Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 976 views

    Benabaye Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Yu Asian
    Benabaye was a loans bookkeeper for Siam Bank who was authorized to collect loan payments from clients and remit them to her supervisor, Tupag. An audit found discrepancies regarding non-remitted payments. Benabaye claimed she remitted all payments to Tupag, who admitted accountability. Siam Bank charged them with estafa. Both were convicted but Benabaye appealed, arguing she only had material, not juridical, possession of funds. The Court ruled the first element of estafa was not established as Benabaye's possession was only material as a custodian, not juridical. As such, both Benabaye and Tupag must

    Copyright:

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

    Benabaye Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Yu Asian
    976 views1 page
    Benabaye was a loans bookkeeper for Siam Bank who was authorized to collect loan payments from clients and remit them to her supervisor, Tupag. An audit found discrepancies regarding non-remitted payments. Benabaye claimed she remitted all payments to Tupag, who admitted accountability. Siam Bank charged them with estafa. Both were convicted but Benabaye appealed, arguing she only had material, not juridical, possession of funds. The Court ruled the first element of estafa was not established as Benabaye's possession was only material as a custodian, not juridical. As such, both Benabaye and Tupag must

    Original Description:

    case digest remedial law

    Original Title

    Benabaye vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Benabaye was a loans bookkeeper for Siam Bank who was authorized to collect loan payments from clients and remit them to her supervisor, Tupag. An audit found discrepancies regarding non-remitted payments. Benabaye claimed she remitted all payments to Tupag, who admitted accountability. Siam Bank charged them with estafa. Both were convicted but Benabaye appealed, arguing she only had material, not juridical, possession of funds. The Court ruled the first element of estafa was not established as Benabaye's possession was only material as a custodian, not juridical. As such, both Benabaye and Tupag must

    Copyright:

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

    Benabaye Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Yu Asian
    Benabaye was a loans bookkeeper for Siam Bank who was authorized to collect loan payments from clients and remit them to her supervisor, Tupag. An audit found discrepancies regarding non-remitted payments. Benabaye claimed she remitted all payments to Tupag, who admitted accountability. Siam Bank charged them with estafa. Both were convicted but Benabaye appealed, arguing she only had material, not juridical, possession of funds. The Court ruled the first element of estafa was not established as Benabaye's possession was only material as a custodian, not juridical. As such, both Benabaye and Tupag must

    Copyright:

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

    CHERRY ANN M. BENABAYE, Petitioner, v.

    PEOPLE OF THE
    PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
    G.R. No. 203466, February 25, 2015

    Petitioner Benabaye was the Loans Bookkeeper of Siam Bank in Iligan City. She was authorized
    to collect and/or accept loan payments of the clients, issue provisional receipts therefor, and remit such
    payments to Tupag, her supervisor. In an audit investigation conducted by Siam Bank, a discrepancy was
    discovered regarding the non-remittance of loan payments by Benabaye.

    In her written defense, Benabaye claimed that she has remitted the receipts and the amounts to her
    supervisor, Tupag. Tupag admitted his accountability. Accordingly, Siam Bank filed a criminal case for
    Estafa against them before the RTC. Tupag was unable to testify, hence, the trial was concluded sans his
    testimony.

    The RTC found both Benabaye and Tupag guilty of Estafa. Benabaye appealed to the CA, on the ground
    that: (a) her possession of the money comprising the loan payments of Siam Bank's clients was merely
    material, not juridical, hence, she cannot be validly indicted for Estafa. On the other hand, Tupag likewise
    appealed his conviction, but was however denied by the RTC saying that Tupag lost his remedy to appeal
    when he was unable to testify.

    The CA affirmed Benabaye's conviction in toto. Benabaye moved for reconsideration, which the CA
    denied. Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE:
    1. Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining Benabaye's conviction for the crime of Estafa
    through misappropriation

    RULING:
    The first element of Estafa has not been established, since the possession of the collected loan
    payments was merely material and not juridical. In this case, The petitioner was required to remit all
    payments to her supervisor. As such, the money merely passes into her hands and she takes custody
    thereof only for the duration of the banking day. Thus, being a mere custodian of the missing funds and
    not, in any manner, an agent who could have asserted a right against Siam Bank over the same, Benabaye
    had only acquired material and not juridical possession of such funds.

    Separately, in light of the foregoing, Benabaye's coaccused, Tupag, who likewise was not appointed as an
    agent of Siam Bank and thus had no juridical possession of the subject sums, must also be discharged of
    the same Estafa charge in view of Section 11 (a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
    Procedure, which states:

    SEC. 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused.-


    (a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except
    insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.

    While it is true that only Benabaye was able to successfully perfect her appeal, the rule is that an appeal in
    a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review of all its aspects, including those not raised
    by the parties. Considering that a favorable judgment, as in this case, shall benefit the co-accused who did
    not appeal or those who appealed from their judgments of conviction but for one reason or another, the
    conviction became final and executory, Benabaye's discharge for the crime of Estafa is likewise
    applicable to Tupag

    You might also like