Scribd
Upload
259 views1 page

People v. Puig - G.R. No. 173654 - 765 - August 28, 2008 Facts

The Supreme Court ruled that the bank, rather than the depositors, was the real party in interest in cases of theft committed by bank employees. The Court found that under the Civil Code, banks acquire ownership over deposits made by clients, making money taken by employees like respondents the property of the bank. The Court also found that the informations sufficiently alleged the elements of qualified theft, including that respondents occupied positions of confidence as cashier and bookkeeper and acted with grave abuse of confidence. Therefore, the informations provided enough details to inform respondents of the charges and allow the court to properly rule on the case.

Uploaded by

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

People v. Puig - G.R. No. 173654 - 765 - August 28, 2008 Facts

The Supreme Court ruled that the bank, rather than the depositors, was the real party in interest in cases of theft committed by bank employees. The Court found that under the Civil Code, banks acquire ownership over deposits made by clients, making money taken by employees like respondents the property of the bank. The Court also found that the informations sufficiently alleged the elements of qualified theft, including that respondents occupied positions of confidence as cashier and bookkeeper and acted with grave abuse of confidence. Therefore, the informations provided enough details to inform respondents of the charges and allow the court to properly rule on the case.

Uploaded by

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

People v. Puig | G.R. No. 173654 – 765 | August 28, 2008 of the offense.

of the offense. On the manner of how the Information should be worded,


Section 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, is enlightening:
FACTS:
The Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor’s Office filed 112 cases of Qualified Theft Section 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as
against Puig and Porras who were the Cashier and Bookkeeper, respectively, of constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must
private complainant Rural Bank of Pototan. be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language
used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
It was alleged in the complaint that Puig was the cashier & Porras was the understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and
Bookkeeper in the said bank, and that they took away money amounting to 15k aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
without the consent of the bank owner, to the prejudice of the bank.
The portion of the Information relevant to this discussion reads:
RTC dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of the information ruling that the Above-named [respondents], conspiring, confederating, and helping one another,
real parties in interest are the depositors-clients and not the bank because the with grave abuse of confidence, being the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural
bank does not acquire ownership of the money deposited in it. It also denied the Bank of Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo, without the knowledge and/or consent of the
MR. management of the Bank xxx

Petitioner explains that the depositors who place their money with the bank are It is evident that the Information need not use the exact language of the statute
considered creditors of the bank. The bank acquires ownership of the money in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The
deposited by its clients, making the money taken by respondents as belonging test is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the
to the bank. charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly.

Petitioner also insists that the Informations sufficiently allege all the elements of It is beyond doubt that tellers, Cashiers, Bookkeepers and other employees of a
the crime of qualified theft citing that it properly alleges that the respondents Bank who come into possession of the monies deposited therein enjoy the
were the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan, respectively, confidence reposed in them by their employer. Banks, on the other hand, where
and that they took various amounts of money with grave abuse of confidence, monies are deposited, are considered the owners thereof.
and without the knowledge and consent of the bank, to the damage and
prejudice of the bank. The Court has consistently considered the allegations in the Information that
such employees acted with grave abuse of confidence, to the damage and
Issue: prejudice of the Bank, without particularly referring to it as owner of the money
1. WON the bank was the owner and thus, the real party in interest? yes deposits, as sufficient to make out a case of Qualified Theft.
2. WON there was insufficiency of information not enough to show
probable cause? No In this case, there is even no reason to quibble on the allegation in the
Informations that they acted with grave abuse of confidence. In fact, the
Held: Information which alleged grave abuse of confidence by accused herein is even
1. Yes. Under Art 1980 of the CC, "fixed, savings, and current deposits of more precise, as this is exactly the requirement of the law in qualifying the
money in banks shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple crime of Theft.
loans." And, Art 1953 provides that "a person who receives a loan of money
acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an In summary, the Bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients;
equal amount of the same kind and quality." Thus, it posits that the and the employees of the Bank, who are entrusted with the possession of money
depositors who place their money with the bank are considered creditors of the Bank due to the confidence reposed in them, occupy positions of
of the bank. The bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its confidence. The Informations, therefore, sufficiently allege all the essential
clients, making the money taken by respondents as belonging to the bank. elements constituting the crime of Qualified Theft.

2. No. Sec 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court requires, inter alia, that the
information must state the acts or omissions complained of as constitutive

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