CREDIT Case Digest Prepared by: SOLANO, Justine Kaye O.

15 People v. Puig and Porras

TOPIC: Loans
Court Supreme Court, Third Division
Ponente Chico-Nazario, J.
Citation G.R. No. 173654-765
Date 28 August 2008
Petitioner People of the Philippines
Respondents Teresita Puig and Romeo Porras
Codal Provision NCC 1953 and 1980 (fully cited in body of digest)
Case Doctrine Related to Topic
The Bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients; and the employees of the Bank, who are
entrusted with the possession of money of the Bank due to the confidence reposed in them, occupy positions of
confidence.
Case Summary
This case is about Puig (Cashier) and Porras (Bookkeeper) who were charged with 112 cases of Qualified Theft by
Rural Bank. RTC did not find probable cause because it believed that (1) the depositor-clients are the owners of the
money stolen (most relevant); and (2) the Informations are insufficient in form. The Court ruled that (1) Rural Bank
acquired ownership of the money deposited by its clients; and (2) the Informations are sufficient in form and
alleged all the essential elements for Qualified Theft.

FACTS:

7 Nov 2005 - Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc. (Rural Bank) filed before the RTC, 112 cases of Qualified Theft against
Teresita Puig (Cashier) and Romeo Porras (Bookkeeper) = PhP 15,000.00

RTC Dumangas, Iloilo:

• Did not find probable cause because: (1) the element “taking without consent of the owners” was missing
because the owners of the money allegedly taken are the depositor-clients and not Rural Bank who filed
the case (most relevant); 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.”1 In addition, allowing the 112 cases filed
to push through would be violative of the respondent’s rights under Section 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution.
• Motion for Reconsideration of Rural Bank denied → Rural Bank went straight to SC.

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE # 1 (most relevant) HELD

W/N the depositor-clients remain to be the owners of the NO. The bank acquires ownership of the money
money they deposited in banks deposited by its clients, making the money taken by
respondents as belonging to the bank.

Rural Bank:
• NCC 1980 – “Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed
by the provisions concerning simple loan.”
• NCC 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.”
• Hence, depositors who place their money with the bank are considered creditors of the bank. The bank acquires
ownership of the money deposited by its clients, making the money taken by respondents as belonging to the
bank.

Supreme Court: (see endnotes for full citation of relevant provisions)

• RPC 310i – Qualified Theft (6th element: That it be done with grave abuse of confidence)
• Sec. 6, Rule 110 – requires, inter alia, that the information must state the acts or omissions complained of as
constitutive of the offense.
• Sec. 9, Rule 110ii – manner of how the information should be worded: “must 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 understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.

1INFORMATION “That on or about the 1st day of August, 2002, in the Municipality of Pototan, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, above-named [respondents], 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 FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS
(P15,000.00), Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the said bank in the aforesaid amount.”

Page 1 of 2
CREDIT Case Digest Prepared by: SOLANO, Justine Kaye O.
15 People v. Puig and Porras
TOPIC: Loans
o Test: whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the
court to render judgment properly.
• It is beyond doubt that tellers, Cashiers, Bookkeepers and other employees of a Bank who come into possession
of the monies deposited therein enjoy the confidence reposed in them by their employer. Banks, on the other
hand, where monies are deposited, are considered the owners thereof. This is very clear not only from the
express provisions of the law, but from established jurisprudence. The relationship between banks and
depositors has been held to be that of creditor and debtor.

ISSUE # 2 HELD
W/N the Informations sufficiently allege all the elements YES. The Court has consistently considered the
of Qualified Theft 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.

Rural Bank: They specifically allege that the respondents were the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank, and
that they took various amounts of money with grave abuse of confidence, and without knowledge and consent of the
bank, to the damage and prejudice of the bank.

Puig and Porras:

• Petition for Review on Certiorari via Rule 45 is the wrong mode of appeal because a finding of probable cause
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest presupposes evaluation of the facts and circumstances, which is not
proper under the said rule.
• DOJ through SOJ is the principal party to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari, considering that the incident
was indorsed by the DOJ.

Supreme Court:
• 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.
o Court illustrated this by citing several Informations from different cases (i.e. Roque v. People; People v.
Sison, and People v. Locson [see full text for more details; too long to cite here])
• As to DOJ Theory: the State should be represented by OSG (Mobilia v. Hajime)
• As to the wrong mode of appeal: Rural Bank raised a question of law (correct mode)

RULING:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Orders dated 30
January 2006 and 9 June 2006 of the RTC dismissing Criminal Cases No. 05-3054 to 05-3165 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Let the corresponding Warrants of Arrest issue against herein respondents TERESITA PUIG and
ROMEO PORRAS. The RTC Judge of Branch 68, in Dumangas, Iloilo, is directed to proceed with the trial of Criminal
Cases No. 05-3054 to 05-3165, inclusive, with reasonable dispatch. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

iART. 310. Qualified Theft. — The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in
the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence , or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail
matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts 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.

Theft, as defined in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, requires the physical taking of another's property without violence or intimidation against
persons or force upon things. The elements of the crime under this Article are:
1. Intent to gain;
2. Unlawful taking;
3. Personal property belonging to another;
4. Absence of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon
things.

To fall under the crime of Qualified Theft, the following elements must concur:
1. Taking of personal property;
2. That the said property belongs to another;
3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That it be done without the owner's consent;
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things;
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.

iiSection 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must 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 understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the
court to pronounce judgment.

Page 2 of 2