Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    PP V Cristobal Digest

    Uploaded by

    Alexa Torrillo
    1) Olivia Garcia Cristobal, a teller at Prudential Bank, was charged with qualified theft after an audit found her cash box $10,000 short of what the books showed. 2) Cristobal presented a withdrawal slip showing she withdrew $10,000 from another account, but the signature did not match. 3) Cristobal was charged with committing the offense "on or about January 2, 1996." She argued the information was defective for not stating the precise date. However, the court ruled the information was sufficient because time was not a material ingredient of the offense.

    Copyright:

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

    PP V Cristobal Digest

    Uploaded by

    Alexa Torrillo
    1K views1 page
    1) Olivia Garcia Cristobal, a teller at Prudential Bank, was charged with qualified theft after an audit found her cash box $10,000 short of what the books showed. 2) Cristobal presented a withdrawal slip showing she withdrew $10,000 from another account, but the signature did not match. 3) Cristobal was charged with committing the offense "on or about January 2, 1996." She argued the information was defective for not stating the precise date. However, the court ruled the information was sufficient because time was not a material ingredient of the offense.

    Original Title

    7. PP v Cristobal 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?

    1) Olivia Garcia Cristobal, a teller at Prudential Bank, was charged with qualified theft after an audit found her cash box $10,000 short of what the books showed. 2) Cristobal presented a withdrawal slip showing she withdrew $10,000 from another account, but the signature did not match. 3) Cristobal was charged with committing the offense "on or about January 2, 1996." She argued the information was defective for not stating the precise date. However, the court ruled the information was sufficient because time was not a material ingredient of the offense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    PP V Cristobal Digest

    Uploaded by

    Alexa Torrillo
    1) Olivia Garcia Cristobal, a teller at Prudential Bank, was charged with qualified theft after an audit found her cash box $10,000 short of what the books showed. 2) Cristobal presented a withdrawal slip showing she withdrew $10,000 from another account, but the signature did not match. 3) Cristobal was charged with committing the offense "on or about January 2, 1996." She argued the information was defective for not stating the precise date. However, the court ruled the information was sufficient because time was not a material ingredient of the offense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    [7] : PEOPLE VS CRISTOBAL

    GR No. 159450, March 30, 2011


    Bersamin, J.

    FACTS: The accused-appellant, Olivia Garcia Cristobal, being the teller of Prudential Bank, is charged
    with qualified theft. Cristobal is entrusted with cash and other accountabilities, with grave abuse of trust
    and confidence reposed upon her by her employer, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and
    consent of the owner thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry
    away cash money amounting to $10,000.00, belonging to the Prudential Bank, Angeles Main Branch.
    Virgilio Frias, Prudential bank’s senior audit examiner, inventories the cash accountabilities by manually
    counting the money. While the books of the branch showed that appellant had cash accountability of $25,
    040.52, the money in her cash box was only $5,040.52. Asked about the shortage, accused presented to
    Frias a withdrawal memo dated January 2, 1996 showing a withdrawal of $10,000.00 from Dollar
    Savings Account No. FX-836 ("FX-836") of Adoracion Tayag and her co-signatory, Apolinario Tayag.
    From the account ledger, Frias also discovered that a deposit of $10,000.00 was made on January 2, 1996.
    Thereafter, Frias compared the signature and found a "big difference". He referred the matter to the
    branch manager, Edgardo Panlilio. When Panlilio again asked appellant to explain, he latter started to cry
    and said she would explain to the bank president. The appellant sent a letter to the bank president.
    Appellant apologized and explained her shortage of $10,000.00 and another shortage of P2.2 Million
    which the audit team had also discovered.

    ISSUE: Was the information filed against the accused fatally defective?

    RULING:
    NO. Section 6 and 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the sufficiency of the allegation
    of the time or date of the commission of the offense.

    Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. – A complaint or information is sufficient if it states


    the name of the accused; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of
    as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the
    offense; and the place wherein the offense was committed.
    Section 11. Time of the commission of the offense. – It is not necessary to state in the complaint or
    information the precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material
    ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the
    actual date at which the offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit.

    Conformably with these rules, the information was sufficient because it stated the approximate time of the
    commission of the offense through the words "on or about the 2nd of January, 1996," and the accused
    could reasonably deduce the nature of the criminal act with which she was charged from a reading of its
    contents as well as gather by such reading whatever she needed to know about the charge to enable her to
    prepare her defense.
    The information herein did not have to state the precise date when the offense was committed,
    considering that the date was not a material ingredient of the offense. As such, the offense of qualified
    theft could be alleged to be committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission.
    Verily, December 29, 1995 and January 2, 1996 were dates only four days apart.

    You might also like