Santos's help, but security officers closed the mall's main gate and prevented escape. Cruz and his companion were then turned over to the Criminal Investigation Detective Group and brought to Camp Crame, together with the Citibank Visa card.

Gerardo T. Santos testified that he first heard Cruz's name in May 2004 when Cruz and his wife Aileen managed Antonely's Fabric Warehouse and were involved in credit card fraud incidents, though no case was filed for lack of basis, and again in 2005 regarding a fraudulent transaction with a Thai restaurant in Shoemart Megamall. He further testified that the credit card number was validly issued to a certain Jessamine Bongat and that the counterfeit card had been previously used on several fraudulent occasions. After the prosecution's formal offer, the defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence on admissibility grounds, which was denied. Despite notice, petitioner and counsel did not appear at scheduled defense hearings, and petitioner later manifested waiver of his right to present evidence. The trial court found the prosecution witnesses credible and convicted in the two cases relating to possession and use of the card for the shoes purchase, while acquitting on the perfume charge.

• Admissibility and Pre-marking: Petitioner argued that the alleged counterfeit credit card was inadmissible as the corpus delicti since it was not marked and identified during pre-trial, as required by A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC.
• Inconsistent Identification and Turnover: Petitioner alleged that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent as to the identification of the credit card and its eventual turnover to the police, including whom among Lim and Quejada turned it over, whether petitioner introduced himself, and why Lim made no copy of the driver's license.
• Presumption of Innocence and Silence: Petitioner asserted that the trial court and Court of Appeals disregarded the constitutional presumption of innocence by drawing an inference of guilt from his silence during trial.
• Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Petitioner insisted through new counsel that his former counsel negligently defended his cause by failing to attend hearings, failing to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, and failing to present evidence on his behalf, and prayed for reversal or remand for presentation of evidence.
• Authority to File Complaint: Petitioner added that Redentor Quejada was not duly authorized by Duty Free Philippines to file the complaint based on an invalid Special Power of Attorney.

• Good Cause for Admission: Respondent countered that the counterfeit credit card was admissible since A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC allows the trial court in its discretion to admit evidence not pre-marked if allowed for good cause shown.
• No Material Inconsistency: Respondent argued that there was no inconsistency between Lim's and Wong's testimonies since they testified on two different transactions they respectively witnessed.
• Silence and Flight as Indications of Guilt: Respondent maintained that the unexplained failure of the accused to testify gives rise to an inference that he did not want to betray himself, and that petitioner's attempt to flee the premises was an implied admission of guilt.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Access Device Fraud: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was guilty of violating Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484.
• Admissibility Despite Non-Marking in Pre-trial: Whether the counterfeit access device could still be presented at trial despite not having been presented and marked during pre-trial.
• Binding Effect of Counsel's Negligence: Whether the negligence of petitioner's former counsel binds petitioner.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Access Device Fraud: Yes. Possession and use of Citibank Visa Card No. 4539 7207 8677 7008 as a counterfeit access device were established by the card, Citibank's certification, and corroborating testimony on its defects and verification.
• Admissibility Despite Non-Marking in Pre-trial: Yes. Admission was proper for good cause shown, the card having been in police custody during pre-trial and forming part of the pre-marked Citibank certification that it was counterfeit.
• Binding Effect of Counsel's Negligence: Yes. No reckless or gross negligence depriving petitioner of due process was shown, counsel having objected, cross-examined, and filed a demurrer, and the defense having manifested waiver of evidence.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Access Device Fraud: Under Section 9(a) and (e), what is prohibited is not possession or use of an access device as such, but possession or use of a counterfeit access device, defined as any access device that is counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or forged. Thus the corpus delicti includes not only the device but also evidence proving its counterfeit character. Petitioner was found in possession of the Citibank Visa card bearing the name Gerry Santos and used the same card to purchase Ferragamo shoes worth US$363.00. The card was later proven counterfeit through Citibank's certification, testimony that its number was validly issued to Jessamine Bongat, observed defects in embossing and alignment and in the validity date, and Citibank's verification that it was counterfeit. Minor alleged inconsistencies concerning turnover, introduction, or copying of the license did not detract from that conclusion, credibility findings being entitled to great weight especially when affirmed on appeal, and unrefuted flight reinforced consciousness of guilt.
• Admissibility Despite Non-Marking in Pre-trial: A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, Sec. I(A)(2) bars evidence not identified and pre-marked during pre-trial except if allowed by the court for good cause shown, understood as any substantial reason affording a legal excuse, with the trial court retaining discretion. Here the prosecution explained that during pre-trial the card was still in the Criminal Investigation and Detective Group's custody and had not been turned over, while Citibank's certification that embossed account number 4539-7207-8677-7008 was counterfeit had been presented and marked. Because the certification made the possession and use illegal and the physical card merely formed part of that pre-marked exhibit, allowing its presentation at trial for identification was a proper exercise of discretion.
• Binding Effect of Counsel's Negligence: Negligence of counsel binds the client except when counsel exhibits reckless or gross negligence depriving the client of due process, when outright application would deprive liberty or property through technicality, or when the interests of justice so require. No such exception was established. Counsel repeatedly objected with continuing objection to the card's presentation, cross-examined Lim and Quejada, and filed a Demurrer to Evidence after the formal offer. Although counsel missed some hearings, the February 8, 2010 Order showed the defense itself manifested it would not present evidence and waived that right. Conviction rested on the prosecution's own strength sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence, not on the weakness of the defense, and the late claim of lack of authority to file the complaint was unsupported by proof.

• Counterfeit access device as corpus delicti — Under Republic Act No. 8484, mere possession or use of an access device is not unlawful; liability attaches only when the device is counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or forged. Hence the corpus delicti consists of both the access device itself and evidence proving its counterfeit character, here supplied by the physical card together with the issuer's certification and testimony on defects and verification.
• Good cause exception to pre-trial marking requirement — A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC prohibits presentation during trial of evidence-in-chief not identified and pre-marked during pre-trial, except when allowed by the court for good cause shown, meaning any substantial reason affording a legal excuse. The trial court retains discretion to admit such evidence, as when the object was still in police custody at pre-trial and merely implements a pre-marked certification.
• Deference to trial court credibility findings — Assessment of witness credibility is a question of fact generally not reviewed in a Rule 45 petition, and the trial court's findings on credibility, probative weight, and conclusions drawn therefrom are accorded great respect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Witnesses testifying to different transactions cannot be deemed inconsistent with each other, and minor inconsistencies do not impair credibility on the core offense.
• Flight as evidence of guilt — The flight of an accused discloses a guilty conscience. An unrefuted attempt to escape when the police arrived, taken together with the prosecution's evidence, supports a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Negligence of counsel binds client — As a rule, counsel's negligence binds the client, except where there is reckless or gross negligence depriving the client of due process, where strict application would deprive liberty or property through technicality, or where the interests of justice require relief. Active participation through objections, cross-examination, and demurrer, plus a manifested waiver of defense evidence, negates deprivation of due process.
• Prosecution must rely on strength of its own evidence — To sustain conviction, the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the defense, the accused not even being required to present evidence. Where the prosecution's evidence overcomes the presumption of innocence, waiver of defense evidence does not warrant reversal or remand.

• "The possession and use of a counterfeit credit card is considered access device fraud and is punishable by law." — States the controlling characterization of the offense under Republic Act No. 8484 at the outset of the decision.
• "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." — Defines the corpus delicti requirement that governs sufficiency of evidence for Section 9(a) and (e).
• "(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)[.]" — Quotes the pre-trial rule whose good-cause exception justified admission of the physical credit card.
• "[T]he flight of an accused discloses a guilty conscience." — Supplies the doctrinal basis for treating petitioner's attempted escape as corroborative of guilt.

• Fortune Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108119, January 19, 1994, 229 SCRA 355 — Cited to define good cause as any substantial reason that affords a legal excuse for allowing evidence not pre-marked during pre-trial.
• Caluag vs. People, 599 Phil. 717 (2009) — Cited, with Lamis vs. Ong, for the rule that credibility of witnesses is a question of fact not reviewed in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.
• Medina vs. Mayor Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225 (1990) — Cited to enumerate the exceptions allowing review of factual findings, none of which was found present.
• People vs. Diu, 708 Phil. 218 (2013) — Cited for the rule that trial court factual findings and credibility assessments are accorded great respect, with greater weight when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
• People vs. Dalinog, 262 Phil. 98 (1990) — Cited, with People vs. Anquillano, for the doctrine that flight discloses a guilty conscience.
• Dimarucot vs. People, 645 Phil. 218 (2010) — Cited for the rule on when negligence of counsel binds the client and its exceptions involving reckless or gross negligence and deprivation of due process.
• People vs. Magallanes, 231 Phil. 89 (1987) — Cited for the principle that conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution's evidence rather than the weakness of the defense.

• Section 3(a), Republic Act No. 8484 — Defines access device to include any card, plate, code, account number, or other means of account access usable to obtain money, goods, services, or value; applied to treat the Citibank Visa credit card as an access device.
• Section 3(f), Republic Act No. 8484 — Defines credit card as a credit device for obtaining money, goods, property, labor, or services on credit; applied to confirm the card falls within access devices.
• Section 3(b), Republic Act No. 8484 — Defines counterfeit access device as any access device that is counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or forged; applied to frame the required proof of counterfeit character.
• Section 9(a) and (e), Republic Act No. 8484 — Declare unlawful producing, using, or trafficking in counterfeit access devices and possessing counterfeit or fraudulently applied-for devices; applied as the bases for conviction for use and possession.
• Section 10(a) and (b), Republic Act No. 8484 — Impose six to ten years imprisonment plus fine for Section 9(b)-(e) and (g)-(p) offenses, and ten to twelve years plus fine for Section 9(a) and (f) offenses, for first offenses; applied to sustain six to ten years and ₱10,000.00 for possession and ten to twelve years and US$726.00 or ₱37,752.00 for use.
• Section I(A)(2), A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC — Requires pre-trial briefs to list documents or exhibits and bars unidentified and un-pre-marked evidence except if allowed for good cause shown; applied to admit the physical card still in police custody at pre-trial as part of the pre-marked Citibank certification.

Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio as Chairperson, Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (on official leave), Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza (on official leave), and Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires concurred. No separate concurring opinion with additional reasoning appears in the text.