G.R. Nos. 173654-765; August 28, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. TERESITA PUIG and ROMEO PORRAS, respondents.

FACTS

The Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor filed 112 Informations for Qualified Theft against respondents Teresita Puig and Romeo Porras, the Cashier and Bookkeeper, respectively, of the Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc. The uniform allegations stated that on various dates, the respondents, conspiring and with grave abuse of confidence, took specific sums of money without the knowledge and consent of the bank management, to its damage and prejudice. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed all cases, refusing to issue warrants of arrest.
The RTC held that the Informations were insufficient for two reasons. First, it ruled that the element of “taking without the consent of the owner” was missing because the bank was not the owner of the money; the depositors were. Second, it found the Informations bereft of factual allegations detailing the “dependence, guardianship or vigilance” that would constitute grave abuse of confidence. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the 112 Informations for Qualified Theft on the grounds that they insufficiently alleged the element of taking without the owner’s consent and the qualifying circumstance of grave abuse of confidence.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the RTC Orders. On the substantive issue, the Court clarified that a bank acquires ownership of money deposited by its clients. Under Article 1980 of the Civil Code, bank deposits are governed by the rules on simple loan. Consequently, pursuant to Article 1953, the bank becomes the owner of the deposited funds and is merely obligated to return an equivalent amount. Therefore, the money allegedly taken by the respondents belonged to the bank, sufficiently alleging the element of taking without the owner’s (the bank’s) consent.
Regarding the qualifying circumstance, the Court ruled that the Informations adequately alleged grave abuse of confidence. They expressly stated that the respondents were the bank’s Cashier and Bookkeeper and that they took the money “with grave abuse of confidence.” An Information only needs to state the ultimate facts constituting the offense, not the evidentiary details. The specific roles of the respondents, combined with the explicit allegation of abuse of confidence, were sufficient. The RTC’s dismissal based on a perceived lack of detailed factual averments was a reversible error. The case was remanded for trial.