G.R.No.184274.February23,2011.

*
MARKSOLEDADyCRISTOBAL,petitioner,vs.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
respondent.
CriminalProcedure;Information;Theinformationcontainedallthenecessarydetails
of the offense committed, sufficient to apprise petitioner of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him; Although the word possession was not used in the accusatory
portion of the information, the word possessing appeared in its preamble or the first
paragraphthereof.IntheInformationfiledbeforetheRTC,itwasclearlystatedthatthe
accused is petitioner Mark SoledadyCristobal a.k.a. Henry Yu/Arthur. It was also
specifiedinthepreambleoftheInformationthathewasbeingchargedwithViolationof
R.A. No. 8484, Section 9(e) for possessing a counterfeit access device or access device
fraudulentlyappliedfor.Intheaccusatoryportionthereof,theactsconstitutingtheoffense
were clearly narrated in that [petitioner], together with other persons[,] willfully,
unlawfullyandfeloniouslydefraudedprivatecomplainantbyapplying[for]acreditcard,
anaccessdevicedefinedunderR.A.[No.]8484,fromMetrobankCardCorporation,using
thenameofcomplainantHenryC.Yuandhispersonaldocumentsfraudulentlyobtained
fromhim,andwhichcreditcardinthenameofHenryYuwassuccessfullyissued,and
delivered to said accused using a fictitious identity and addresses of Henry Yu, to the
damageandprejudiceoftherealHenryYu.Moreover,itwasidentifiedthattheoffended
partywasprivatecomplainantHenryYuandthecrimewascommittedonoraboutthe
13thdayofAugust2004intheCityofLasPias.Undoubtedly,theInformationcontained
allthenecessarydetailsoftheoffensecommitted,sufficienttoapprisepetitionerofthe
natureandcauseoftheaccusationagainsthim.AsaptlyarguedbyrespondentPeopleof
thePhilippines,throughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,althoughthewordpossession
wasnotusedintheaccusatoryportionoftheInformation,thewordpossessingappeared
initspreambleorthefirstparagraphthereof.Thus,contrarytopetitionerscontention,he
wasapprisedthathewasbeingchargedwithviolationofR.A.No.8484,specificallysection
9(e)thereof,forpossessionofthecreditcardfraudulentlyappliedfor.

_______________

*SECONDDIVISION.
259
VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 2
59
Soledad vs. People
Same; Same; Relationship between the preamble and the accusatory portion of the
information discussed in People v. Villanueva,413 SCRA 431 (2003).The Courts
discussioninPeoplev.Villanueva,413SCRA431(2003),ontherelationshipbetweenthe
preambleandtheaccusatoryportionoftheInformationisnoteworthy,andwequote:The
preambleoropeningparagraphshouldnotbetreatedasamereaggroupmentofdescriptive
wordsandphrases.Itisasmuchanessentialpart[of]theInformationastheaccusatory
paragraphitself.Thepreambleinfactcomplementstheaccusatoryparagraphwhichdraws
itsstrengthfromthepreamble.Itlaysdownthepredicateforthechargeingeneralterms;
while theaccusatory portiononlyprovidesthenecessarydetails.Thepreambleandthe
accusatoryparagraph,together,formacompletewholethatgivessenseandmeaningtothe
indictment.xxx.
CriminalLaw;AccessDevicesRegulationsActof1998(R.A.No.8484);Thelawdoes
notdefinethewordpossession;thus,thecourtusethetermasdefinedinArticle523ofthe
CivilCode,thatis,possessionistheholdingofathingortheenjoymentofaright.The
trial court convicted petitioner of possession of the credit card fraudulently applied for,
penalizedbyR.A.No.8484.Thelaw,however,doesnotdefinethewordpossession.Thus,
weuse the term asdefined inArticle523 of the Civil Code, that is, possession is the
holdingofathingortheenjoymentofaright.Theacquisitionofpossessioninvolvestwo
elements:thecorpusorthematerialholdingofthething,andtheanimuspossidendiorthe
intenttopossessit.Animuspossidendiisastateofmind,thepresenceordeterminationof
whichislargelydependentonattendanteventsineachcase.Itmaybeinferredfromthe
priororcontemporaneousactsoftheaccused,aswellasthesurroundingcircumstances.
Same;Same;Petitionerssignatureontheacknowledgementreceiptindicatesthatthere
was delivery and that possession was transferred to him as the recipient.Petitioner
materiallyheldtheenvelopecontainingthecreditcardwiththeintenttopossess.Contrary
topetitionerscontentionthatthecreditcardnevercameintohispossessionbecauseitwas
onlydeliveredtohim,theabovenarrationshows that he,infact, didanactivepartin
acquiringpossessionbypresentingtheidentificationcardspurportedlyshowinghisidentity
asHenryYu. Certainly,hehadtheintentiontopossess thesame.Hadhenotactively
participated,theenvelopewouldnothavebeengiventohim.Moreover,hissignatureon
the acknowledgment receipt indicates that there was delivery and that possession was
transferred to him as the recipient. Undoubtedly, petitioner knew that the envelope
containedtheMetrobankcreditcard,asclearlyindicatedintheacknowledgmentre
260
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
60
Soledad vs. People
ceipt, coupled with the fact that he applied for it using the identity of private
complainant.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionoftheCourtof
Appeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
LeonardC.Darantinao,Jr.forpetitioner.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforrespondent.
NACHURA,J.:
ThisisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,
seekingtoreverseandsetasidetheCourtofAppeals(CA)Decision 1datedJune18,
2008andResolution2datedAugust22,2008inCAG.R.CR.No.30603.Theassailed
Decision affirmed with modification the September 27, 2006 decision 3of the
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch202,LasPiasCity,findingpetitionerMarkC.
SoledadguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofViolationofSection9(e),RepublicAct
(R.A.)No.8484,ortheAccessDevicesRegulationsActof1998;whiletheassailed
Resolutiondeniedpetitionersmotionforreconsideration.
Thefactsofthecase,asnarratedbytheCA,areasfollows:
SometimeinJune2004,privatecomplainantHenryC.Yureceivedacallonhismobile
phone from a certain Tess or Juliet Villar (later identified as Rochelle Bagaporo), a
creditcardagent,

_______________

1Penned by AssociateJustice FernandaLampas Peralta, with Associate Justices EdgardoP. Cruzand

RicardoR.Rosario,concurring;Rollo,pp.5268.
2Id.,atp.71.
3PennedbyJudgeElizabethYuGuray;id.,atpp.3347.
261
VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 261
Soledad vs. People
who offered aCitifinancing loan assistance at alow interest rate. Enticed bythe offer,
privatecomplainantinvitedRochelleBagaporotogotohisofficeinQuezonCity.Whilein
hisoffice,RochelleBagaporoindorsedprivatecomplainanttoherimmediateboss,acertain
Arthur[lateridentifiedaspetitioner].Intheirtelephoneconversation,[petitioner]told
privatecomplainanttosubmitdocumentstoacertainCarlo(lateridentifiedasRonald
Gobenchiong).Privatecomplainantsubmittedvariousdocuments,suchashisGlobehandy
phone original platinum gold card, identification cards and statements of accounts.
Subsequently,privatecomplainantfolloweduphisloanstatusbuthefailedtogetintouch
witheither[petitioner]orRonaldGobenchiong.
During the first week of August 2004, private complainant received his Globe
handyphone statement of account wherein he was charged for two (2) mobile phone
numbers which were not his. Upon verification with the phone company, private
complainantlearnedthathehadadditionalfive(5)mobilenumbersinhisname,andthe
application for said cellular phone lines bore the picture of [petitioner] and his forged
signature.Privatecomplainantalsocheckedwithcreditcardcompaniesandlearnedthat
his Citibank Credit Card database information was altered and he had a credit card
applicationwithMetrobankCardCorporation(Metrobank).
Thereafter, private complainant and Metrobanks junior assistant manager Jefferson
Devilleres lodged a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which
conductedanentrapmentoperation.
During the entrapment operation, NBIs Special Investigator (SI) Salvador Arteche
[Arteche],togetherwithsomeotherNBIoperatives,arrivedinLasPiasaround5:00P.M.
[Arteche] posed as the delivery boy of the Metrobank credit card. Upon reaching the
address written on the delivery receipt, [Arteche] asked for Henry Yu. [Petitioner]
respondedthathewasHenryYuandpresentedto[Arteche]two(2)identificationcards
whichborethenameandsignatureofprivatecomplainant,whilethepictureshowedthe
faceof[petitioner].[Petitioner]signedthedeliveryreceipt.Thereupon,[Arteche]introduced
himself as an NBI operative and apprehended [petitioner]. [Arteche] recovered from
[petitioner]thetwo(2)identificationcardshepresentedto[Arteche]earlier. 4

_______________

4Id.,atpp.5354.
262
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Soledad vs. People
Petitioner was thus charged with Violation of Section 9(e), R.A. No. 8484 for
possessingacounterfeitaccessdeviceoraccessdevicefraudulentlyappliedfor.
TheaccusatoryportionoftheInformationreads:
Thatonoraboutthe13thdayofAugust2004,orpriorthereto,intheCityofLasPias,
andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,conspiring
andconfederatingwithcertainRochelleBagaporoa.k.a.JulietVillar/Tessandacertain
RonaldGobencionga.k.a.Carloandallofthemmutuallyhelpingandaidingeachother,did
thenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslydefraudcomplainantHENRYYUby
applying a credit card, an access device defined under R.A. 8484, from METROBANK
CARD CORPORATION, using the name of complainant Henry C. Yu and his personal
documentsfraudulentlyobtainedfromhim,andwhichcreditcardinthenameofHenryYu
was successfully issued and delivered to said accused using a fictitious identity and
addressesofHenryYu,tothedamageandprejudiceoftherealHenryYu.
CONTRARYTOLAW. 5

Uponarraignment,petitionerpleadednotguilty.Trialonthemeritsensued.
After the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, petitioner filed a
DemurrertoEvidence,allegingthathewasnotinphysicalandlegalpossessionof
thecreditcardpresentedandmarkedinevidencebytheprosecution.InanOrder
datedMay2,2006,theRTCdeniedtheDemurrertoEvidenceasitpreferredtorule
onthemeritsofthecase.6
OnSeptember27,2006,theRTCrenderedadecisionfindingpetitionerguiltyas
charged,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

_______________

5Id.,atp.33.
6Id.,atp.40.
263
VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 263
Soledad vs. People
Inthelightoftheforegoing,theCourtfindsaccusedMarkSoledadyCristobal
a.k.a.HenryYu,ArthurGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofviolationofSection9(e),
RepublicAct8484(AccessDeviceRegulationActof1998).Accordingly,pursuanttoSection
10ofRepublicAct 8484andapplyingtheIndeterminate Sentence Law, saidaccusedis
herebysentencedtosufferanimprisonmentpenaltyofsix(6)yearsofprisioncorreccional,
asminimum,to not more than ten (10) years ofprision mayor, as maximum. Further,
accusedisalsoorderedtopayafineofTenThousandPesos(P10,000.00)fortheoffense
committed.
SOORDERED. 7

On appeal, the CA affirmed petitioners conviction, but modified the penalty

imposedbytheRTCbydeletingthetermsprisioncorreccionalandprisionmayor.
Hence,thispetitionraisingthefollowingissues:
(1)WhetherornottheInformationisvalid;
(2)WhetherornottheInformationchargesanoffense,ortheoffensepetitioner
wasfoundguiltyof;
(3)Whether or not petitioner was sufficiently informed of the nature of the
accusationsagainsthim;
(4)Whether or not petitioner was legally in possession of the credit card
subjectofthecase.8
Thepetitioniswithoutmerit.
PetitionerwaschargedwithViolationofR.A.No.8484,specificallySection9(e),
whichreadsasfollows:
Section9.Prohibited Acts.The following acts shall constitute access device fraud
andareherebydeclaredtobeunlawful:
xxxx

_______________

7Id.,atp.47.
8Id.,atp.16.
264
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Soledad vs. People
(e)possessingoneormorecounterfeitaccessdevicesoraccessdevicesfraudulently
appliedfor.
Petitioner assails the validity of the Information and claims that he was not
informedoftheaccusationagainsthim.Heexplainsthatthoughhewascharged
with possession of an access device fraudulently applied for, the act of
possession, which is the gravamen of the offense, was not alleged in the
Information.
Wedonotagree.
Section6,Rule110oftheRulesofCriminalProcedurelaysdowntheguidelines
indeterminingthesufficiencyofacomplaintorinformation.Itstates:
SEC.6.Sufficiency of complaint or information.A complaint or information is
sufficientifitstatesthenameoftheaccused;thedesignationoftheoffensegivenbythe
statute;theactsoromissionscomplainedofasconstitutingtheoffense;thenameofthe
offendedparty;theapproximatedateofthecommissionoftheoffense;andtheplacewhere
theoffensewascommitted.
 IntheInformationfiledbeforetheRTC,itwasclearlystatedthattheaccusedis
petitionerMarkSoledadyCristobala.k.a.HenryYu/Arthur.Itwasalsospecified
inthepreambleoftheInformationthathewasbeingchargedwithViolationofR.A.
No.8484,Section9(e)forpossessingacounterfeitaccessdeviceoraccessdevice
fraudulentlyappliedfor.Intheaccusatoryportionthereof,theactsconstitutingthe
offensewereclearlynarratedinthat [petitioner], togetherwithotherpersons[,]
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defrauded private complainant by applying
[for]acreditcard,anaccessdevicedefinedunderR.A.[No.]8484,fromMetrobank
CardCorporation,usingthenameofcomplainantHenryC.Yuandhispersonal
documentsfraudulentlyobtainedfromhim,andwhichcreditcardinthenameof
HenryYuwassuccessfullyissued,anddeliveredtosaidaccusedusingafictitious
identityandaddressesofHenryYu,tothedamage
265
VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 265
Soledad vs. People
andprejudiceoftherealHenryYu.Moreover,itwasidentifiedthattheoffended
partywasprivatecomplainantHenryYuandthecrimewascommittedonorabout
the13thdayofAugust2004intheCityofLasPias.Undoubtedly,theInformation
containedallthenecessarydetailsoftheoffensecommitted,sufficienttoapprise
petitionerofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusationagainsthim.Asaptlyarguedby
respondentPeopleofthePhilippines,throughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,
although the word possession was not used in the accusatory portion of the
Information,thewordpossessingappearedinitspreambleorthefirstparagraph
thereof.Thus,contrarytopetitionerscontention,hewasapprisedthathewasbeing
charged with violation of R.A. No. 8484, specifically section 9(e) thereof, for
possessionofthecreditcardfraudulentlyappliedfor.
TheCourtsdiscussioninPeoplev.Villanueva9ontherelationshipbetweenthe
preamble and the accusatory portion of the Information is noteworthy, and we
quote:
Thepreambleoropeningparagraphshouldnotbetreatedasamereaggroupmentof
descriptivewordsandphrases.Itisasmuchanessentialpart[of]theInformationasthe
accusatoryparagraphitself.Thepreambleinfactcomplementstheaccusatoryparagraph
whichdrawsitsstrengthfromthepreamble.Itlaysdownthepredicateforthechargein
general terms; while the accusatory portion only provides the necessary details. The
preambleandtheaccusatoryparagraph,together,formacompletewholethatgivessense
andmeaningtotheindictment.xxx.
xxxx
Moreover, the opening paragraph bears the operative word accuses, which sets in
motion the constitutional process of notification, and formally makes the person being
charged with the commission of the offense an accused. Verily, without the opening
paragraph,theaccusatoryportionwouldbenothingbutauselessandmiserablyincomplete
narrationoffacts,andtheentireInformation
_______________

9459Phil.856;413SCRA431(2003).
266
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Soledad vs. People
would bea functionally sterilecharge sheet; thus making it impossiblefor the state to
proveitscase.
TheInformationsheetmustbeconsidered,notbysectionsorparts,butasonewhole
document serving one purpose,i.e.,to inform the accused why the full panoply of state
authorityisbeingmarshaledagainsthim.Ourtaskisnottodeterminewhetherallegations
inanindictmentcouldhavebeenmoreartfullyandexactlywritten,butsolelytoensure
thattheconstitutionalrequirementofnoticehasbeenfulfilledxxx. 10

Besides,evenifthewordpossessionwasnotrepeatedintheaccusatoryportion
oftheInformation,theactsconstitutingitwereclearlydescribedinthestatement
[that the] credit card in the name of Henry Yu was successfully issued, and
deliveredtosaidaccusedusingafictitiousidentityandaddressesofHenryYu,to
thedamageandprejudiceoftherealHenryYu.Withoutadoubt,petitionerwas
giventhenecessarydataastowhyhewasbeingprosecuted.
Nowonthesufficiencyofevidenceleadingtohisconviction.
Petitioner avers that he was never in possession of the subject credit card
becausehewasarrestedimmediatelyaftersigningtheacknowledgementreceipt.
Thus,hedidnotyetknowthecontentsoftheenvelopedeliveredandhadnocontrol
overthesubjectcreditcard.11
Again,wefindnovalueinpetitionersargument.
Thetrialcourtconvictedpetitionerofpossessionofthecreditcardfraudulently
appliedfor,penalizedbyR.A.No.8484.Thelaw,however,doesnotdefinetheword
possession.Thus,weusethetermasdefinedinArticle523oftheCivilCode,that
is,possessionistheholdingofathingortheenjoymentofaright.Theacquisition
ofpossessioninvolvestwoelements:thecorpusorthematerialholdingofthething,

_______________

10Id.,atpp.870871;p.441.
11Rollo,pp.1726.
267
VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 267
Soledad vs. People
andtheanimuspossidendiortheintenttopossessit.12Animuspossidendiisastate
ofmind,thepresenceordeterminationofwhichislargelydependentonattendant
eventsineachcase.Itmaybeinferredfromthepriororcontemporaneousactsof
theaccused,aswellasthesurroundingcircumstances.13
 In this case, prior to the commission of the crime, petitioner fraudulently
obtainedfromprivatecomplainantvariousdocumentsshowingthelattersidentity.
He, thereafter, obtained cellular phones using private complainants identity.
Undaunted,hefraudulentlyappliedforacreditcardunderthenameandpersonal
circumstancesofprivatecomplainant.Uponthedeliveryofthecreditcardapplied
for, the messenger (an NBI agent) required two valid identification cards.
Petitioner thus showed two identification cards with his picture on them, but
bearingthenameandforgedsignatureofprivatecomplainant.Asevidenceofthe
receipt of the envelope delivered, petitioner signed the acknowledgment receipt
shownbythemessenger,indicatingthereinthatthecontentoftheenvelopewasthe
Metrobankcreditcard.
Petitionermateriallyheldtheenvelopecontainingthecreditcardwiththeintent
topossess.Contrarytopetitionerscontentionthatthecreditcardnevercameinto
hispossessionbecauseitwasonlydeliveredtohim,theabovenarrationshowsthat
he, in fact, did an active part in acquiring possession by presenting the
identificationcards purportedlyshowing his identityasHenry 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
acknowledgmentreceiptindicatesthattherewasdeliveryandthatpossessionwas
transferredtohimastherecipient.Undoubtedly,petitionerknewthattheenvelope

_______________

12ArturoM.Tolentino,COMMENTARIES ANDJURISPRUDENCE ON THECIVILCODE OF THEPHILIPPINES ,

Vol.Two,p.229.
13Peoplev.Esparas,354Phil.342,354355;292SCRA332,343(1998);Peoplev.Lian,325Phil881,
889;255SCRA532,536(1996).
268
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Soledad vs. People
containedtheMetrobankcreditcard,asclearlyindicatedintheacknowledgment
receipt,coupledwiththefactthatheappliedforitusingtheidentityofprivate
complainant.
Lastly,wefindnoreasontoalterthepenaltyimposedbytheRTCasmodifiedby
theCA.Section10ofR.A.No.8484prescribesthepenaltyofimprisonmentfornot
lessthansix(6)yearsandnotmorethanten(10)years,andafineofP10,000.00or
twicethevalueoftheaccessdeviceobtained,whicheverisgreater.Thus,theCA
aptlyaffirmedtheimpositionoftheindeterminatepenaltyofsixyearstonotmore
thantenyearsimprisonment,andafineofP10,000.00.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisDENIEDforlackofmerit.
TheCourtofAppealsDecisiondatedJune18,2008andResolutiondatedAugust22,
2008inCAG.R.CR.No.30603areAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
 Carpio(Chairperson),Velasco,Jr.**AbadandMendoza,JJ.,concur.
Petitiondenied,judgmentandresolutionaffirmed.
Note.In the grammatical sense, to possess means to have, to actually and
physically occupy a thing, with or without right; Two things are paramount in
possessiontheremustbeoccupancy,apprehensionortaking,and,theremustbe
intenttopossess(animuspossidendi).(Yuvs.Pacleb,512SCRA402[2007])
o0o

_______________

**AdditionalmemberinlieuofAssociateJusticeTeresitaJ.LeonardoDeCastroperSpecialOrder
No.949datedFebruary11,2011.