Scribd
Upload
298 views1 page

People Vs Puig and Porras

The Supreme Court granted the petition against Teresita Puig and Romeo Porras, the cashier and bookkeeper of Rural Bank of Pototan, who were accused of stealing 15,000 pesos. While the trial court dismissed the case for lack of probable cause, the Supreme Court found the information sufficiently alleged the elements of qualified theft, including taking without consent of the owner and abuse of confidence. As employees handling money deposits for the bank, Puig and Porras enjoyed the confidence of their employer. And legally, while depositors are creditors of the bank, the bank is considered the owner of deposited money.

Uploaded by

karl doceo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
298 views1 page

People Vs Puig and Porras

The Supreme Court granted the petition against Teresita Puig and Romeo Porras, the cashier and bookkeeper of Rural Bank of Pototan, who were accused of stealing 15,000 pesos. While the trial court dismissed the case for lack of probable cause, the Supreme Court found the information sufficiently alleged the elements of qualified theft, including taking without consent of the owner and abuse of confidence. As employees handling money deposits for the bank, Puig and Porras enjoyed the confidence of their employer. And legally, while depositors are creditors of the bank, the bank is considered the owner of deposited money.

Uploaded by

karl doceo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People vs Puig and Porras

1. 112 complaints for Qualified Theft was filed against Teresita Puig and Romeo Porras who were
the Cashier and Bookkeeper, respectively, of private complainant Rural Bank of Pototan, for
allegedly stealing P15K.
2. The Trial Court did not find probable cause that would have necessitated the issuance of WOA.
a. The element of taking without the consent of the owners is not present, since the owner
of the money is not the Bank, but the depositors therein.
b. The information was bereft of: 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.
3. Petitioner filed MR. Denied.
4. Petitioner went directly
5. ISSUE: WON the information sufficiently alleges the element of taking without consent of the
owner, and the qualifying circumstance of abuse of confidence.
6. Petitioner:
a. Under Article 1980 of the New Civil Code, "fixed, savings, and current deposits of money
in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple
loans."
b. Article 1953 of the same Code provides that "a person who receives a loan of money or
any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the
creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality."
c. Thus, it posits that the depositors who place their money with the bank are considered
creditors of the bank. The bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients,
making the money taken by respondents as belonging to the bank.
d. Petitioner also insists that the Informations sufficiently allege all the elements of the crime
of qualified theft, citing that a perusal of the Informations will show that they specifically
allege that the respondents were the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of
Pototan, Inc., respectively, and that they took various amounts of money with grave
abuse of confidence, and without the knowledge and consent of the bank, to the damage
and prejudice of the bank.
7. SC finds merit in the petition:
a. It is beyond doubt that tellers, Cashiers, Bookkeepers and other employees of a Bank
who come into possession of the monies deposited therein enjoy the confidence reposed
in them by their employer. Banks, on the other hand, where monies are deposited, are
considered the owners thereof.
b. The relationship between banks and depositors has been held to be that of creditor and
debtor.
c. In a long line of cases involving Qualified Theft, this Court has firmly established the
nature of possession by the Bank of the money deposits therein, and the duties being
performed by its employees who have custody of the money or have come into
possession of it. The Court has consistently considered the allegations in the Information
that such employees acted with grave abuse of confidence, to the damage and prejudice
of the Bank, without particularly referring to it as owner of the money deposits, as
sufficient to make out a case of Qualified Theft.
d. Conspicuously, in all of the foregoing cases, where the Informations merely alleged the
positions of the respondents; that the crime was committed with grave abuse of
confidence, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the Bank,
without necessarily stating the phrase being assiduously insisted upon by respondents,
and without employing the word "owner" in lieu of the "Bank" were considered to have
satisfied the test of sufficiency of allegations.
8. PETITION IS GRANTED.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy