Republic of the Philippines the Cashier and Bookkeeper, respectively, of private

SUPREME COURT complainant Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc. The cases were
Manila docketed as Criminal Cases No. 05-3054 to 05-3165.

THIRD DIVISION The allegations in the Informations1 filed before the RTC
were uniform and pro-forma, except for the amounts, date
G.R. Nos. 173654-765 August 28, 2008 and time of commission, to wit:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, INFORMATION

vs.
TERESITA PUIG and ROMEO PORRAS, respondents. That on or about the 1st day of August, 2002, in the
Municipality of Pototan, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and
DECISION within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
above-named [respondents], conspiring, confederating,
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: and helping one another, with grave abuse of
confidence, being the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the
This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Revised
Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo, without the
Rules of Court with petitioner People of the Philippines,
knowledge and/or consent of the management of the Bank
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, praying
and with intent of gain, did then and there willfully,
for the reversal of the Orders dated 30 January 2006 and 9
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the
June 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the
sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00),
6th Judicial Region, Branch 68, Dumangas, Iloilo,
Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the
dismissing the 112 cases of Qualified Theft filed against
said bank in the aforesaid amount.
respondents Teresita Puig and Romeo Porras, and
denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, in After perusing the Informations in these cases, the trial
Criminal Cases No. 05-3054 to 05-3165. court did not find the existence of probable cause that
would have necessitated the issuance of a warrant of
The following are the factual antecedents:
arrest based on the following grounds:
On 7 November 2005, the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor’s
(1) the element of ‘taking without the consent of the
Office filed before Branch 68 of the RTC in Dumangas,
owners’ was missing on the ground that it is the
Iloilo, 112 cases of Qualified Theft against respondents
depositors-clients, and not the Bank, which filed the
Teresita Puig (Puig) and Romeo Porras (Porras) who were
complaint in these cases, who are the owners of the
money allegedly taken by respondents and hence, are the WHETHER OR NOT THE 112 INFORMATIONS FOR
real parties-in-interest; and QUALIFIED THEFT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE
ELEMENT OF TAKING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
(2) the Informations are bereft of the phrase alleging THE OWNER, AND THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
"dependence, guardianship or vigilance between the OF GRAVE ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE.
respondents and the offended party that would have
created a high degree of confidence between them Petitioner prays that judgment be rendered annulling and
which the respondents could have abused." setting aside the Orders dated 30 January 2006 and 9
June 2006 issued by the trial court, and that it be directed
It added that allowing the 112 cases for Qualified Theft to proceed with Criminal Cases No. 05-3054 to 05-3165.
filed against the respondents to push through would be
violative of the right of the respondents under Section Petitioner explains that under Article 1980 of the New Civil
14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution which states that Code, "fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in
in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the provisions concerning simple loans." Corollary thereto,
accusation against him. Following Section 6, Rule 112 of Article 1953 of the same Code provides that "a person who
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the RTC receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing
dismissed the cases on 30 January 2006 and refused to acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the
issue a warrant of arrest against Puig and Porras. creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality."
Thus, it posits that the depositors who place their money
A Motion for Reconsideration2 was filed on 17 April 2006, with the bank are considered creditors of the bank. The
by the petitioner. bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its
clients, making the money taken by respondents as
On 9 June 2006, an Order3 denying petitioner’s Motion for belonging to the bank.
Reconsideration was issued by the RTC, finding as
follows: Petitioner also insists that the Informations sufficiently
allege all the elements of the crime of qualified theft, citing
Accordingly, the prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration that a perusal of the Informations will show that they
should be, as it hereby, DENIED. The Order dated January specifically allege that the respondents were the Cashier
30, 2006 STANDS in all respects. and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc.,
respectively, and that they took various amounts of money
Petitioner went directly to this Court via Petition for Review
with grave abuse of confidence, and without the
on Certiorari under Rule 45, raising the sole legal issue of:
knowledge and consent of the bank, to the damage and of grave abuse of confidence and the element of taking
prejudice of the bank. without the consent of the owner, since the owner of the
money is not the Bank, but the depositors therein. He also
Parenthetically, respondents raise procedural issues. They cites People v. Koc Song,4 in which this Court held:
challenge the petition on the ground that a Petition for
Review on Certiorari via Rule 45 is the wrong mode of There must be allegation in the information and proof of a
appeal because a finding of probable cause for the relation, by reason of dependence, guardianship or
issuance of a warrant of arrest presupposes evaluation of vigilance, between the respondents and the offended party
facts and circumstances, which is not proper under said that has created a high degree of confidence between
Rule. them, which the respondents abused.

Respondents further claim that the Department of Justice At this point, it needs stressing that the RTC Judge based
(DOJ), through the Secretary of Justice, is the principal his conclusion that there was no probable cause simply on
party to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari, considering the insufficiency of the allegations in the Informations
that the incident was indorsed by the DOJ. concerning the facts constitutive of the elements of the
offense charged. This, therefore, makes the issue of
We find merit in the petition. sufficiency of the allegations in the Informations the focal
point of discussion.
The dismissal by the RTC of the criminal cases was
allegedly due to insufficiency of the Informations and, Qualified Theft, as defined and punished under Article 310
therefore, because of this defect, there is no basis for the of the Revised Penal Code, is committed as follows, viz:
existence of probable cause which will justify the issuance
of the warrant of arrest. Petitioner assails the dismissal ART. 310. Qualified Theft. – The crime of theft shall be
contending that the Informations for Qualified Theft punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than
sufficiently state facts which constitute (a) the qualifying those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if
circumstance of grave abuse of confidence; and (b) the committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of
element of taking, with intent to gain and without the confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail
consent of the owner, which is the Bank. matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from
the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or
In determining the existence of probable cause to issue a fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire,
warrant of arrest, the RTC judge found the allegations in earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other
the Information inadequate. He ruled that the Information
failed to state facts constituting the qualifying circumstance
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. On the sufficiency of the Information, Section 6, Rule 110
(Emphasis supplied.) of the Rules of Court requires, inter alia, that the
information must state the acts or omissions complained of
Theft, as defined in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, as constitutive of the offense.
requires the physical taking of another’s property without
violence or intimidation against persons or force upon On the manner of how the Information should be worded,
things. The elements of the crime under this Article are: Section 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, is enlightening:

1. Intent to gain; Section 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions

complained of as constituting the offense and the
2. Unlawful taking; qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated
in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in
3. Personal property belonging to another; the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to
enable a person of common understanding to know what
4. Absence of violence or intimidation against persons or
offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and
force upon things.
aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce
To fall under the crime of Qualified Theft, the following judgment.
elements must concur:
It is evident that the Information need not use the exact
1. Taking of personal property; language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense. The test is
2. That the said property belongs to another; whether it enables a person of common understanding to
know the charge against him, and the court to render
3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain; judgment properly.5

4. That it be done without the owner’s consent; The portion of the Information relevant to this discussion
reads:
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or
A]bove-named [respondents], conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, with
intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things;
grave abuse of confidence, being the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of

6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo, without the knowledge and/or consent of the management
of the Bank x x x.
It is beyond doubt that tellers, Cashiers, Bookkeepers and accused teller was convicted for Qualified Theft based on
other employees of a Bank who come into possession of this Information:
the monies deposited therein enjoy the confidence
reposed in them by their employer. Banks, on the other That on or about the 16th day of November, 1989, in the
hand, where monies are deposited, are considered the municipality of Floridablanca, province of Pampanga,
owners thereof. This is very clear not only from the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of his Honorable
express provisions of the law, but from established Court, the above-named accused ASUNCION GALANG
jurisprudence. The relationship between banks and ROQUE, being then employed as teller of the Basa Air
depositors has been held to be that of creditor and debtor. Base Savings and Loan Association Inc. (BABSLA) with
Articles 1953 and 1980 of the New Civil Code, as office address at Basa Air Base, Floridablanca, Pampanga,
appropriately pointed out by petitioner, provide as follows: and as such was authorized and reposed with the
responsibility to receive and collect capital contributions
Article 1953. A person who receives a loan of money or from its member/contributors of said corporation, and
any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, having collected and received in her capacity as teller of
and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the the BABSLA the sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS
same kind and quality. (P10,000.00), said accused, with intent of gain, with grave
abuse of confidence and without the knowledge and
Article 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of consent of said corporation, did then and there willfully,
money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the
by the provisions concerning loan. amount of P10,000.00, Philippine currency, by making it
appear that a certain depositor by the name of Antonio
In a long line of cases involving Qualified Theft, this Court Salazar withdrew from his Savings Account No. 1359,
has firmly established the nature of possession by the when in truth and in fact said Antonio Salazar did not
Bank of the money deposits therein, and the duties being withdr[a]w the said amount of P10,000.00 to the damage
performed by its employees who have custody of the and prejudice of BABSLA in the total amount
money or have come into possession of it. The Court has of P10,000.00, Philippine currency.
consistently considered the allegations in the Information
that such employees acted with grave abuse of confidence, In convicting the therein appellant, the Court held that:
to the damage and prejudice of the Bank, without
particularly referring to it as owner of the money deposits, [S]ince the teller occupies a position of confidence, and the
as sufficient to make out a case of Qualified Theft. For a bank places money in the teller’s possession due to the
graphic illustration, we cite Roque v. People,6 where the
confidence reposed on the teller, the felony of qualified Qualified Theft. Appellant could not have committed the
theft would be committed.7 crime had he not been holding the position of Luneta
Branch Operation Officer which gave him not only sole
Also in People v. Sison,8 the Branch Operations Officer access to the bank vault xxx. The management of the
was convicted of the crime of Qualified Theft based on the PCIB reposed its trust and confidence in the appellant as
Information as herein cited: its Luneta Branch Operation Officer, and it was this trust
and confidence which he exploited to enrich himself to the
That in or about and during the period compressed damage and prejudice of PCIB x x x.9
between January 24, 1992 and February 13, 1992, both
dates inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said From another end, People v. Locson,10 in addition
accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and to People v. Sison, described the nature of possession by
feloniously, with intent of gain and without the knowledge the Bank. The money in this case was in the possession of
and consent of the owner thereof, take, steal and carry the defendant as receiving teller of the bank, and the
away the following, to wit: possession of the defendant was the possession of the
Bank. The Court held therein that when the defendant,
Cash money amounting to P6,000,000.00 in different with grave abuse of confidence, removed the money and
denominations belonging to the PHILIPPINE appropriated it to his own use without the consent of the
COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (PCIBank for Bank, there was taking as contemplated in the crime of
brevity), Luneta Branch, Manila represented by its Branch Qualified Theft.11
Manager, HELEN U. FARGAS, to the damage and
prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount Conspicuously, in all of the foregoing cases, where the
of P6,000,000.00, Philippine Currency. Informations merely alleged the positions of the
respondents; that the crime was committed with grave
That in the commission of the said offense, herein accused abuse of confidence, with intent to gain and without the
acted with grave abuse of confidence and unfaithfulness, knowledge and consent of the Bank, without necessarily
he being the Branch Operation Officer of the said stating the phrase being assiduously insisted upon by
complainant and as such he had free access to the place respondents, "of a relation by reason of dependence,
where the said amount of money was kept. guardianship or vigilance, between the respondents
and the offended party that has created a high degree
The judgment of conviction elaborated thus:
of confidence between them, which respondents
The crime perpetuated by appellant against his employer, abused,"12 and without employing the word "owner" in lieu
the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB), is
of the "Bank" were considered to have satisfied the test of may be made only by the public prosecutor; or in the case
sufficiency of allegations. of an appeal, by the State only, through the OSG. x x x.

As regards the respondents who were employed as On the alleged wrong mode of appeal by petitioner, suffice
Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Bank in this case, there is it to state that the rule is well-settled that in appeals by
even no reason to quibble on the allegation in the certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only errors
Informations that they acted with grave abuse of of law may be raised,14 and herein petitioner certainly
confidence. In fact, the Information which alleged grave raised a question of law.
abuse of confidence by accused herein is even more
precise, as this is exactly the requirement of the law in As an aside, even if we go beyond the allegations of the
qualifying the crime of Theft. Informations in these cases, a closer look at the records of
the preliminary investigation conducted will show that,
In summary, the Bank acquires ownership of the money indeed, probable cause exists for the indictment of herein
deposited by its clients; and the employees of the Bank, respondents. Pursuant to Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules
who are entrusted with the possession of money of the of Court, the judge shall issue a warrant of arrest only
Bank due to the confidence reposed in them, occupy upon a finding of probable cause after personally
positions of confidence. The Informations, therefore, evaluating the resolution of the prosecutor and its
sufficiently allege all the essential elements constituting supporting evidence. Soliven v. Makasiar,15 as reiterated
the crime of Qualified Theft. in Allado v. Driokno,16 explained that probable cause for
the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such
On the theory of the defense that the DOJ is the principal facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably
party who may file the instant petition, the ruling in Mobilia discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has
Products, Inc. v. Hajime Umezawa13 is instructive. The been committed by the person sought to be
Court thus enunciated: arrested.17 The records reasonably indicate that the
respondents may have, indeed, committed the offense
In a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, charged.
the interest of the private complainant or the offended
party is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom. Hence, Before closing, let it be stated that while it is truly
if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is imperative upon the fiscal or the judge, as the case may be,
an acquittal, a reconsideration of the order of dismissal or to relieve the respondents from the pain of going through a
acquittal may be undertaken, whenever legally feasible, trial once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to
insofar as the criminal aspect thereof is concerned and form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the respondents,
conversely, it is also equally imperative upon the judge to
proceed with the case upon a showing that there is a prima
faciecase against the respondents.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for

Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Orders
dated 30 January 2006 and 9 June 2006 of the RTC
dismissing Criminal Cases No. 05-3054 to
05-3165 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let the
corresponding Warrants of Arrest issue against herein
respondents TERESITA PUIG and ROMEO PORRAS.
The RTC Judge of Branch 68, in Dumangas, Iloilo, is
directed to proceed with the trial of Criminal Cases No.
05-3054 to 05-3165, inclusive, with reasonable dispatch.
No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Austria-Martinez, Reyes,

Leonardo-de Castro *, JJ., concur.