Case Digest (G.R. No. 200070-71)
Facts:
In Hilario P. Soriano vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 162336, decided on February 1, 2010, petitioner Hilario P. Soriano, then President of the Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), was accused by the Office of Special Investigation of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) of ordering and receiving an unauthorized ₱8 million loan in the name of an unsuspecting depositor, Enrico Carlos. On March 27, 2000, the BSP’s OSI transmitted a cover letter with five sworn affidavits to the Department of Justice (DOJ), prompting a preliminary investigation by State Prosecutor Alberto R. Fonacier. Two informations were later filed in RTC Branch 79, Malolos, Bulacan: Criminal Case No. 237-M-2001 for Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents (RPC Art. 315(1)(b) in relation to Art. 172 RPC and PD 1689), alleging forged loan applications and credit papers to misappropriate bank funds; and Criminal Case No. 238-M-2001 for violation of Section 83 of RA 337, as amended by PD 1795 (“Case Digest (G.R. No. 200070-71)
Facts:
- Background and Initiation of Criminal Proceedings
- In March 2000, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ Office of Special Investigation (OSI) transmitted a letter dated March 27, 2000 to the DOJ’s Chief State Prosecutor, attaching five affidavits.
- The affidavits alleged that spouses Enrico and Amalia Carlos purportedly had an ₱8 million loan with Rural Bank of San Miguel (RBSM) which they never applied for or received; that Hilario P. Soriano, then RBSM president, ordered and received the loan proceeds; and that no board approval or BSP report was secured.
- State Prosecutor Alberto R. Fonacier conducted a preliminary investigation, issuing subpoenas with affidavits, took Soriano’s counter‐affidavit, and found probable cause to file two separate informations in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.
- RTC Proceedings and Motions to Quash
- Criminal Case No. 237-M-2001 (Nov. 14, 2000): Information for estafa through falsification of commercial documents (RPC Art. 315(1)(b) in relation to Art. 172 and PD 1689), alleging Soriano conspired to falsify loan documents to secure and convert an ₱8 million loan in another’s name.
- Criminal Case No. 238-M-2001 (Nov. 10, 2000): Information for violation of Sec. 83, RA 337 as amended by PD 1795 (DOSRI law), alleging Soriano indirectly borrowed ₱8 million without board approval or BSP notice by using an unsuspecting depositor’s name and converted the proceeds.
- Soriano moved to quash both informations, arguing (a) defective complaint for lack of Rule 112, Sec. 3(a) and RA 7653 requirements, and (b) that DOSRI violation and estafa are mutually exclusive. RTC Branch 79 denied the motion (Aug. 8 & Sept. 5, 2001).
- Soriano filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the CA, which was denied in a Sept. 26, 2003 Decision and Feb. 5, 2004 Resolution.
Issues:
- Did the complaint comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and Section 18(c)–(d) of RA 7653?
- Can a DOSRI violation under Sec. 83, RA 337 (as amended) and estafa under RPC Art. 315(1)(b) coexist in the same transaction?
- Is a Rule 65 petition for certiorari the proper remedy to assail an RTC order denying a motion to quash?
- Is Soriano entitled to a writ of injunction to enjoin the criminal proceedings?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)