Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 345 views

    PNB v. Tria

    Uploaded by

    siyentipikongpolitiko
    Tria, a bank manager for PNB, is accused of qualified theft for encashing a manager's check for 5 million pesos made out to a fictitious payee, Atty. Reyes. PNB alleges Tria instructed employees to process the withdrawal from an MWSS account without the account holder's consent. Tria accompanied Reyes to encash the check. Tria claims the elements of qualified theft are lacking and puts blame on PNB for not verifying. The court finds there is probable cause, as facts show it is more likely than not that Tria committed theft by abusing his position as manager to withdraw funds without consent for his own gain. As manager, Tria was responsible for verifying

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PNB v. Tria

    Uploaded by

    siyentipikongpolitiko
    345 views2 pages
    Tria, a bank manager for PNB, is accused of qualified theft for encashing a manager's check for 5 million pesos made out to a fictitious payee, Atty. Reyes. PNB alleges Tria instructed employees to process the withdrawal from an MWSS account without the account holder's consent. Tria accompanied Reyes to encash the check. Tria claims the elements of qualified theft are lacking and puts blame on PNB for not verifying. The court finds there is probable cause, as facts show it is more likely than not that Tria committed theft by abusing his position as manager to withdraw funds without consent for his own gain. As manager, Tria was responsible for verifying

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Tria, a bank manager for PNB, is accused of qualified theft for encashing a manager's check for 5 million pesos made out to a fictitious payee, Atty. Reyes. PNB alleges Tria instructed employees to process the withdrawal from an MWSS account without the account holder's consent. Tria accompanied Reyes to encash the check. Tria claims the elements of qualified theft are lacking and puts blame on PNB for not verifying. The court finds there is probable cause, as facts show it is more likely than not that Tria committed theft by abusing his position as manager to withdraw funds without consent for his own gain. As manager, Tria was responsible for verifying

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    345 views2 pages

    PNB v. Tria

    Uploaded by

    siyentipikongpolitiko
    Tria, a bank manager for PNB, is accused of qualified theft for encashing a manager's check for 5 million pesos made out to a fictitious payee, Atty. Reyes. PNB alleges Tria instructed employees to process the withdrawal from an MWSS account without the account holder's consent. Tria accompanied Reyes to encash the check. Tria claims the elements of qualified theft are lacking and puts blame on PNB for not verifying. The court finds there is probable cause, as facts show it is more likely than not that Tria committed theft by abusing his position as manager to withdraw funds without consent for his own gain. As manager, Tria was responsible for verifying

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PNB v.

    Tria
    TOPIC: CRIMINAL LAW; Qualified Theft (Art. 310 in relation to
    Article 308-309, RPC)
    Facts: PNB-MWSS Branch filed a complaint for qualified theft
    against Tria, its bank manager, before the Prosecutors Office. PNB
    contended that Tria connived with a fictitious payee named Atty.
    Reyes in encashing a managers check 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
    managers 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
    there are lacking in this case because there was no taking of
    personal property, there was no intent to gain on his part, the
    personal property does not belong to PNB even if it is the
    depository 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 managers check.
    Instead, Tria put the blame on PNB-QC for not verifying.
    Issue: Based on the surrounding facts, whether there is probable
    cause to file Information for Qualified theft against Tria
    Held: YES. Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal
    information, are such facts as are sufficient to engender a wellfounded 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.
    Under Art. 310 of the RPC in relation to Art. 308 and 309 of the
    same Code, theft is committed by any person who with intent to
    gain 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.
    In this case, all the elements are present. It must be noted that
    the managers check was drawn by Tria himself upon the bank
    PNB. The pretense made in PNB-MWSS that led to the issuance of
    the managers check cannot be imputed on anyone other than
    Tria. His role as branch manager who had the responsibility over
    the functions of the employees of PNB cannot be overlooked. Tria
    is duty bound to verify from the bank clients any supposed
    authority given. He is required to exercise the highest degree of
    care, but this degree of diligence was wanting in Trias failure to
    determine the veracity of the request for withdrawal.

    You might also like