TOPIC: WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE (HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE)

PNB vs. TRIA

G.R. 193250

DOCTRINE: Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, are

such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. It is the
existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a
reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that
the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he is to be prosecuted. A
finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more
likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the
accused.

FACTS: PNB-MWSS Branch filed a complaint for qualified theft against Tria, its bank
manager, before the Prosecutor’s Office. PNB contended that Tria connived with a
fictitious payee named Atty. Reyes in encashing a manager’s chech issued by Tria
himself. PNB narrated that Tria, as bank manager, instructed his employees to process
and evaluate a request letter from Atty. Reyes instructing the deduction of 5 Million
Pesos from the MWSS account and its withdrawal, without consent from the account
holder and PNB. Tria also accompanied Atty. Reyes in PNB-QC where said manager’s
check was encashed, despite the availability of fund in PNB-MWSS, and successfully
encashed the check.
In his defense, Tria averred that the elements of qualified theft these are lacking in this
case because there was no taking of personal property and there was no intent to gain
on his part, he personal property does not belong to PNB even if it is the depositary
bank, there was no grave abuse of discretion on his part and his alleged identification of
payee Atty. Reyes is not the operative act that triggered the payment of the manager’s
check. Instead, Tria put the blame on PNB-QC for not verifying,
ISSUE: Whether or not the DOJ erred in failing to consider the existence of probable
cause?

RULING: The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. There was
more than probable cause to proceed against Tria for qualified theft.
It must be emphasized at the outset that what is necessary for the filing of a criminal
information is not proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person accused is guilty of
the acts imputed on him, but only that there is probable cause to believe that he is guilty
of the crime charged. Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, are
such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. It is the existence of such
facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the
crime for which he is to be prosecuted. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest
on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it
was committed by the accused.

As defined, theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without
violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the
personal property of another without the latter’s consent. If committed with grave abuse
of confidence, the crime of theft becomes qualified. The elements of which are:

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 owners consent;
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons,
nor of force upon things; and
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.