[Simple Loan]  To summarize, the bank acquires ownership of the money deposited

02 People v Teresita Puig and Romeo Porras by its clients, and the employees of the bank, who are entrusted with
Aug. 28, 2008 | Chico-Nazario, J. the possession of money of the bank, due to the confidence reposed
Petitioners: People of the Philippines in them, occupy positions of confidence.
Respondents: Teresita Puig and Romeo Porras  The informations alleged all the essential elements of qualified theft.
Doctrine: Dispositive: Petition granted.
Facts:
 112 informations for qualified theft with grave abuse of confidence
were filed against Puig and Porras. They were the cashier and
bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan.
 TC did not find probable cause and ruled that the element of taking
without consent was missing on the ground that it is the depositors,
and not the bank, who are the owners of the money allegedly taken.
o TC ruled that the depositors are the real parties-in-interest.
o The complaint was filed by the bank.
 Went directly to the SC on Rule 45.
Ruling:
WON the information sufficiently alleged the elements of qualified theft?
Yes, because the bank is considered the owner of the money
Held:
 The Court held that banks are considered owners of the money
deposited therein based on express provision of law and
jurisprudence.
o Art 1953 states that a person who receives a loan of money or
other fungible thing acquires ownership thereof and is bound to
pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and
quality.
o Art 1980 provides that fixed, savings, and current deposits of
money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the
provisions concerning loan.
o The relationship between banks and depositors is that of
creditor and debtor.
 Tellers, cashiers, bookkeepers, and other employees of the bank who
come into possession of the monies deposited occupy positions of
confidence due to the confidence reposed in them.
 The SC has consistently held that allegations in informations that such
employees acted with grave abuse of confidence, to the damage and
prejudice of the bank, without referring to the bank as the owner of
the money deposits, is sufficient to make the case of qualified theft.