RA 8484

Counterfeit Access Device – any fraudulent copy or reproduction of a valid access device

Hacking –

Card Skimming – type of fraud which involves illegal copying

Additional Prohibited Act – skimming copying or counterfeiting

ANTHONY DE SILVA CRUZ v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 210266, June 7, 2017Second DivisionLeonen, J.

Doctrine:

The rule is that no evidence shall be allowed during trial if it was not identified and pre-marked during
PRE-trial. This provision, however, allows for an exception: when allowed by the court for good cause
shown.

Facts:

This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision dated July4, 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
arehereby declared to be unlawful: (a) producing, using, trafficking in one or morecounterfeit access
devices; and (e) possessing one or more counterfeit access devices or access devices fraudulently
applied for. Cruz was arraigned on October 17, 2006, where he pleaded not guilty for each charge.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was guilty of viola
ting Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484.

Ruling:

Yes. Petitioner was found in possession of Citibank Visa credit card number 45397207 8677 7008, which
bore the name "Gerry Santos."

the possession and use of a counterfeit access device as "access device fraud" is punishable by law.
Therefore, the corpus delicti of the crime is not merely the access device, but
alsoany evidence that proves that it is counterfeit. The burden of proof was on the prosecution. Petition
er did not even need to present evidence. To successfully sustain aconviction, the prosecution must rely
on the strength of its evidence, and not on the weakness of the defense.
The prosecution's evidence in this case was enough to overcome the presumption of innocence.

WHEREFORE

, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

G.R. No. 184274 February 23, 2011

MARK SOLEDAD y CRISTOBAL, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

The law, however, does not define the word "possession." Thus, we use the term as defined in
Article 523 of the Civil Code, that is, "possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a
right." The acquisition of possession involves two elements: the corpus or the material holding of the
thing, and the animus possidendi or the intent to possess it.

FACTS:

private complainant Henry C. Yu received a call on his mobile phone from a certain "Tess" or "Juliet
Villar" a credit card agent, who offered a Citifinancing loan assistance at a low interest rate. Enticed by
the offer, private complainant invited Rochelle Bagaporo to go to his office in Quezon City. While in his
office, Rochelle Bagaporo indorsed private complainant to her immediate boss, a certain
"Arthur"(Petitioner). In their telephone conversation, [petitioner] told private complainant to submit
documents to a certain "Carlo"(Ronald). Private complainant submitted various documents, such as his
Globe handyphone original platinum gold card, identification cards and statements of accounts.
Subsequently, private complainant followed up his loan status but he failed to get in touch with either
[petitioner] or Ronald.

private complainant received his Globe handyphone statement of account wherein he was charged for
two (2) mobile phone numbers which were not his. Upon verification with the phone company, private
complainant learned that he had additional five (5) mobile numbers in his name, and the application for
said cellular phone lines bore the picture of [petitioner] and his forged signature. Private complainant
also checked with credit card companies and learned that his Citibank Credit Card database information
was altered and he had a credit card application with Metrobank Card Corporation (Metrobank).

Petitioner was thus charged with Violation of Section 9(e), R.A. No. 8484 for "possessing a
counterfeit access device or access device fraudulently applied for."

FACTS

The above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with certain Rochelle Bagaporo a.k.a. Juliet
Villar/Tess and a certain Ronald Gobenciong a.k.a. Carlo and all of them mutually helping and aiding
each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud complainant HENRY YU by
applying a credit card, an access device defined under R.A. 8484, from METROBANK CARD
CORPORATION, using the name of complainant Henry C. Yu and his personal documents fraudulently
obtained from him, and which credit card in the name of Henry Yu was successfully issued and delivered
to said accused using a fictitious identity and addresses of Henry Yu, to the damage and prejudice of the
real Henry Yu.

ISSUE:
(4) Whether or not petitioner was legally in "possession" of the credit card subject of the case.

RULING:

The court find no value in petitioner’s argument.

The trial court convicted petitioner of possession of the credit card fraudulently applied for, penalized
by R.A. No. 8484. The law, however, does not define the word "possession." Thus, we use the
term as defined in Article 523 of the Civil Code, that is, "possession is the holding of a thing or the
enjoyment of a right." The acquisition of possession involves two elements: the corpus or the
material holding of the thing, and the animus possidendi or the intent to possess it. Petitioner
materially held the envelope containing the credit card with the intent to possess. Contrary
topetitioners contention

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals
Decision are AFFIRMED