DE SILVA V PEOPLE

(G.R. No. 210266, June 7, 2017)

FACTS:
On April 2006, Anthony Cruz purchased 2 bottles of perfume from Duty Free in Fiesta Mall. Danilo Wong,
the cashier thereat, testified that Cruz paid using a Citibank Visa CC. The transaction was approved,
although Wong doubted the validity of the credit card since the number at the back was not aligned.

Later, Cruz tried to purchase a pair of shoes. Ana Lim facilitated the sale, with Cruz paying using a Citibank
Visa CC bearing the name "Gerry Santos.” The card was approved but Lim noticed that the last 4 digits of
the card were not properly embossed and its validity date started in November 2006. Hence, Lim called
Citibank to verify.

Upon verification, Lim was informed that the credit card was counterfeit and that the real Gerry Santos was
a Citibank Division Head. Lim referred the matter to the Security Supervisor of Duty Free and Cruz
[together with the Citibank CC] was later turned over to the CIDG for questioning.

3 informations were filed against Cruz - one for possession and control of a counterfeit access device
(Section 9(a), Access Devices); two for unlawfully and feloniously using a counterfeit access device
(Section 9(e), Access Devices) for purchasing the perfume and the shoes, respectively.

During his prosecution, Cruz demurred. RTC denied the demurrer and later found Cruz guilty under two of
the informations. CA upheld the conviction.

Hence, the present petition by Cruz. He argues that according to the Guidelines on Pre-trial, the corpus
delicti or the alleged counterfeit CC is inadmissible since it was not marked and identified during pre-trial.

ISSUE:
W/N the Citibank CC can be presented in trial despite not being presented and marked during pre-trial

RULING:
YES.

RATIO:
Under Sec 9(a) and (e), what is prohibited is not the possession and use of a mere access device,
but of a counterfeit access device. Therefore, the corpus delicti of the crime are the a) access device
itself; and b) any evidence that proves that it is counterfeit.

In the present case, it is established Cruz was found in possession of a counterfeit Citibank Visa CC and
used the same card to purchase shoes. What is in contention here is whether the access device - the
counterfeit CC - is admissible in evidence.

The GR that no evidence shall be allowed during trial if it was not identified and pre-marked during trial
allows for an XPN - when allowed by the court for good cause shown. What may constitute as "good cause”
is within the discretion of the court.
Here, the trial court allowed the presentation of the counterfeit CC at trial due to the prosecution's
explanation that during pre-trial, the card was still in the CIDG’s custody. Additionally, the prosecution was
able to present and mark during pre-trial Citibank's certification that the access device used was
counterfeit. It is this certification that makes the possession and use of the access device illegal. Therefore,
the trial court determined that the access device could still be presented at trial since it merely formed part
of an exhibit that had already been presented and marked during pre-trial.