Case Digest (G.R. No. 159517-18)
Facts:
Hilario P. Soriano and Rosalinda Ilagan, G.R. Nos. 159517-18, June 30, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Hilario P. Soriano (then President) and Rosalinda Ilagan (then General Manager) were officers of the Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. (RBSM). Prosecutors alleged that during their incumbency petitioners caused fictitious loans to be recorded in the names of depositors Virgilio J. Malang and Rogelio Manaol (P15,000,000.00 each), converted the proceeds to their own use, and falsified loan documents and bank records to effect the scheme.On May 4, 2000, State Prosecutor Josefino A. Subia filed informations. Criminal Case Nos. 1719-M-2000 and 1720-M-2000 (raffled to RTC Branch 14) charged Soriano (1719) with violation of Section 83 of R.A. No. 337 (the DOSRI rule) and Soriano and Ilagan (1720) with estafa through falsification of commercial documents. Separate informations (Criminal Case Nos. 1980-M-2000 and 1981-M-2000, raffled to RTC Branch 77) charged Soriano with another count under Section 83 (for the Manaol loan) and both petitioners with estafa through falsification as to that transaction.
Petitioners moved to quash the four informations on grounds of duplicity (more than one offense charged) and that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense; they also raised prematurity and lack of probable cause. RTC Branch 77 denied the motion to quash (Order dated November 15, 2000), finding each information charged only one offense and that the factual allegations were evidentiary matters for trial. RTC Branch 14 likewise denied the motion (Order dated November 27, 2000), reaching similar conclusions.
Petitioners sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals (consolidated CA-G.R. SP. Nos. 64648 and 64649). By Decision dated August 5, 2003, the CA, after consolidating the petitions, denied the petitions and affirmed the RTC orders, holding that (a) duplicity was not present because separate informations were filed; (b) a single act may violate different provisions of law so multiple prosecutions may be proper; and (c) the sufficiency of ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Courts commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' motions to quash the informations?
- Were the informations duplicitous because they charged more than one offense arising from the same act?
- Do the factual averments in the informations, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the offenses charged (i.e., are ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)