- Petitioner
- Cristeta Chua-Burce
- Respondent
- Court of Appeals
- Citation
- G.R. No. 109595
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Division
- Second Division
- Ponente
- Quisumbing, J.
- Decided
- April 27, 2000
Whether a bank cash custodian can be convicted of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code for missing funds from the bank vault
Summary
Cristeta Chua-Burce, a bank cash custodian, was charged with estafa for P150,000.00 missing from Metropolitan Bank's vault. The RTC and Court of Appeals convicted her, but the Supreme Court reversed and acquitted her. The key issue was whether a cash custodian has 'juridical possession' required for estafa under Article 315(1)(b). The Supreme Court held that as a mere employee-custodian, she had only physical possession like a bank teller, not the juridical possession needed for estafa. The Court distinguished her position from agents who have independent rights over property. This case clarifies the distinction between different types of possession in determining criminal liability for estafa versus theft.