San Diego Vs People

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

JURIDICAL POSSESSION IS NEEDED IN ESTAFA WITH ABUSE

OF CONFIDENCE
San Diego vs People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 176114; April 8, 2015
Peralta, J.
FACTS:
In a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, petitioner Grace
San Diego (San Diego) seeks to reverse the Decision and Resolution
of the Court of Appeals affirming with modification the Decision of
the RTC, finding her guilty of qualified theft.
Petitioner San Diego served as accountant, cashier and teller of
Obando Fishermans Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. As such, she
had access to the books, cash vaults and bank deposits of the
cooperative. A criminal complaint was charged against herein
petitioner for preparing a certification containing a discrepancy in
the total cash balance of the cooperative.
Petitioner argues that from the proof adduced, the proper crime to
be charged is estafa, not qualified theft.
ISSUE:
Will the taking of the money by an accountant/cashier/teller will fall
under the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence?
RULING:
No, the crime committed is not estafa with abuse of confidence.
One of the elements of estafa with abuse of confidence is that the
money, goods or other personal property be received by the
offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to
return, the same. The offender acquires both material or physical
possession and juridical possession when the offender receives the
thing in trust or in commission or for administration. Juridical
possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right
over the thing transferred.
In the present case, it was established in the trial that the petitioner
never received the sum of money in trust, or on commission or for
administration as the possession of the petitioner was akin to that of
a receiving teller of funds received from third persons paid to the
bank. A teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds received,
and has no autonomous right to retain the money or goods
received.

Hence, the lower courts were correct in finding petitioner guilty of


qualified theft.

You might also like