People v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Anthony De Silva Cruz was charged with violation of Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484 (Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998) for allegedly possessing and using a counterfeit Citibank Visa Card (No. 4539 7207 8677 7008) on April 18, 2006. The prosecution presented evidence that Cruz attempted to purchase perfume worth US$96.00 and Ferragamo shoes worth US$363.00 using the said card at Duty Free Philippines. The card was later verified by Citibank as counterfeit, and the real cardholder was the Head of Citibank's Fraud Risk Management Division. Cruz attempted to escape when apprehended. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Cruz guilty of possession (Criminal Case No. 06-0479) and use (Criminal Case No. 06-0480) of a counterfeit access device, sentencing him to imprisonment and fines. He was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 06-0481 for the perfume purchase due to insufficient proof. The RTC denied Cruz's Demurrer to Evidence, finding the credit card admissible despite not being pre-marked during pre-trial, as it was part of an already marked exhibit (Exhibit "F"). Cruz appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA affirmed Cruz's conviction for possession and use of a counterfeit access device but modified the penalties to conform to the specific provisions of RA 8484. The CA also ruled that A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC allows admission of evidence not pre-marked during pre-trial if there is "good cause shown." Cruz filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the counterfeit credit card was inadmissible due to non-compliance with A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, and that his constitutional presumption of innocence was disregarded. He also raised the issue of his former counsel's alleged negligence.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner violated Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484, and if the counterfeit access device was admissible despite not being pre-marked during pre-trial. Whether the negligence of petitioner's former counsel binds petitioner.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of petitioner Anthony De Silva Cruz for violation of Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484. The Court found the counterfeit access device admissible and ruled that the negligence of counsel, in this case, did not amount to gross negligence that would warrant setting aside the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the counterfeit access device and proof of violation: The Court reiterated that to sustain a conviction for possession and use of a counterfeit access device under Republic Act No. 8484, the prosecution must present not only the access device but also evidence proving it is counterfeit. The Court found that the prosecution successfully presented Citibank's certification (Exhibit "F") that the credit card used by the petitioner was counterfeit, thus establishing the corpus delicti. Regarding the admissibility of the credit card itself, the Court affirmed the CA's ruling that A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC allows for the admission of evidence not pre-marked during pre-trial if the court finds "good cause shown." The RTC allowed the presentation of the credit card because it was still in police custody during pre-trial and was considered part of Exhibit "F," a certification already marked and presented. The Court found this to be sufficient "good cause" for its admission. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Danilo Wong and Ana Margarita Lim were deemed minor and did not detract from the conclusion that petitioner used a counterfeit access device, especially since they testified on different transactions. The Court also noted that petitioner's attempt to flee the premises constituted an implied admission of guilt, further strengthening the prosecution's case. On the negligence of petitioner's former counsel: The Court held that the negligence of a counsel binds the client, except in cases of gross or reckless negligence that deprives the client of due process, or when strict application of the rule would result in the deprivation of liberty or property through a technicality, or when it serves the interests of justice. The Court found that petitioner's former counsel, Atty. Edwin Michael P. Musico, did not exhibit such gross negligence. The records showed that the counsel objected to the presentation of the credit card, cross-examined key witnesses, and filed a Demurrer to Evidence. While there were instances of absence from hearings, the Court noted that the petitioner himself, through counsel, decided to waive the presentation of defense evidence, submitting the case for decision. Therefore, the petitioner was not deprived of due process, and the actions of his former counsel bound him.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution must prove not only the possession and use of a counterfeit access device but also present evidence that the access device is indeed counterfeit. The admissibility of evidence not pre-marked during pre-trial may be allowed by the court for good cause shown. The negligence of counsel generally binds the client, unless it amounts to gross negligence that deprives the client of due process.