Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

People v Puig & Porras HELD:

G.R. Nos. 173654-765 RTC Judge based his conclusion that there was no probable cause
August 28, 2008 simple on the insufficiency of the allegations in the Informations.
Based on Section 9, Rule 110 of RoC, the Information need not use
FACTS: the exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions
Iloilo Provincial Prosecutors Office filed before the RTC 112 cases of complained of. What is important is whether it enables a person of
Qualified Theft against respondents Puig & Porras who were cashier common understanding to know the charge against him, and the
and bookkeeper of private complainant Rural Bank. court to render judgment properly.
As per the information filed before the RTC, above named To fall under the crime of Qualified Theft, the following elements
respondents, with grave abuse of confidence and with intent to gain, must concur:
as the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the said bank, stole P15,000. o Taking of personal property
RTC did not find the existence of probable cause that is necessary to o That the said property belongs to another;
issue a warrant of arrest because o That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
o taking without the consent of owners was missing on o That it be done without the owners consent;
the ground that it is the depositors-clents, not the bank, o That it be accomplished without the use of violence or
which filed the complaint intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things;
o information are bereft of the phrase dependence, o That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.
guardianship or vigilance between the respondents and It is beyond doubt that tellers, Cashiers, Bookkeepers and other
the offended party that would have created a high employees of a Bank who come into possession of the monies
degree of confidence between them which the deposited enjoy the confidence reposed in them by their employer.
respondents could have abused. Banks where monies are deposited are considered the owners
o Violative of Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution thereof.
The relationship between banks and depositors has been held to be
PETITIONER RESPONDENT that of creditor and debtor as stated in Articles 1953 and 1980 of the
The depositors who place They challenged the petition New Civil Code.
their money with the bank on the ground that a Petition People v Locson & People v Sison, as to the nature of possession by
are considered as creditors for Review on Certiorari via the Bank:
of the bank Rule 45 is the wrong mode of o The money in this case was in the possession of the
The bank acquires appeal defendant as receiving teller of the bank, and the possession
ownership of the money DOJ is the principal party to of the defendant was the possession of the Bank.
deposited by its clients, file a Petition as the incident o The Court held therein that wen the defendant, with grave
making the money taken be was indorsed by DOJ abuse of confidence, removed the money and appropriated it
respondents as belonging to to his own use without the consent of the Bank, there was
the bank taking as contemplated in the crime of Qualified Theft.
The Bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients;
and the employees of the Bank, who are entrusted with the
ISSUE: possession of money of the Bank due to the confidence reposed in
Are the respondents liable for qualified theft? YES them, occupy positions of confidence.