Title
Cruz vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 210266
Decision Date
Jun 7, 2017
Anthony Cruz convicted for possessing and using a counterfeit Citibank Visa card to purchase goods; evidence admitted despite pre-trial issues, affirmed by higher courts.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210266)

Key Dates and Procedural History

Arraignment: October 17, 2006 (not guilty pleas). Alleged offense date: April 18, 2006. Trial proceedings and evidentiary hearings followed, including a Demurrer to Evidence filed by petitioner. Trial court rendered judgment on May 5, 2010: conviction in two cases (possession and use) and acquittal in one (related perfume purchase). Court of Appeals affirmed on July 4, 2013 with modified penalties; motion for reconsideration denied on November 26, 2013. Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court was filed and resolved in the decision under discussion.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Primary substantive law: Republic Act No. 8484 (Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998), including Section 3 (definitions of access device and counterfeit access device), Section 9 (prohibited acts, including subsections (a) producing/using/trafficking counterfeit access devices and (e) possessing counterfeit access devices), and Section 10 (penalties). Procedural rule implicated: A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (2004) governing pre-trial identification and pre-marking of exhibits, with its exception for admission of evidence during trial “for good cause shown.” Constitutional principles invoked as the basis of the decision (decision date post-1990): the 1987 Constitution guarantees due process and the presumption of innocence, which frame evaluation of evidentiary sufficiency and procedural fairness.

Charges and Specific Informations

Three separate informations were filed: (1) possession of a counterfeit access device (Citibank Visa card numbered 4539 7207 8677 7008); (2) use of that counterfeit access device to purchase Ferragamo shoes (US$363.00); and (3) use of that counterfeit access device to purchase two bottles of perfume (US$96.00). The informations allege willful, unlawful possession and use of a counterfeit access device in violation of Sections 9(a) and 9(e) of RA 8484.

Facts as Found by the Trial Court

On April 18, 2006, Cruz engaged in two separate transactions at Duty Free Fiesta Mall: at about 7:30 p.m. a purchase of Calvin Klein perfume (Counter 15) and at about 8:00 p.m. a purchase of Ferragamo shoes (Counter 12). Cashiers testified that Cruz paid using a Citibank Visa credit card bearing the name “Gerry Santos,” and irregularities were noted (misaligned numbers on the back, last four digits not properly embossed, validity date starting November 2006). Citibank was contacted and certified that the card was counterfeit and that the real Gerry Santos was a Citibank official. Security detained Cruz and his companion; the card was turned over to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group and later to Citibank representatives and police. The prosecution offered Citibank’s certification and the physical card; the defense objected to admission of the physical card due to non-pre-marking at pre-trial.

Issues for Resolution Presented to the Supreme Court

(1) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner violated Sections 9(a) and 9(e) of RA 8484, and whether the counterfeit access device could be admitted despite not being pre-marked during pre-trial under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC; (2) whether petitioner is bound by alleged negligence of his former counsel such that relief is warranted.

Legal Characterization of the Offense and Corpus Delicti

The Court affirmed that RA 8484 treats an access device (including credit cards) as lawfully neutral; the criminality arises from possession or use of a counterfeit access device. Hence the corpus delicti of offenses under Sections 9(a) and 9(e) comprises not only the physical card but also proof that the card is counterfeit. The decision underscores that possession of a card alone is insufficient; the prosecution must adduce evidence that the device is counterfeit (e.g., Citibank certification and testimony regarding invalidity and prior fraudulent use).

Admissibility of the Physical Card and Application of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC

A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC requires pre-trial identification and pre-marking of documents and exhibits but expressly permits trial courts, in their discretion, to admit evidence not pre-marked if “good cause” is shown. The Court emphasized that “good cause” is not rigidly defined but means a substantial legal excuse. In this case, the prosecution explained that the physical credit card was in police custody at the time of pre-trial and therefore unavailable for pre-marking; Citibank’s certification concerning the card had been offered and pre-marked as part of Exhibit F. The trial court exercised discretion to admit the physical card as part of an already marked exhibit (F-1) and the Supreme Court found this within the permissible exception for good cause shown, validating the card’s admission.

Evidentiary Weight, Witness Credibility, and Alleged Inconsistencies

The Court reiterated the settled rule that credibility determinations and factual findings of the trial court merit great respect on appeal and are not generally subject to re-evaluation in a Rule 45 certiorari petition, absent recognized exceptions (e.g., findings based on speculation, grave abuse, or contradictions). Alleged inconsistencies between Lim and Wong were explained by the Court as arising from testimony about distinct transactions (Counter 12 vs Counter 15); hence they did not constitute material contradictions. Other minor discrepancies proffered by petitioner (who turned over the card; whether petitioner introduced himself; why a copy of the driver’s license was not made) were characterized as immaterial and insufficient to undermine the prosecution’s case. The Court affirmed the lower courts’ assessment of the witnesses’ credibility.

Flight and Other Circumstantial Evidence

The Court accepted the trial court’s and appellate court’s reliance on petitioner’s attempted flight from the premises as probative of guilt, citing precedent that flight can manifest a guilty conscience. The attempted escape, coupled with the physical circumstances and Citibank’s certification, contributed to the Court’s conclusion that the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt for possession and use of a counterfeit access device in the shoe purchase incident.

Counsel’s Alleged Negligence and Waiver of Right to Present Evidence

Petitioner argued ineffective representation by his former counsel for failing to present evidence, appear at hearings, and cross-examine witnesses. The Court applied established principles that a client is generally bound by counsel’s actions unless counsel’s conduct amounts to reckless or gross negligence depriving the client of due process, or enforcing the rule would unjustly deprive liberty or

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms