Case Digest (G.R. No. 184274)
Facts:
Mark Soledad y Cristobal v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 184274, February 23, 2011, the Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Mark Soledad y Cristobal (hereafter petitioner) was criminally charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 202, Las Piñas City, with violating Section 9(e) of Republic Act No. 8484 (Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998) for allegedly possessing a counterfeit access device or an access device fraudulently applied for, to the prejudice of private complainant Henry C. Yu.In June 2004 Yu received a solicitation call from a credit card agent, later identified as Rochelle Bagaporo, who arranged a meeting at Yu’s office. Bagaporo introduced Yu to her superior “Arthur,” later identified as petitioner, who instructed Yu to submit personal documents to a third person, later identified as Ronald Gobenchiong. Yu surrendered various documents including his Globe phone card and identification cards. Follow-up inquiries showed unauthorized cellular lines and a credit-card application in Yu’s name bearing petitioner’s photograph and a forged signature.
An NBI investigation ensued; during an entrapment operation an NBI special investigator, Salvador Arteche, delivered a Metrobank credit card envelope to the address indicated. Petitioner answered as “Henry Yu,” produced two ID cards bearing Yu’s name but petitioner’s photograph and a forged signature, signed the acknowledgment receipt for the envelope, and was apprehended. The NBI recovered the two IDs from petitioner.
Petitioner was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and filed a Demurrer to Evidence which the RTC denied by Order dated May 2, 2006. On September 27, 2006, the RTC (Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray) convicted petitioner of violating Section 9(e), R.A. No. 8484, and sentenced him under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to six years and up to ten years imprisonment and a P10,000 fine. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR. No. 30603 affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty by deleting the specific designations of prision correccional and prision mayor; its Decision was dated June 18, 2008 and its Resolution denying reconsideration was dated August 22, 2008.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the CA decisions, raising issues on the validity and...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Information filed against petitioner valid under Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure?
- Does the Information as framed charge the offense under Section 9(e) of R.A. No. 8484?
- Was petitioner sufficiently informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him?
- Was petitioner legally in "possession" of the credit card such as to support conviction un...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)