Facts:
Respondents
were conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, with grave abuse of
confidence, being the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of 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 P15,000.00, Philippine
Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the said bank in the aforesaid amount.
However,
the trial court did not find the existence of probable cause because (1) the
element of ‘taking without the consent of the owners’ was missing on the ground
that it is the depositors-clients, and not the Bank, which filed the complaint
in these cases, who are the owners of the money allegedly taken by respondents
and hence, are the real parties-in-interest; and (2) the Informations are
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.".
Issue:
Whether
or not the 112 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.
Held:
Yes.
The
dismissal by the RTC of the criminal cases was allegedly due to insufficiency
of the Informations and, therefore, because of this defect, there is no basis
for the existence of probable cause which will justify the 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 confidence; and (b) the element
of taking, with intent to gain and without the consent of the owner, which is
the Bank.
The RTC
Judge based his conclusion that there was no probable cause simply on the
insufficiency of the allegations in the Informations concerning the facts
constitutive of the elements of the offense charged.
The
relationship between banks and depositors has been held to be that of creditor
and debtor. Articles 1953 and 1980 of the New Civil Code, as appropriately pointed
out by petitioner, provide as follows:
Article 1953. 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.
Article 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money
in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions
concerning loan.
In a
long line of cases involving Qualified Theft, this Court has firmly established
the nature of possession by the Bank of the money deposits therein, and the
duties being performed by its employees who have custody of the money or have
come into possession of it. The Court has consistently considered the
allegations in the Information that such employees acted with grave abuse of
confidence, to the damage and prejudice of the Bank, without particularly
referring to it as owner of the money deposits, as sufficient to make out a
case of Qualified Theft.
No comments:
Post a Comment