Practice question
With intent to access a customer's account, an offender illegally copies the information on the customer's payment card. The bank blocks use before any withdrawal. Assuming all Section 9(q) facts are proved, is the lack of withdrawal by itself a defense?
- Yes, every blocked withdrawal requires acquittal.
- No; the prohibited skimming conduct may already be complete despite the blocked withdrawal.
- Yes, because copying card information is always lawful.
- Yes, if the bank reverses any attempted transaction.
- No, because all copying for any purpose is criminal.
Legal references
- RA 8484, Sections 3, 9–14 and 17, retained provisions read with RA 11449 amendments: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1998/ra_8484_1998.html
- RA 11449, Sections 2–5 amending access-device definitions, prohibited acts, penalties and presumption threshold: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2019/ra_11449_2019.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.