PEOPLE v PUIG AND PORRAS
G.R. No. 173654-756 | August 28, 2008
Chico-Nazario, J. | Protacio
SUMMARY
Respondents, cashier and bookkeeper of the Rural Bank
of Pototan, Inc., are being prosecuted for Qualified Theft.
The RTC, however, did not find probable cause because
it found that the Information did not properly allege
certain things required for a prosecution of qualified theft.
The main issue of the case was the sufficiency of the
allegations in the Information, but the Supreme Court
discussed the position of the Bank in a debtor-creditor
relationship with its clients, and how the respondents
were in a position of confidence. Since this was obvious,
the Information didn’t really need to have what the RTC
thought it lacked.
DOCTRINE
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
cofidence. The Informations, therefore, suffciently allege
all the essential elements constituting the crime of
Qualified Theft.
FACTS
- Puig and Porras, Cashier and Bookkeeper
respectively, of Rural Bank of Pototan, were
charged with 112 cases of Qualified Theft
o “above-named respondents, conspiring,
confederating, and helping one another,
with grave abuse of confidence…”
- The RTC didn’t find probable cause to issue a
warrant of arrest because:
o The element of “taking without the consent
of the owners” was missing
 RTC said that it was actually the
depositors-clients, not the Bank, who
are the true owners – hence, they
are the real parties-in-interest
 Bereft of the phrase alleging
"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 Other procedural issues such as violating
the right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusations against them
- The MR was denied, so petitioner raised the case
to the Supreme Court on Petition for Review on
Certiorari
ISSUE
W/N the informations for qualified theft sufficiently allege
the element of taking without the consent of the owner
and the qualifying circumstance of grave abuse of
confidence. - YES
RATIO
- For theft to be qualified, it must be done with grave - Even without using the word “owner” in lieu of
abuse of confidence “bank,” the informations in past jurisprudence was
o The Rules of Court does not require that the still sufficient in its allegations
Information use the exact language of the
statute (yes we learned this in crimpro)
o It is beyond doubt that tellers, cashiers,
bookkeepers, and employees who come
into possession of the monies deposited
enjoy the confidence reposed in them by
their employer
- The banks, where the monies are deposited,
are considered the owners
o Relationship between the banks and
depositors is that of creditor and debtor
o Article 1953, CC - 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.
o Article 1980, CC - Fixed, savings, and
current deposits of money in banks and
similar institutions shall be governed by
the provisions concerning loan.
- Nature of possession by the Bank and the
employees with custody of the money has been
decided in past cases
o Allegations in the Information that the
employees acted with grave abuse of
confidence, to the damage and prejudice of
the Bank, even without referring to the bank
as the owner, is sufficient for Qualified Theft