You are on page 1of 2

MARK SOLEDAD y CRISTOBAL, Petitioner

- vs. -
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 184274, February 23, 2011

FACTS:

Henry Yu received a call from Rochelle Bagaporo offering a loan assistance at a low interest rate. Private
complainant then invited her to go to his office. Bagaporo then indorsed private complainant to a certain Arthur, herein
petitioner. In their telephone conversation, petitioner told private complainant to submit documents. Private complainant
submitted various documents, such as his Globe handyphone original platinum gold card, identification cards and
statements of accounts. Subsequently, private complainant followed up his loan status but failed to do so.

Private complainant then received his Globe handyphone statement of account where he was charged for two
mobile phone numbers which were not his. Upon verification with the phone company, private complainant learned that
he had additional five mobile numbers in his name, and the application for said cellular phone lines bore the picture of
petitioner and his forged signature. Private complainant also checked with credit card companies and learned that his
Citibank Credit Card database information was altered and he had a credit card application with Metrobank. You then
lodged a complaint with NBI which conducted an entrapment operation.

During the entrapment operation, NBIs Special Investigator posed as delivery boy of the Metrobank credit card.
The agent reached the address written on the delivery receipt and asked for Henry Yu. Petitioner said he was Henry Yu
and presented two identification cards with the name and signature of Henry Yu, while the picture showed the face of
petitioner. Petitioner signed the delivery receipt. Thereupon, the investigator introduced himself as an NBI agent and
apprehended him. Petitioner was then charged with violation of Section 9(e), R.A. No. 8484 for possessing a counterfeit
access device or access device fraudulently applied for.

Petitioner avers that he was never in possession of the credit card because he was arrested immediately after
signing the acknowledgement receipt thus he did not yet know the contents of the envelope delivered and had no control
over the subject credit card. In RTC, petitioner was found guilty. The conviction was affirmed in CA.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was legally in possession of the credit card subject of the case.

HELD: YES.

The trial court convicted petitioner of possession of the credit card fraudulently applied for. The law, however,
does not define the word possession. Thus, the term was used as defined in Article 523 of the Civil Code, that is,
possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right. The acquisition of possession involves two elements: the
corpus or the material holding of the thing, and the animus possidendi or the intent to possess it. Animus possidendi is a
state of mind, the presence or determination of which is largely dependent on attendant events in each case. It may be
inferred from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances.

In this case, prior to the commission of the crime, petitioner fraudulently obtained from private complainant various
documents showing the latter’s identity. He, thereafter, obtained cellular phones using private complainants identity.
Undaunted, he fraudulently applied for a credit card under the name and personal circumstances of private complainant.
Upon the delivery of the credit card applied for, the messenger (NBI agent) required two valid identification cards. Petitioner
thus showed two identification cards with his picture on them, but bearing the name and forged signature of private
complainant. As evidence of the receipt of the envelope delivered, petitioner signed the acknowledgment receipt shown
by the messenger, indicating therein that the content of the envelope was the Metrobank credit card.

Petitioner materially held the envelope containing the credit card with the intent to possess. Contrary to
petitioners contention that the credit card never came into his possession because it was only delivered to him, the above
narration shows that he, in fact, did an active part in acquiring possession by presenting the identification cards purportedly
showing his identity as Henry Yu. Certainly, he had the intention to possess the same. Had he not actively participated,
the envelope would not have been given to him. Moreover, his signature on the acknowledgment receipt indicates that
there was delivery and that possession was transferred to him as the recipient. Undoubtedly, petitioner knew that the
envelope contained the Metrobank credit card, as clearly indicated in the acknowledgment receipt, coupled with the fact
that he applied for it using the identity of private complainant. ###

You might also like