Soledad v People

Soledad v. People Facts:  Sometime in June 2004, Henry C. Yu (complainant) received a call on his mobile phone from a certain "Tess" or "Juliet Villar" (later identified as Rochelle Bagaporo), a credit card agent, who offered a Citifinancing loan assistance at a low interest rate.  Yu invited Bagaporo to go to his office in QC. Bagaporo then indorsed Yu to her boss, a certain "Arthur" (later identified as Mark Soledad).  Soledad instructed Yu to submit documents to a certain "Carlo" (later identified as Ronald Gobenchiong).  Yu submitted various documents, such as his Globe handyphone original platinum gold card, identification cards and statements of accounts.  Yu followed up his loan status but failed to get in touch with either Soledad or Gobenchiong.  In the first week of August 2004, Yu received his Globe handyphone statement of account. He was charged for two mobile phone numbers which were not his.  Upon verification, Yu learned that he had additional five mobile numbers in his name, and the application for those phone lines bore his picture and his forged signature.  Yu also learned that his Citibank Credit Card database information was altered and he had a credit card application with Metrobank Card Corporation.  Yu and Metrobank’s junior assistant manager Jefferson Devilleres lodged a complaint with the NBI which conducted an entrapment operation.  Entrapment operation: o NBI’s Special Investigator Salvador Arteche, together with some other NBI operatives, arrived in Las Piñas around 5PM. o Arteche posed as the delivery boy of the Metrobank credit card. Upon reaching the address written on the delivery receipt, he asked for Henry Yu. o Soledad responded that he was Henry Yu and presented two identification cards which bore the name and signature of Yu, while the picture showed Soledad’s face. o Soledad signed the delivery receipt. o Arteche introduced himself as an NBI operative and apprehended Soledad. o Arteche recovered from Soledad the two identification cards he presented earlier.  Soledad was charged with Violation of Section 9(e), R.A. No. 8484 for "possessing a counterfeit access device or access device fraudulently applied for."  RTC found Soledad guilty as charged. CA affirmed his conviction. Issue: WoN Soledad is guilty of Violation of Section 9(e), R.A. No. 8484 (possessing a counterfeit access device or access device fraudulently applied for)  YES



 

 

Since RA 8484 does not define the word "possession.", the Court used it as defined in Article 523 of the Civil Code, "possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right." o The acquisition of possession involves two elements: 1.) corpus – the material holding of the thing 2.) animus possidendi – the intent to possess it Soledad materially held the envelope containing the credit card with the intent to possess. Contrary to his contention that the credit card never came into his possession because it was only delivered to him, the facts show that he played 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 it. Moreover, his signature on the acknowledgment receipt indicates that there was delivery and that possession was transferred to him as the recipient. Undoubtedly, he 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 Yu.