Case Digest (G.R. No. 210266)
Facts:
On April 18, 2006, Petitioner Anthony De Silva Cruz was detained at Duty Free Fiesta Mall in Parañaque after attempting purchases with a Citibank Visa card later determined to be counterfeit; he was charged with violating Republic Act No. 8484, Section 9(a) and (e) for using and possessing a counterfeit access device. The Regional Trial Court convicted him on May 5, 2010 of two counts (acquitting him of one), the Court of Appeals affirmed on July 4, 2013, and the petition for review to the Supreme Court was denied.
Issues:
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Petitioner violated Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484, and whether the alleged counterfeit access device was admissible despite not having been pre-marked under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC?
- Whether the alleged negligence of petitioner’s former counsel relieved Petitioner of responsibility or deprived him of due process?
Ruling:
The Court denied the Petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Petitioner possessed and used a counterfeit access device, and that the physical card was admissible as part of an exhibit already identified and for which the trial court found good cause to admit despite non‑pre‑marking. The Court further ruled that counsel’s omissions did not amount to gross or reckless negligence that deprived Petitioner of due process.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that under Republic Act No. 8484 the corpus delicti is not merely the access device but also evidence that it is counterfeit, and the prosecution offered Citibank’s certification establishing the card’s counterfeit nature. Under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC the pre‑trial pre‑marking rule admits a court‑discretion exception for good cause; the trial court properly exercised that discretion given that the card was then in police custody and the certification had been pre‑marked. The trial court’s credibility findings were accorded deference, petitioner’s flight supported an inference of guilt, and petitioner voluntarily waived presentation of evidence, so counsel’s lapses did not negate the sufficiency of the prosecution’s case.
Doctrine:
- Republic Act No. 8484: The corpus delicti of access device fraud includes both the access device and proof that it is counterfeit.
- (Get Pro to unlock 3 more doctrines)