Dollar vs. People

Possession of a counterfeit access device under Section 9(e) of Republic Act No. 8484 cannot be proved where the credit cards presented in court were neither authenticated as the same items seized nor lawfully seized in plain view during execution of a search warrant issued for an unrelated drug offense. Authentication of unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant objects requires testimony on confiscation, handling, and in-court identification, while plain view seizure requires lawful presence, inadvertent discovery, and immediately apparent incriminating character.

Edgar Silvano y Dollar, Jr. was a private resident of Unit 404, Ohana Place Residence, Las Piñas City, while the National Bureau of Investigation Anti-Illegal Drugs Division investigates drug offenses upon informant tips. Republic Act No. 8484 defines a credit card as an access device and punishes possession and use of a counterfeit access device under Section 9(e). Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, prescribes a strict chain of custody rule for fungible dangerous drugs and related paraphernalia.

Atty. Eduardo Ramos of the National Bureau of Investigation Anti-Illegal Drugs Division received information that Edgar Silvano y Dollar, Jr. was selling illegal drugs and was involved in computer hacking, particularly credit cards. Upon instruction, an informant purchased methamphetamine hydrochloride from Silvano at his residence on July 9, 2016, which subsequent examination confirmed as methamphetamine hydrochloride. Acting on that information, Atty. Ramos applied for a search warrant identifying only methamphetamine hydrochloride and other drug paraphernalia as objects of search, and coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for evening execution.

Upon arrival at Ohana Place Residence, some team members coordinated with the building administrator while others coordinated with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City. The team entered Unit 404, Silvano's residence, found him in the living room, introduced themselves, explained their purpose, and presented the search warrant. After Silvano was pacified from a violent reaction, the team waited for witnesses; only Barangay Kagawad Benjamin Martin of Almanza Uno, his executive officer Darius Sosa, and representatives of Ohana Place arrived. During the search, Atty. Ramos entered a bedroom and saw several computers and ATM cards on a table, and the team further recovered a desktop computer, three laptops, a money counter, a dry seal, boxes of notarial seal, a card-scheming device, and two American Express credit cards bearing numbers 371328108853009 and 379731990131008. These were seized and inventoried in Silvano's presence, with the receipt signed by Silvano, Kagawad Martin, Sosa, and Edwin Sevillan. Thereafter, Agent Elson Saul called Jeralyn Jalagat, manager of Global Security Services for American Express, to verify the cards, and verification indicated the cards under the name V S Tan did not match the original account holder and were counterfeit.

According to the defense, Sosa testified that when he arrived at the unit, NBI agents asked him to sign the inventory receipt without explaining its contents. Rafaelita Lumbre attested that she was inside the unit with Silvano when the team suddenly entered, immediately proceeded to the bedroom, handcuffed Silvano as he was lying down, and showed no documents upon entry. The trial court found the prosecution established Silvano's possession of the two American Express cards and, through Jalagat's testimony comparing them with the company database, their counterfeit character, warranting conviction in Criminal Case No. 16-0792, while acquitting in Criminal Case No. 16-0793. The Court of Appeals sustained that factual assessment, finding Silvano in possession inside his home of two cards in another person's name, distinct and identifiable by number, and seized in plain view during a valid search.

• Identification and Marking: Petitioner argued that possession of the two American Express cards was not established because the cards were not identified and marked during the inventory conducted by the NBI agents.
• Applicability of Chain of Custody: Petitioner maintained that Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, should have been complied with because the generic description of the seized credit cards made them susceptible to contamination, tampering, and planting, and because the search was conducted for a possible violation of Republic Act No. 9165, so non-compliance rendered the cards inadmissible.
• Plain View Doctrine: Petitioner argued that the items were not in plain view because their discovery was not shown to be inadvertent and their incriminating nature was not immediately apparent.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Petitioner contended that the RTC and CA erred in convicting him for violation of Republic Act No. 8484.

• Questions of Fact: Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintained that the Petition should be dismissed as it raises questions of fact.
• Validity of Search and Seizure: Respondent countered that the implementation of the search warrant and the seizure of the counterfeit credit cards in plain view were valid.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Respondent argued that the CA correctly affirmed conviction because the prosecution presented evidence sufficient to meet proof beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 9(e) of Republic Act No. 8484.

• Chain of Custody for Non-Drug Items: Whether Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 applies to non-drug items seized under a search warrant issued and executed for violations of said law.
• Plain View Seizure: Whether the seized American Express credit cards were in plain view, thereby allowing their warrantless seizure.
• Elements of Section 9(e): Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of violation of Section 9(e) of Republic Act No. 8484.

• Chain of Custody for Non-Drug Items: No. Section 21 does not extend to unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant objects like numbered credit cards; authentication requires only testimony on handling upon confiscation and in-court identification.
• Plain View Seizure: No. Only lawful presence concurred; discovery was not inadvertent given prior hacking tip without a corresponding warrant, and a deck of cards in a non-transparent bag was not immediately apparent as contraband.
• Elements of Section 9(e): No. With the cards excluded for failed authentication and unreasonable seizure, the very access device and proof of counterfeit character were absent, requiring acquittal.

• Chain of Custody for Non-Drug Items: The chain of custody rule authenticates fungible, amorphous objects like narcotics that are highly susceptible to planting and substitution, but has not been extended to structured objects that are unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change. Under People vs. Olarte, Pablo vs. People, and Patotoy vs. People, firearms, ammunition, and by extension numbered credit cards need only testimony from a witness with personal knowledge establishing handling upon confiscation, turnover if applicable, and in-court identification, with integrity and evidentiary value sufficiently established. Here the inventory merely listed several credit cards collectively marked as GDD-01 dated 071316 without specifying number or particulars, Atty. Ramos did not state how many American Express cards were in the bag or where the subject cards lay in the stack, the photograph did not show the two subject cards, and no testimony traced confiscation, handling, and presentation as the same items, leaving identity and integrity unproved and without probative value.
• Plain View Seizure: Warrantless seizure is unreasonable unless justified by a recognized exception, with evidence obtained in violation excluded under Article III, Section 3(2). Plain view requires (a) prior lawful justification for intrusion, (b) inadvertent discovery, and (c) immediately apparent incriminating character based on facts warranting a person of reasonable caution to associate the property with criminal activity. Lawful presence existed under the drug search warrant, but inadvertence failed because agents already knew of alleged hacking and credit card fraud yet sought a warrant only for drugs, so discovery of access-device evidence cannot be deemed unintentional. Immediate apparentness also failed because the cards were inside a non-transparent bag, a mere deck of cards is not per se contraband, and counterfeit character emerged only after checking names, banks, accounts, and fraud reports. Comamo vs. People was distinguished, as additional firearms related to the firearm described in the warrant were involved there, whereas credit cards are unrelated to drug offenses.
• Elements of Section 9(e): A credit card is an access device under Section 3(b), and Section 9(e) punishes possession and use of a counterfeit access device, whose corpus delicti includes both the device and evidence proving its counterfeit character. Because the two cards were inadmissible as unauthenticated and unreasonably seized, the prosecution presented no device itself, making conviction unsustainable notwithstanding Jalagat's database testimony.

• Chain of Custody Limited to Fungible, Amorphous Objects — The Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 chain of custody rule is a mode of authenticating illegal drug substances whose amorphous, fungible nature makes them highly susceptible to planting, contamination, and substitution. It has not been extended to other substances or objects; where evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change, authentication requires only testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims, showing handling upon confiscation, turnover to the laboratory if applicable, and in-court identification, with source tethered to testimony and integrity sufficiently established.
• Plain View Doctrine; Three Requisites — Objects falling in plain view of an officer with lawful right to be in that position may be seized without warrant only when (a) the officer has prior justification for intrusion or is lawfully positioned to view the area, (b) discovery is inadvertent or unintentional without advance knowledge of location that should have been included in the warrant application, and (c) the incriminating character is immediately apparent, meaning facts available would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe the items are contraband, stolen, or useful as evidence of a crime, without need for further search. All three must concur; otherwise seizure is an unreasonable general exploratory search.
• Exclusionary Principle — Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Only items particularly described in a search warrant may be seized unless a recognized exception applies.
• Corpus Delicti in Section 9(e), Republic Act No. 8484 — Section 9(e) punishes possession and use of a counterfeit access device, with a credit card qualifying as an access device existing to obtain money, goods, property, labor, services, or anything of value on credit. Conviction requires presentation not only of the access device itself but also of evidence proving its counterfeit character; exclusion of the device itself necessarily defeats proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Review of Facts in Rule 45 — Questions of fact generally cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition limited to errors of law, but the Court may resolve factual questions when the assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts.

• "if the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change, that foundation need only consist of testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims otherwise, the chain of custody rule has to be resorted to and complied with by the proponent to satisfy the evidentiary requirement of relevancy." — States the authentication standard distinguishing structured objects like numbered credit cards and firearms from fungible drugs, controlling the ruling that Section 21 non-compliance alone did not exclude the cards but failure of handling and identification testimony did.
• "Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence." — Introduces the plain view doctrine and its three requisites of lawful presence, inadvertent discovery, and immediately apparent incriminating character applied to invalidate seizure of cards under a drug warrant.
• "It requires merely that the seizure be presumptively reasonable assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity; that a nexus exists between a viewed object and criminal activity." — Defines the immediately apparent test as flexible probable cause, used to hold that a deck of cards in a non-transparent bag did not by itself signal counterfeit access-device fraud.
• "(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding." — States the constitutional exclusionary principle mandating exclusion of the cards after finding unreasonable seizure and failed authentication.

• People vs. Olarte, 848 Phil. 821 (2019) — Controlling precedent that chain of custody does not apply to readily identifiable, structured objects like an undetonated grenade; extended to hold numbered credit cards need only personal-knowledge authentication with integrity established.
• Pablo vs. People, 935 Phil. 132 (2023) — Followed for affirming that Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 does not extend to non-drug objects such as firearms and ammunition, requiring only handling, turnover, and in-court identification testimony.
• Patotoy vs. People, G.R. No. 257910, March 4, 2025 — Followed that non-compliance with Item 2.2.3(e) of the PNP Criminal Investigation Manual does not automatically cast doubt on integrity of readily identifiable firearms and ammunition if Olarte authentication is substantially complied with; applied by analogy to credit cards.
• Pilapil vs. Cu, 880 Phil. 88 (2020) — Controlling authority on unreasonable searches, recognized exceptions including plain view, and the immediately apparent incriminating-character test requiring nexus to criminal activity.
• People vs. Lagman, 593 Phil. 617 (2008) — Source of the three plain-view requisites of lawful intrusion, inadvertent discovery, and immediately apparent evidence of crime.
• Comamo vs. People, G.R. No. 236548, March 4, 2025 — Distinguished, as seizure of additional firearms related to the firearm described in the warrant was justified by immediately apparent criminal character, unlike credit cards seized under a drug warrant for unrelated access-device fraud.
• Cruz vs. People, 810 Phil. 801 (2017) — Cited for the proposition that Section 9(e) prohibits possession and use of a counterfeit access device.
• Peñaranda vs. People of the Philippines, 917 Phil. 297 (2021) — Basis for entertaining mixed questions of fact and law in Rule 45 where judgment rests on misapprehension of facts.

• Section 9(e), Republic Act No. 8484 — Declares possession and use of a counterfeit access device as access device fraud; applied as the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 16-0792, requiring proof of the device and its counterfeit character.
• Section 3(b), Republic Act No. 8484 — Defines access device to include any card existing to obtain money, goods, property, labor, services, or anything of value on credit, qualifying credit cards as covered devices.
• Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 — Prescribes custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia through chain of custody; held inapplicable to unique, readily identifiable non-drug items like numbered credit cards.
• Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees security against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants based on probable cause with particular description; basis for requiring plain-view justification for unlisted credit cards.
• Section 3(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Renders evidence obtained in violation of search-and-seizure rights inadmissible for any purpose; basis for excluding the American Express cards after invalid plain-view seizure.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur. Singh, J., on official business.