ACCESS DEVICES

REGULATION CODE
Republic Act No. 8484
Republic Act No. 8484 was signed into law on February 11, 1998.
Its amendatory law, Republic Act No. 11449, took effect on October 16, 2019.

Rep. Act No. 11449 provides for additional prohibitions and increased the
penalties for violations of RA No. 8484.
 DECLARATION OF POLICY

The State recognizes the recent advances in technology and the

widespread use of access devices in commercial transactions. Toward this
end, the State shall protect the rights and define the liabilities of parties in
such commercial transactions by regulating the issuance and use of
access devices.
(Sec. 2, ADRA)
 POLICY

The State likewise acknowledges that the advances in information technology

on access devices have been exploited by criminals and criminal syndicates in
perpetrating fraudulent activities that ultimately undermine the trust of the
public in the banking industry. Due to this deleterious effect on the economy,
the State declares that the commission of a crime using access devices is a
form of economic sabotage and a heinous crime and shall be punishable to
the maximum level allowed by law.
(Sec. 2, ADRA; RA11449)
Republic Act No. 8484 (RA 8484), or the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998,
approved on February 11, 1998, is the controlling legislation that regulates the
issuance and use of access devices, including credit cards. The more salient portions
of this law include the imposition of the obligation on a credit card company to
disclose certain important financial information to credit card applicants, as well as a
definition of the acts that constitute access device fraud.

(Pantaleon v. American Express International, Inc.,

G.R. No. 174269 (Resolution), August 25, 2010)
This was true until the enactment of Republic Act No. 10870, which lapsed
into law on July 17, 2016, which governs all credit card issuers, acquirers
and all credit card transactions.
Republic Act No. 8484, however, still governs the offense of Access
Device Fraud as well as Economic Sabotage.
 ACCESS DEVICE

“Access device” means any card, plate, code, account number,

electronic serial number, personal identification number, or other
telecommunications service, equipment, or instrumental identifier, or
other means of account access that can be used to obtain money,
good[s], services, or any other thing of value or to initiate a transfer of
funds (other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument);
(Sec. 3[a], ADRA)
 PAYMENT CARD

“Payment Card” refers to cards that can be used by cardholders

and accepted by terminals to withdraw . . . cash and/or make payment
for purchase of goods or services, fund transfer, and other financial
transactions. Typically, payment cards are electronically linked
deposits, prepaid, or loan credit accounts;
(Sec. 3[b], ADRA)
“Payment card” also refers to any card of whatever material or form
including any kind of debit card, but not a credit card, issued by a bank
or business entity that enables a customer to access an automated
teller machine in order to perform transactions such as deposits, cash
withdrawals and obtaining account information. A payment card shall
be considered as an access device for . . . purposes of this Act;
(Sec. 3[o], ADRA)
 COUNTERFEIT ACCESS DEVICE

“Counterfeit Access Device” means any access device that is

counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or forged, or an identifiable component
of an access device or counterfeit access device or any fraudulent copy
or reproduction of a valid access device;

(Sec. 3[c], ADRA)

“Unauthorized access device” means any access device that is stolen,
lost, expired, revoked, canceled, suspended, or obtained with intent to
defraud;
(Sec. 3[c], ADRA)
ACCESS DEVICE FRAUDULENTLY APPLIED FOR

“Access Device Fraudulently Applied for” means any access

device that was applied for or issued on account of the use of falsified
document, false information, fictitious identities and addresses, or any
form of false pretense or misrepresentation;
(Sec. 3[d], ADRA)
 CREDIT CARD

“Credit Card” means any card, plate, coupon book, or other credit
device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, goods,
property, labor or services or any thing of value on credit;
(Sec. 3[f], ADRA)

Credit card refers to any card or other credit device intended for the
purpose of obtaining money, property, or services on credit;
(Sec. 4[g], RA10870)
 3 CONTRACTS

[E]every credit card transaction involves three contracts, namely: (a) the sales
contract between the credit card holder and the merchant or the business
establishment which accepted the credit card; (b) the loan agreement between the
credit card issuer and the credit card holder; and lastly, (c) the promise to
pay between the credit card issuer and the merchant or business establishment.

(Pantaleon v. American Express International, Inc.,

G.R. No. 174269 (Resolution), August 25, 2010
From the loan agreement perspective, the contractual relationship begins to exist only upon
the meeting of the offer and acceptance of the parties involved. In more concrete terms,
when cardholders use their credit cards to pay for their purchases, they merely offer to enter
into loan agreements with the credit card company. Only after the latter approves the
purchase requests that the parties enter into binding loan contracts, in keeping with Article
1319 of the Civil Code, which provides:

Article 1319. Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance
upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be
certain and the acceptance absolute. A qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer.
(Pantaleon v. American Express International, Inc., G.R. No. 174269 (Resolution), [August 25,
2010], 643 PHIL 488-519)
[T]he use of a credit card to pay for a purchase is only an offer to the
credit card company to enter a loan agreement with the credit card
holder. Before the credit card issuer accepts this offer, no obligation
relating to the loan agreement exists between them.
(Pantaleon v. American Express International, Inc.,
G.R. No. 174269 (Resolution), August 25, 2010)
 TRAFFICKING

“Trafficking” means transferring, or otherwise disposing of,

to another, or obtaining control of, with intent to transfer or
dispose of.
(Sec. 3[l], ADRA)
 HACKING

“Hacking” refers to the unauthorized access into or interference in a

computer system/server or information and communications system; or any
access in order to corrupt, alter, steal, or destroy using a computer or other
similar information and communication devices, without the knowledge and
consent of the owner of the computer or information and communications
system, including the introduction of computer viruses and the like, resulting
in the corruption, destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic data
messages or electronic documents;
(Sec. 3[n], ADRA)
 SKIMMING

Card Skimming — refers to a type of fraud which involves

illegal copying of information from the magnetic stripe of
payment card to gain access to customer accounts;
(Sec. 3[p], ADRA)
Since a credit card is "any card, plate, coupon book, or other credit
device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, property,
labor or services or anything of value on credit," it is considered an
access device.
(Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 210266, June 7, 2017)
PROHIBITED ACTS
The following acts shall constitute access device fraud and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:
a. producing, using, trafficking in one or more counterfeit access devices;
b. trafficking in one or more unauthorized access devices or access devices
fraudulently applied for;
c. using, with intent to defraud, an unauthorized access device;
d. using an access device fraudulently applied for;
e. possessing one or more counterfeit access devices or access devices fraudulently
applied for;
(f) producing, trafficking in, having control or custody of, or possessing
device-making or altering equipment without being in the business or
employment, which lawfully deals with the manufacture, issuance, or
distribution of such equipment;
(g) inducing, enticing, permitting or in any manner allowing another, for
consideration or otherwise to produce, use, traffic in counterfeit access
devices, unauthorized access devices or access devices fraudulently
applied for;
(h) multiple imprinting on more than one transaction record, sales slip
or similar document, thereby making it appear that the device holder
has entered into a transaction other than those which said device
holder had lawfully contracted for, or submitting, without being an
affiliated merchant, an order to collect from the issuer of the access
device, such extra sales slip through an affiliated merchant who
connives therewith, or, under false pretenses of being an affiliated
merchant, present for collection such sales slips, and similar
documents;
(i) disclosing any information imprinted on the access device, such as,
but not limited to, the account number or name or address of the
device holder, without the latter's authority or permission;
(j) obtaining money or anything of value through the use of an access
device, with intent to defraud or with intent to gain and fleeing
thereafter;

(k) having in one's possession, without authority from the owner of the
access device or the access device company, an access device, or any
material, such as slips, carbon paper, or any other medium, on which
the access device is written, printed, embossed, or otherwise indicated;
(l) writing or causing to be written on sales slips, approval numbers
from the issuer of the access device of the fact of approval, where in
fact no such approval was given, or where, if given, what is written is
deliberately different from the approval actually given;
(m) making any alteration, without the access device holder's authority,
of any amount or other information written on the sales slip;
(n) effecting transaction, with one or more access devices issued to
another person or persons, to receive payment or any other thing of
value;
(o) without the authorization of the issuer of the access device,
soliciting a person for the purpose of —
1) offering an access device; or
2) selling information regarding or an application to obtain
an access device;
(p) without the authorization of the credit card system member or its
agent, causing or arranging for another person to present to the
member or its agent, for payment, one or more evidence or records of
transactions made by credit card.
"(q) skimming, copying or counterfeiting any credit card, payment card
or debit card, and obtaining any information therein with the intent of
accessing the account and operating the same whether or not cash is
withdrawn or monetary injury is caused by a perpetrator against the
account holder or the depositary bank;
"(r) production or possession of any software component such as
programs, application, or malware, or any hardware component such
as skimming device or any electronic gadget or equipment that is used
to perpetrate any of the foregoing acts;
"(s) accessing, with or without authority, any application, online
banking account, credit card account, ATM account, debit card account,
in a fraudulent manner, regardless of whether or not it will result in
monetary loss to the account holder; and
"(t) hacking refers to the unauthorized access into or interference in a
computer system/server, or information and communication system,
or any access in order to corrupt, alter, steal, or destroy using a
computer or other similar information and communication devices
without the knowledge and consent of the owner of the computer or
information and communication system, including the introduction of
computer viruses and the like resulting in the corruption, destruction,
alteration, theft, or loss of electronic data messages or electronic
documents."
 ECONOMIC SABOTAGE

Economic sabotage is deemed committed when any of the prohibited

acts described in Section 9 hereof is committed under the following
circumstances:
1. the prohibited act involves the hacking of a bank's system;
2. the act of skimming affected fifty (50) or more payment cards; or
3. the prohibited act affected fifty (50) or more online banking
accounts, credit cards, payment cards, and debit cards.“
(Sec. 10[g], ADRA)
 ECONOMIC SABOTAGE

Life imprisonment and a fine of not less than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) if
the offense constitutes economic sabotage.
 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ADF

If two (2) or more persons conspire to commit any of the offenses listed
in Section 9 and one or more of such persons does any act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be
punished as in the case of the doing of the act, the accomplishment of
which is the object of such conspiracy.
 FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED ADF

Any person who performs all the acts of execution which would produce any of the
unlawful acts enumerated in Section 9 of this Act, but which nevertheless does not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of said person, shall be
punished with two-thirds (2/3) of the fine and imprisonment provided for the
consummated offenses listed in said section. Any person who commences the
commission of any of the unlawful acts enumerated in Section 9 of this Act directly by
overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which would produce the
said acts by reason of some cause or accident other than said person's own
spontaneous desistance, shall be punished with one-half (1/2) of the fine and
imprisonment provided for the consummated offenses listed in the said section.
 ACCESSORY TO ADF
Any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes of, shall buy and sell, or in any
manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows or should
be known to him, to have been acquired through the use of counterfeit access device
or an unauthorized access device or an access device known to him to have been
fraudulently applied for, shall be considered as an accessory to an access device fraud
and shall be punished with one-half (1/2) of the fine and imprisonment provided for
the applicable consummated offenses listed in Section 9 of this Act. Said person shall
be prosecuted under this Act or under the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (Presidential
Decree No. 1612) whichever imposes the longer prison term as penalty for the
consummated offense.
 WHAT TO DO IN CASE OF LOSS OF ACCESS
DEVICE
• In case of loss of an access device, the holder thereof must notify the
issuer of the access device of the details and circumstances of such
loss upon knowledge of the loss. Full compliance with such procedure
would absolve the access device holder of any financial liability from
fraudulent use of the access device from the time the loss or theft is
reported to the issuer. (Sec. 15, ADR)
• In case a credit card is lost or stolen, any transaction made prior to
reporting to the credit card issuer shall be for the account of the
cardholder. (Sec. 15, RA 10870)
 LIABILITY UNDER THE RPC AND OTHER LAWS

Prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for
violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code or any other law.
(Sec. 17, ADRA)
 PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO
DEFRAUD
The mere possession, control or custody of :
a. an access device, without permission of the owner or without any lawful
authority;
b. a counterfeit access device;
c. access device fraudulently applied for;
d. any device-making or altering equipment by any person whose business
or employment does not lawfully deal with the manufacture, issuance, or
distribution of access device;
e. an access device or medium on which an access device is written, not in
the ordinary course of the possessor's trade or business; or
f. a genuine access device, not in the name of the possessor, or not in the
ordinary course of the possessor's trade or business . . .
. . . shall be prima facie evidence that such device or equipment is intended to be used
to defraud.
(Sec. 14, ADRC)
 TORRES V. PEOPLE
(G.R. NO. 255262, SEPTEMBER 14, 2021)

On May 6, 2015, Aldrin Torres y David (petitioner) was charged with violation of Section 9 (f) of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8484 (Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998) in an Information, which reads:

On the 4th of May 2015, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, accused[,] not being in
the business or employment that deals with the manufacture, issuance or distribution of
access device-making or altering equipment, with intent to defraud, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without authority of law, possess[,] have in his custody
and control one piece of an unauthorized pin pad cover with improvised camera and
unauthorized card reader slot, a skimming device containing a card reader with memory
storage capability, with intent to defraud, in violation of the aforesaid law and to the
damage and prejudice of complainant Bank of the Philippine Islands.
[T]he card reader slot and personal identification number (PIN) pad cover with an attached
camera which were in the possession of petitioner and subsequently seized from him, were
intended to be used to retain data contained in access devices, i.e., the automated teller
machine (ATM) cards of unwary bank customers, and to record and secure the ATM PINs
without authority. These illegally obtained data and information would make possible the
creation of counterfeit access devices, such as fake ATM cards, which R.A. No. 8484 seeks to
prevent.
(Torres y David v. People, G.R. No. 255262 (Notice), [September 14, 2021])
Intent is immaterial in crimes involving special laws. Criminal law has long divided crimes into
acts which are wrong in themselves called "acts mala in se," and acts which would not be wrong
but for the fact that positive law forbids them, called "acts mala prohibita." This distinction
determines whether proof of intent to commit a wrongful act is necessary. In acts mala in se,
intent governs, while in acts mala prohibita, the only question is, has the law been violated?
When an act is illegal per se, the intent of the offender is immaterial.
(Torres y David v. People, G.R. No. 255262 (Notice), [September 14, 2021])
It is incumbent upon petitioner to overthrow the presumption of intent to defraud by
sufficient and convincing evidence . . . . Petitioner could only offer a mere denial.
Between the categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses, on one hand, and
the bare denial of the petitioner, on the other, the former must perforce prevail. An
affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony, especially when given
by a credible witness who was not shown to have any ill motive to testify against the
appellant.
(Torres y David v. People, G.R. No. 255262 (Notice), [September 14, 2021])
"A cardholder who abandons or surreptitiously leaves the place of employment,
business or residence stated in his application for credit card, without informing the
credit card company of the place where he could actually be found, if at the time of
such abandonment or surreptitious leaving, the outstanding and unpaid balance is
past due for at least ninety (90) days and is more than Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00), shall be prima facie presumed to have used his credit card with intent
to defraud.“
(Sec. 14, ADRC)
 CRUZ V. PEOPLE
(G.R. NO. 210266, JUNE 7, 2017)

Cruz purchased two (2) bottles of Calving Klein perfumes and a pair of Ferragamo Shoes
using counterfeit Citibank Visa Cards at the Duty Free Philippines Festival Mall. When
apprehended by Mall guards, he tried to escape.
Cruz was charged with using as well as possessing counterfeit access device.
During pre-trial the prosecution marked a certification stating that the access device
used was counterfeit. The access device itself was not marked. The trial court, however,
allowed the presentation of the counterfeit access device. The SC held that the trial
court did not violate the Rules on Pre-Trial.

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

The possession and use of a counterfeit credit card is considered access device fraud
and is punishable by law. To successfully sustain a conviction for possession and use
of a counterfeit access device, the prosecution must present not only the access
device but also any evidence that proves that the access device is counterfeit.
(Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 210266, June 7, 2017)
 CORPUS DELICTI

Under Section 9 (a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484, the possession and use of an
access device is not illegal. Rather, what is prohibited is the possession and use of
a counterfeit access device. Therefore, the corpus delicti of the crime is not merely the
access device, but also any evidence that proves that it is counterfeit.
(Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 210266, June 7, 2017)
 PEOPLE V. CALDA
(G.R. No. 227876, December 1, 2021)

Brastel Co., Ltd. (Brastel) is a corporation in Japan engaged in the business of

telecommunications. Accused was hired by JUH Corporation, Brastel's customer service support
in Manila, as a customer service representative. His primary duty was to respond to customers'
or clients' inquiries and complaints regarding Brastel Phonecard service.
As such accused had access to customers' confidential data, such as card number, access code,
personal identification number and airtime load credit balance. An investigation was conducted
after several customers of Brastel complained about depletion of their airtime load. It was
revealed that accused effected the transfer of airtime load credits of the customers' accounts to
various Philippine mobile phones totaling to ¥3,506,080 or its peso equivalent of P1,753,040,
without prior request from clients. Accused was able to do this by accessing various client
accounts thru their access code, personal identification number, and card number on file with
JUH Corporation.
(People v. Calda, G.R. No. 227876 (Notice), December 1, 2021)
Accused is liable for access device fraud under Section 9[c] of Republic Act No. 8484:

(c) using, with intent to defraud, an unauthorized access device.

There is no dispute that accused-appellant's act of accessing the customers' accounts to be

able to make the complained transfers was unauthorized.

(People v. Calda, G.R. No. 227876 (Notice), [December 1, 2021])

Congress has not amended the Revised Penal Code to include theft of services or theft of business as
felonies. Instead, it approved a law, Republic Act No. 8484, otherwise known as
the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998, on February 11, 1998. Under the law, an access device
means any card, plate, code, account number, electronic serial number, personal identification
number and other telecommunication services, equipment or instrumentalities-identifier or other
means of account access that can be used to obtain money, goods, services or any other thing of
value or to initiate a transfer of funds other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument.
Among the prohibited acts enumerated in Section 9 of the law are the acts of obtaining money or
anything of value through the use of an access device, with intent to defraud or intent to gain and
fleeing thereafter; and of effecting transactions with one or more access devices issued to another
person or persons to receive payment or any other thing of value. Under Section 11 of the law,
conspiracy to commit access devices fraud is a crime.
(Laurel v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, February 27, 2006.
 SOLEDAD V. PEOPLE
(G.R. NO. 184274, FEBRUARY 23, 2011)

Accused was charged with Violation of Section 9 (e), R.A. No. 8484 for "possessing a
counterfeit access device or access device fraudulently applied for.“
Accused for a credit card from Metrobank using the name of complainant Henry C. Yu
and his personal documents fraudulently obtained from him. The credit card in the
name of Henry Yu was successfully issued and delivered to said accused using a
fictitious identity and addresses of Henry Yu, to the damage and prejudice of the real
Henry Yu.
(Soledad y Cristobal v. People, G.R. No. 184274, February 23, 2011)
LIST OF CASES
 CASES

• Torres y David v. People, G.R. No. 255262, September 14, 2021

• Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 210266, June 7, 2017
• People v. Calda, G.R. No. 227876, December 1, 2021
• Laurel v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, February 27, 2006
• Laurel v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076 (Resolution), January 13, 2009
• Pantaleon v. American Express International, Inc., G.R. No. 174269 (Resolution), August 25, 2010
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Express International, Inc., G.R. No. 152609, June
29, 2005
• Soledad y Cristobal v. People, G.R. No. 184274, February 23, 2011