In the case of Gemma Ong aka Maria Teresa Gemma Catacutan v People of the Philippines on November 23 2011, the Supreme Court held that "the defence of denial is unavailing when placed astride the undisputed fact that there was positive identification of the accused". This case began 13 years ago, upon a complaint of infringement of the Marlboro trade mark by the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB). Armed with a search warrant, on September 25 1998 the EIIB went to the premises of one Jackson Ong where the accused, supposedly the spouse or common law wife of Jackson Ong, was found. The accused initially refused the EIIB entry but they were eventually able to search the premises and found several boxes containing boxes of fake Marlboro cigarettes.
The accused signed her name as "Gemma Ong" as the owner or representative and another employee identifying herself as Girlie Cantillo signed as witness. An action for infringement was filed. During the trial, the accused as sole witness for the defence, denied that she is the Gemma Ong accused in the case. She testified that when she was arrested, the police did not ask for her name, and that when she posted bail and signed her certificate of arraignment, she used her real name Maria Teresa Gemma Catacutan as shown in her Identification Card from the Professional Regulation Commission, claiming that she is a dentist by profession. She testified that she failed to bring up a defence of mistaken identity because she did not know the proper time to raise it. The prosecution witnesses, however, positively identified her as the person who entertained them and received and signed the search warrants and inventory sheets. On September 30 2003, the trial court convicted Gemma of infringement imposing the penalty of two years imprisonment, a fine of P50,000 ($1,150) and actual damages to the private complainant of $4,069.12 or its peso equivalent. The trial court noted that the accused's pretensions of ignorance as to the proper stage to explain a mistake in her identity can hardly be given credit since being a dentist by profession. The court found it utterly incredible that the accused remained meek throughout her arrest and the posting of her bail bond. On appeal, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court sustained the decision of the trial court.
 |
| Editha R Hechanova
|
Hechanova Bugay & Vilchez
GF Chemphil Building Antonio Arnaiz Ave
Makati City 1223
Philippines
Tel: +63 2 888 4293
Fax: +63 2 888 4290
editharh@info.com.ph