1/27/2017 G.R.No.

173654765

THIRDDIVISION


PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES, G.R.No.173654765
Petitioners,
Present:

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.,
Chairperson,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
versus CHICONAZARIO,
REYES,and
DECASTRO,*JJ.


Promulgated:
TERESITA PUIG and ROMEO
PORRAS,
Respondent. August28,2008
xx


DECISION


CHICONAZARIO,J.:


ThisisaPetitionforReviewunderRule45oftheRevisedRulesofCourtwithpetitionerPeopleofthe
Philippines,representedbytheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,prayingforthereversaloftheOrdersdated30
January 2006 and 9 June 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the 6th Judicial Region, Branch 68,
Dumangas, Iloilo, dismissing the 112 cases of Qualified Theft filed against respondents Teresita Puig and
Romeo Porras, and denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, in Criminal Cases No. 053054 to 05
3165.

Thefollowingarethefactualantecedents:

On 7 November 2005, the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutors Office filed before Branch 68 of the RTC in
Dumangas,Iloilo,112casesofQualifiedTheftagainstrespondentsTeresitaPuig(Puig)andRomeoPorras
(Porras)whoweretheCashierandBookkeeper,respectively,ofprivatecomplainantRuralBankofPototan,
Inc.ThecasesweredocketedasCriminalCasesNo.053054to053165.

[1]
TheallegationsintheInformations filedbeforetheRTCwereuniformandproforma,exceptforthe
amounts,dateandtimeofcommission,towit:


INFORMATION

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/173654765.htm 1/9
1/27/2017 G.R.No.173654765

Thatonoraboutthe1stdayofAugust,2002,intheMunicipalityofPototan,ProvinceofIloilo,Philippines,and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, abovenamed [respondents], conspiring, confederating, and
helpingoneanother,withgraveabuseofconfidence,beingtheCashierandBookkeeperoftheRuralBankof
Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo, without the knowledge and/or consent of the management of the Bank and with
intent of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the sum of
FIFTEENTHOUSANDPESOS(P15,000.00),PhilippineCurrency,tothedamageandprejudiceofthesaidbank
intheaforesaidamount.


AfterperusingtheInformationsinthesecases,thetrialcourtdidnotfindtheexistenceofprobablecausethat
wouldhavenecessitatedtheissuanceofawarrantofarrestbasedonthefollowinggrounds:

(1)theelementoftakingwithouttheconsentoftheownerswasmissingonthegroundthatitisthedepositors
clients,andnottheBank,whichfiledthecomplaintinthesecases,whoaretheownersofthemoneyallegedly
takenbyrespondentsandhence,aretherealpartiesininterestand

(2) the Informations are bereft of the phrase alleging dependence, guardianship or vigilance between the
respondentsandtheoffendedpartythatwouldhavecreatedahighdegreeofconfidencebetweenthem
whichtherespondentscouldhaveabused.


Itaddedthatallowingthe112casesforQualifiedTheftfiledagainsttherespondentstopushthroughwould
be violative of the right of the respondents under Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution which
statesthatinallcriminalprosecutions,theaccusedshallenjoytherighttobeinformedofthenatureandcause
oftheaccusationagainsthim.FollowingSection6,Rule112oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure,the
RTCdismissedthecaseson30January2006andrefusedtoissueawarrantofarrestagainstPuigandPorras.

[2]
AMotionforReconsideration wasfiledon17April2006,bythepetitioner.

[3]
On9June2006,anOrder denyingpetitionersMotionforReconsiderationwasissuedbytheRTC,finding
asfollows:

Accordingly, the prosecutions Motion for Reconsideration should be, as it hereby, DENIED. The Order dated
January30,2006STANDSinallrespects.


Petitioner went directly to this Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, raising the sole
legalissueof:

WHETHERORNOTTHE112INFORMATIONSFORQUALIFIEDTHEFTSUFFICIENTLYALLEGETHE
ELEMENT OF TAKING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER, AND THE QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCEOFGRAVEABUSEOFCONFIDENCE.


PetitionerpraysthatjudgmentberenderedannullingandsettingasidetheOrdersdated30January2006and
9June2006issuedbythetrialcourt,andthatitbedirectedtoproceedwithCriminalCasesNo.053054to
053165.

Petitioner explains that 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.
Corollarythereto,Article1953ofthesameCodeprovidesthatapersonwhoreceivesaloanofmoneyorany
otherfungiblethingacquirestheownershipthereof,andisboundtopaytothecreditoranequalamountofthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/173654765.htm 2/9
1/27/2017 G.R.No.173654765

samekindandquality.Thus,itpositsthatthedepositorswhoplacetheirmoneywiththebankareconsidered
creditorsofthebank.Thebankacquiresownershipofthemoneydepositedbyitsclients,makingthemoney
takenbyrespondentsasbelongingtothebank.

PetitioneralsoinsiststhattheInformationssufficientlyallegealltheelementsofthecrimeofqualifiedtheft,
citingthataperusaloftheInformationswillshowthattheyspecificallyallegethattherespondentswerethe
CashierandBookkeeperoftheRuralBankofPototan,Inc.,respectively,andthattheytookvariousamounts
ofmoneywithgraveabuseofconfidence,andwithouttheknowledgeandconsentofthebank,tothedamage
andprejudiceofthebank.

Parenthetically,respondentsraiseproceduralissues.TheychallengethepetitiononthegroundthataPetition
forReviewonCertiorariviaRule45isthewrongmodeofappealbecauseafindingofprobablecauseforthe
issuanceofawarrantofarrestpresupposesevaluationoffactsandcircumstances,whichisnotproperunder
saidRule.
Respondents further claim that the Department of Justice (DOJ), through the Secretary of Justice, is the
principalpartytofileaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari,consideringthattheincidentwasindorsedbythe
DOJ.

Wefindmeritinthepetition.
ThedismissalbytheRTCofthecriminalcaseswasallegedlyduetoinsufficiencyoftheInformationsand,
therefore,becauseofthisdefect,thereisnobasisfortheexistenceofprobablecausewhichwilljustifythe
issuance of the warrant of arrest. Petitioner assails the dismissal contending that the Informations for
Qualified Theft sufficiently state facts which constitute (a) the qualifying circumstance of grave abuse of
confidenceand(b)theelementoftaking,withintenttogainandwithouttheconsentoftheowner,whichis
theBank.
In determining the existence of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest, the RTC judge found the
allegationsintheInformationinadequate.HeruledthattheInformationfailedtostatefactsconstitutingthe
qualifying circumstance of grave abuse of confidence and the element of taking without the consent of the

owner,sincetheownerofthemoneyisnottheBank,butthedepositorstherein.HealsocitesPeoplev.Koc
[4]
Song, inwhichthisCourtheld:

Theremustbeallegationintheinformationandproofofarelation,byreasonofdependence,guardianshipor
vigilance,betweentherespondentsandtheoffendedpartythathascreatedahighdegreeofconfidencebetween
them,whichtherespondentsabused.


Atthispoint,itneedsstressingthattheRTCJudgebasedhisconclusionthattherewasnoprobablecause
simply on the insufficiency of the allegations in the Informations concerning the facts constitutive of the
elements of the offense charged. This, therefore, makes the issue of sufficiency of the allegations in the
Informationsthefocalpointofdiscussion.

Qualified Theft, as defined and punished under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, is committed as
follows,viz:
ART.310.QualifiedTheft.The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/173654765.htm 3/9
1/27/2017 G.R.No.173654765
ART.310.QualifiedTheft.The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees
thanthoserespectivelyspecifiedinthenextprecedingarticle,ifcommittedbyadomesticservant,orwithgrave
abuseofconfidence,orifthepropertystolenismotorvehicle,mailmatterorlargecattleorconsistsofcoconuts
taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the
occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.(Emphasissupplied.)


Theft,asdefinedinArticle308oftheRevisedPenalCode,requiresthephysicaltakingofanothersproperty
withoutviolenceorintimidationagainstpersonsorforceuponthings.Theelementsofthecrimeunderthis
Articleare:

1.Intenttogain

2.Unlawfultaking

3.Personalpropertybelongingtoanother

4.Absenceofviolenceorintimidationagainstpersonsorforceuponthings.


TofallunderthecrimeofQualifiedTheft,thefollowingelementsmustconcur:

1.Takingofpersonalproperty

2.Thatthesaidpropertybelongstoanother

3.Thatthesaidtakingbedonewithintenttogain

4.Thatitbedonewithouttheownersconsent

5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon
things

6.Thatitbedonewithgraveabuseofconfidence.

OnthesufficiencyoftheInformation,Section6,Rule110oftheRulesofCourtrequires,interalia,thatthe
informationmuststatetheactsoromissionscomplainedofasconstitutiveoftheoffense.

On the manner of how the Information should be worded, Section 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, is
enlightening:

Section 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the
qualifyingandaggravatingcircumstancesmustbestatedinordinaryandconciselanguageandnotnecessarilyin
the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know
what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to
pronouncejudgment.


It is evident that the Information need not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common
[5]
understandingtoknowthechargeagainsthim,andthecourttorenderjudgmentproperly.

TheportionoftheInformationrelevanttothisdiscussionreads:

[A]bovenamed [respondents], conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, with grave abuse of
confidence,beingtheCashierandBookkeeperoftheRuralBankofPototan,Inc.,Pototan,Iloilo,withoutthe
knowledgeand/orconsentofthemanagementoftheBankxxx.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/173654765.htm 4/9
1/27/2017 G.R.No.173654765
knowledgeand/orconsentofthemanagementoftheBankxxx.


It is beyond doubt that tellers, Cashiers, Bookkeepers and other employees of a Bank who come into
possessionofthemoniesdepositedthereinenjoytheconfidencereposedinthembytheiremployer.Banks,on
the other hand, where monies are deposited, are considered the owners thereof. This is very clear not only
fromtheexpressprovisionsofthelaw,butfromestablishedjurisprudence.The relationship between banks
anddepositorshasbeenheldtobethatofcreditoranddebtor.Articles1953and1980oftheNewCivilCode,
asappropriatelypointedoutbypetitioner,provideasfollows:

Article1953.Apersonwhoreceivesaloanofmoneyoranyotherfungiblethingacquirestheownershipthereof,
andisboundtopaytothecreditoranequalamountofthesamekindandquality.

Article1980.Fixed,savings,andcurrentdepositsofmoneyinbanksandsimilarinstitutionsshallbegoverned
bytheprovisionsconcerningloan.


InalonglineofcasesinvolvingQualifiedTheft,thisCourthasfirmlyestablishedthenatureofpossessionby
theBankofthemoneydepositstherein,andthedutiesbeingperformedbyitsemployeeswhohavecustody
ofthemoneyorhavecomeintopossessionofit.TheCourthasconsistentlyconsideredtheallegationsinthe
Informationthatsuchemployeesactedwithgraveabuseofconfidence,tothedamageandprejudiceofthe
Bank,withoutparticularlyreferringtoitasownerofthemoneydeposits,assufficienttomakeoutacaseof
[6]
QualifiedTheft.Foragraphicillustration,weciteRoquev.People, wheretheaccusedtellerwasconvicted
forQualifiedTheftbasedonthisInformation:

Thatonoraboutthe16thdayofNovember,1989,inthemunicipalityofFloridablanca,provinceofPampanga,
PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofhisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccusedASUNCIONGALANG
ROQUE, being then employed as teller of the Basa Air Base Savings and Loan Association Inc. (BABSLA)
withofficeaddressatBasaAirBase,Floridablanca,Pampanga,andassuchwasauthorizedandreposedwiththe
responsibilitytoreceiveandcollectcapitalcontributionsfromitsmember/contributorsofsaidcorporation,and
havingcollectedandreceivedinhercapacityastelleroftheBABSLAthesumofTENTHOUSANDPESOS
(P10,000.00),saidaccused,withintentofgain,withgraveabuseofconfidenceandwithouttheknowledgeand
consentofsaidcorporation,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslytake,stealandcarryaway
the amount of P10,000.00, Philippine currency, by making it appear that a certain depositor by the name of
AntonioSalazarwithdrewfromhisSavingsAccountNo.1359,whenintruthandinfactsaidAntonioSalazar
didnotwithdr[a]wthesaidamountofP10,000.00tothedamageandprejudiceofBABSLAinthetotalamount
ofP10,000.00,Philippinecurrency.


Inconvictingthethereinappellant,theCourtheldthat:

[S]incethetelleroccupiesapositionofconfidence,andthebankplacesmoneyinthetellerspossessiondueto
[7]
theconfidencereposedontheteller,thefelonyofqualifiedtheftwouldbecommitted.


[8]
Also in People v. Sison, the Branch Operations Officer was convicted of the crime of Qualified Theft
basedontheInformationashereincited:

ThatinoraboutandduringtheperiodcompressedbetweenJanuary24,1992andFebruary13,1992,bothdates
inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously,withintentofgainandwithouttheknowledgeandconsentoftheownerthereof,take,stealandcarry
awaythefollowing,towit:

Cash money amounting to P6,000,000.00 in different denominations belonging to the PHILIPPINE
COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (PCIBank for brevity), Luneta Branch, Manila represented by its
BranchManager,HELENU.FARGAS,tothedamageandprejudiceofthesaidownerintheaforesaidamount
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/173654765.htm 5/9
1/27/2017 G.R.No.173654765
BranchManager,HELENU.FARGAS,tothedamageandprejudiceofthesaidownerintheaforesaidamount
ofP6,000,000.00,PhilippineCurrency.

That in the commission of the said offense, herein accused acted with grave abuse of confidence and
unfaithfulness,hebeingtheBranchOperationOfficerofthesaidcomplainantandassuchhehadfreeaccessto
theplacewherethesaidamountofmoneywaskept.


Thejudgmentofconvictionelaboratedthus:

The crime perpetuated by appellant against his employer, the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank
(PCIB),isQualifiedTheft.Appellantcouldnothavecommittedthecrimehadhenotbeenholdingtheposition
ofLunetaBranchOperationOfficerwhichgavehimnotonlysoleaccesstothebankvaultxxx.Themanagement
ofthePCIBreposeditstrustandconfidenceintheappellantasitsLunetaBranchOperationOfficer,anditwas
[9]
thistrustandconfidencewhichheexploitedtoenrichhimselftothedamageandprejudiceofPCIBxxx.


[10]
Fromanotherend,Peoplev.Locson, inadditiontoPeoplev.Sison,describedthenatureofpossessionby
theBank.Themoneyinthiscasewasinthepossessionofthedefendantasreceivingtellerofthebank,and
the possession of the defendant was the possession of the Bank. The Court held therein that when the

defendant,withgraveabuseofconfidence,removedthemoneyandappropriatedittohisownusewithoutthe
[11]
consentoftheBank,therewastakingascontemplatedinthecrimeofQualifiedTheft.

Conspicuously, in all of the foregoing cases, where the Informations merely alleged the positions of the
respondentsthatthecrimewascommittedwithgraveabuseofconfidence,withintenttogainandwithout
the knowledge and consent of the Bank, without necessarily stating the phrase being assiduously insisted
upon by respondents, of a relation by reason of dependence, guardianship or vigilance, between the
respondents and the offended party that has created a high degree of confidence between them, which
[12]
respondentsabused, andwithoutemployingthewordownerinlieuoftheBankwereconsideredtohave
satisfiedthetestofsufficiencyofallegations.

AsregardstherespondentswhowereemployedasCashierandBookkeeperoftheBankinthiscase,thereis
even no reason to quibble on the allegation in the Informations that they acted with grave abuse of
confidence.Infact,theInformationwhichallegedgraveabuseofconfidencebyaccusedhereinisevenmore
precise,asthisisexactlytherequirementofthelawinqualifyingthecrimeofTheft.

In summary, the Bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients and the employees of the
Bank,whoareentrustedwiththepossessionofmoneyoftheBankduetotheconfidencereposedinthem,
occupy positions of confidence. The Informations, therefore, sufficiently allege all the essential elements
constitutingthecrimeofQualifiedTheft.

OnthetheoryofthedefensethattheDOJistheprincipalpartywhomayfiletheinstantpetition,therulingin
[13]
MobiliaProducts,Inc.v.HajimeUmezawa isinstructive.TheCourtthusenunciated:

InacriminalcaseinwhichtheoffendedpartyistheState,theinterestoftheprivatecomplainantortheoffended
partyislimitedtothecivilliabilityarisingtherefrom.Hence,ifacriminalcaseisdismissedbythetrialcourtor
if there is an acquittal, a reconsideration of the order of dismissal or acquittal may be undertaken, whenever
legally feasible, insofar as the criminal aspect thereof is concerned and may be made only by the public
prosecutororinthecaseofanappeal,bytheStateonly,throughtheOSG.xxx.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/173654765.htm 6/9
1/27/2017 G.R.No.173654765
prosecutororinthecaseofanappeal,bytheStateonly,throughtheOSG.xxx.


On the alleged wrong mode of appeal by petitioner, suffice it to state that the rule is wellsettled that in
[14]
appealsbycertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,onlyerrorsoflawmayberaised, andherein
petitionercertainlyraisedaquestionoflaw.

As an aside, even if we go beyond the allegations of the Informations in these cases, a closer look at the
records of the preliminary investigation conducted will show that, indeed, probable cause exists for the
indictmentofhereinrespondents.PursuanttoSection6,Rule112oftheRulesofCourt,thejudgeshallissue
a warrant of arrest only upon a finding of probable cause after personally evaluating the resolution of the

[15] [16]
prosecutor and its supporting evidence. Soliven v. Makasiar, as reiterated in Allado v. Driokno,
explained that probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and
circumstancesthatwouldleadareasonablydiscreetandprudentpersontobelievethatanoffensehasbeen
[17]
committedbythepersonsoughttobearrested. Therecordsreasonablyindicatethattherespondentsmay
have,indeed,committedtheoffensecharged.

Beforeclosing,letitbestatedthatwhileitistrulyimperativeuponthefiscalorthejudge,asthecasemaybe,
torelievetherespondentsfromthepainofgoingthroughatrialonceitisascertainedthatnoprobablecause
existstoformasufficientbeliefastotheguiltoftherespondents,conversely,itisalsoequallyimperative
upon the judge to proceed with the case upon a showing that there is a prima facie case against the
respondents.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED.
TheOrdersdated30January2006and9June2006oftheRTCdismissingCriminalCasesNo.053054to05
3165 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let the corresponding Warrants of Arrest issue against herein
respondentsTERESITAPUIGandROMEOPORRAS.TheRTCJudgeofBranch68,inDumangas,Iloilo,is
directed to proceed with the trial of Criminal Cases No. 053054 to 053165, inclusive, with reasonable
dispatch.Nopronouncementastocosts.

SOORDERED.



MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice



WECONCUR:



CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/173654765.htm
7/9
1/27/2017 G.R.No.173654765



MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZRUBENT.REYES
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice





ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is
herebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

*JusticeTeresitaJ.LeonardoDeCastrowasdesignatedtositasadditionalmemberreplacingJusticeAntonioEduardoB.NachuraperRaffledated16
January2008.

[1]
Records,pp.1,170391.
[2]
Records,pp.490495.
[3]
Id.at469470.
[4]
63Phil.369,371(1936).
[5]
Peoplev.Labeo,424Phil.482,495(2002).
[6]
G.R.No.138954,25November2004,444SCRA98,100101.
[7]
Id.at119.
[8]
379Phil.363,366367(2000).
[9]
Id.at385.
[10]
57Phil.325(1932).
[11]
Id.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/173654765.htm 8/9
1/27/2017 G.R.No.173654765
[11]
Id.
[12]
Rollo,p.158.
[13]
G.R.No.149357,4March2005,452SCRA736,757.
[14]
Reasv.Bonife,G.R.Nos.5434849,17October1990,190SCRA493,501.
[15]
G.R.No.L82585,14November1988,167SCRA394.
[16]
G.R.No.113630,5May1994,32SCRA192,201.
[17]
Id.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/173654765.htm 9/9