(1) How exercised

Monday, 29 August 2016

7:10 PM

CHUA-BURCE VS. CA
1. FACTS
a. 1985, AUG. 16. - Ramon Rocamora, Manager
of MBTC requested the assistant cashier to
conduct a physical count of cash inside the
vault; they discovered a shortage of bills
totaling P150,000. after all investigations
they concluded that the person primarily
responsible was the banks cash custodian,
Cristeta Chua-Burce.
b. 1985, NOV. 4 - accused service with the bank
was terminated;
c. 1985, NOV. 27 - MTBC filed a Civil Case for
sum of money and damages against
petitioner and her husband; an estafa
criminal case was also filed;
d. Petitioner moved for suspension of criminal
case on the ground of the existence of a
prejudicial question; It further ruled that there
was no prejudicial question;
e. Petitioner arraigned, entered plead not guilty;
suspended criminal case; but civil case
continued;
f. 1991, MARCH 18 - RTC rendered decision
finding petitioner guilty of estafa and liable of
the amount of P150,000.
g. Petioner appealed to CA
h. 1992, NOV. 27 - CA affirmed the trial courts
decision;
2. ISSUE
a. Does a prima facie presumption of
misappropriation or conversion exists against
the petitioner when there were other persons
who had direct and greater access in the
cash in vault?
b. Whether the elements of the crime estafa
under RPC were proven beyond reasonable
doubt;
3. RULING
1. Have the elements of estafa been complied
with?
i. First element absent
1) "that personal property is received
in trust, on commission, for
adminstration or under any
circumstance involving the duty to
make delivery of or to return the
same, even though the obligation
is guaranteed by a bond;
a) Because the element
requires that the offender
acquires both material or
physical posession and
juridical posession of the
thing received;
i) In this case, petitioner
was a cash custodian
who was primarily
responsbile for the
cash-in-vault.
ii) Her possession of the
cash belonging to the
bank is askin to that of
a bank teller, both being
mere bank employees;
2. Petitioner herein being a mere cash
custodian had no juridical posession over the
missing funds; hence the element of juridical
posession being absent, petitioner cannot be
convicted of the crime of estafa;
3. Petition is granted and further acquitted;
4. WISDOM
a. The elements of estafa are:
i. The accused defrauded another
1) By abuse of confidence; or
2) Means of deceit
ii. That damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimated is caused to the
offended party or third person;
iii. Deceit is not an essential requisite of
estafa with abuse of confidence since
the breach of confidence takes the
place of the frauid or deceit, which is a
usual element in other estafas;
b. Juridical possession
i. Means: a possession which gives the
transferee a right over the thing which
the transferee may setup even against
the owner;
c. The possession of the teller is the possession
of the bank;
i. The essential distinction between the
possession by a receiving teller of funds
received from third persons paid to the
bank and an agent who receives the
proceeds of sales of merchandise
delivered to him in agency by the
principal;
1) In the first, payment of 3rd persons
to the teller is payment to the bank
itself;
a) The teller is a mere custodian
or keeper of the funds
received and has no
independent right or title to
retain or possess the same
as against the bank;
2) An agent on the other hand can
even assert as against his own
principal an independent
autonomous right to retain money
or goods received in consequence
of the agency; as when the
principal fails to reimburse him for
advances he has made and
indemnify him for damages
suffered without his fault;