Tria contends that (1) there was no taking of personal property; (2) there was no intent to gain on his part; (3) the personal property does not belong to PNB even if it is the depositary bank; (4) there was no grave abuse of confidence on his part; and (5) his alleged identification of the payee is not the operative act that triggered the payment of the managers check by the PNB-MWSS Branch. Instead, Tria argued that it was Flandez who approved and paid the managers check even beyond his authority. He added that it was the other bank employees who should be held liable for the loss. The Assistant City Prosecutor did not find probable cause to file information against Tria citing that Tria’s identification of the payee did not consummate the payment of the Managers Check. Rather, it was held, the consummation of the payment occurred during Flandez approval of the encashment. PNB elevated the
EVIDENCE (SET B) SUN 08:00-12:00PM 2016-2017 ATTY. LIONEL MACABBABAD - AUSL FOUNDATION 116 matter to Department of Justice and Court of Appeals. Both affirmed that no probable cause was established against Tria. 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. 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 latters consent. If committed with grave abuse of confidence, the crime of theft becomes qualified. The elements of which are: Taking of personal property; That the said property belongs to another; That the said taking be done with intent to gain; That it be done without the owner's consent; That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. (2) Del Castillo vs. People, 664 SCRA Facts: Pursuant to a confidential information that petitioner was engaged in selling shabu, police officers headed by SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon, after conducting surveillance and test-buy operation at the house of petitioner, secured a search warrant against the petitioner. Upon arrival, somebody shouted raid, which prompted them
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 122 pages?
- Winter '17
- Atty. Lopez
- The Bible, Supreme Court of the United States, President of the United States, Appellate court, Subpoena duces tecum, ATTY. LIONEL MACABBABAD