4) People v Puig & Porras

HELD:

People v Puig & Porras G.R. Nos. 173654-765  August 28, 2008





FACTS: 





Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Office filed before the RTC 112 cases of

Qualified Theft against respondents Puig & Porras who were cashier and bookkeeper of private complainant Rural Bank. As per per the information filed before the RTC, RTC, above above named respondents, with grave abuse of confidence and with intent to gain, as the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the said bank, stole P15,000. RTC did did not find the existence of probable cause that that is necessary necessary to issue a warrant of arrest because “taking without the consent of owners” was owners” was missing on o the ground that it is the depositors-clents, not the bank, which filed the complaint o information are bereft of the phrase “dependence, guardianship or vigilance between the respondents and the offended party that would have created a high degree of confidence between them which the respondents could have abused.” o Violative of Section Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 1987 Constitution Constitution













PETITIONER The depositors who place their money with the bank are considered as creditors of the bank The bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients, making the money taken be respondents as belonging to the bank





RESPONDENT They challenged the petition on the ground that a Petition for Review on Certiorari via Rule 45 is the wrong mode of appeal DOJ is the principal party to file a Petition as the incident was indorsed by DOJ





ISSUE:  Are the respondents respondents liable for qualified qualified theft?  – YES

RTC Judge Judge based based his conclusion that there there was no probable probable cause cause simple on the insufficiency of the allegations in the Informations. Based on Section 9, 9, Rule 110 of RoC, the Information Information need not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions complained of. What is important is whether it enables a person person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly. To fall under the the crime of Qualified Qualified Theft, the following following elements elements must concur: Taking of personal property o That the said property belongs to another ; o o That the said taking be done with intent to gain; gain; That it be done without the owner’s consent ; o That it be accomplished accomplished without the use of violence violence or o intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; o That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. confidence . It is beyond doubt doubt that tellers, Cashiers, Cashiers, Bookkeepers and other other employees of a Bank who come into possession of the monies deposited enjoy the confidence reposed in them by their employer. Banks where where monies monies are deposited deposited are considered considered the owners owners thereof. The relationship relationship between banks banks and depositors has been held to be that of creditor and debtor as stated in Articles 1953 and 1980 of the New Civil Code. People v Locson & People v Sison, Sison, as to the nature of possession by the Bank: The money in this this case was in the possession possession of the o defendant as receiving teller of the bank, and the possession of the defendant was the possession of the Bank. The Court Court held therein that that wen the defendant, defendant, with with grave o abuse of confidence, removed the money and appropriated it to his own use without the consent of the Bank, there was taking as contemplated in the crime of Qualified Theft. The Bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients; and the employees of the Bank, who are entrusted with the possession of money of the Bank due to the confidence reposed in them, occupy positions of confidence.