FACTS:

In June 2004, Henry C. Yu received a call from a credit card agent offering a loan assistance at a low interest rate. The agent was invited to Yu's office where he introduced the petitioner and instructed Yu to submit documents to another person. Yu complied but was unable to follow up with either the petitioner or the other person. In August 2004, Yu discovered unauthorized charges on his mobile phone statement and found out that his personal information had been used to apply for additional mobile phone lines and a credit card. Yu filed a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), which conducted an entrapment operation leading to the apprehension of the petitioner. The petitioner was found to be in possession of Yu's identification cards. The petitioner was charged with Violation of Section 9(e), R.A. No. 8484. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the validity of the Information, alleging insufficient allegations, and disputing his possession of the credit card.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Information is valid;

2. Whether or not the Information charges an offense, or the offense petitioner was found guilty of;

3. Whether or not petitioner was sufficiently informed of the nature of the accusations against him;

4. Whether or not petitioner was legally in "possession" of the credit card subject of the case.

RULING:

1. The Petition is without merit.

PRINCIPLES:

• Violation of R.A. No. 8484, Section 9(e), constitutes access device fraud and is unlawful.

• The validity of the information in a criminal case depends on whether the accused is sufficiently informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

• Possessing one or more counterfeit access devices or access devices fraudulently applied for is a prohibited act under R.A. No. 8484.

• "Possession" is the gravamen of the offense under R.A. No. 8484.