Case Digest (G.R. No. 254254)
Facts:
Hilario P. Soriano v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 240458, January 08, 2020, First Division, Reyes, J. Jr., writing for the Court. Petitioner Hilario P. Soriano, then president of the Rural Bank of San Miguel (RBSM), was criminally charged in two informations for: (a) violating Section 83 of R.A. No. 337, as amended by P.D. No. 1795 (the DOSRI provision) by indirectly borrowing P15,000,000 from RBSM without board approval (Crim. Case No. 1719-M-2000); and (b) committing estafa through falsification of commercial documents in connection with that loan (Crim. Case No. 1720-M-2000). The complaint alleged the loan was made to appear in the name of depositor Virgilio J. Malang, without Malang’s knowledge, and that proceeds were converted for petitioner’s use.At trial the prosecution presented voluminous documentary evidence and nine witnesses, including Herminio Principio (BSP examiner), Virgilio Malang (purported borrower), officers of Merchants Rural Bank of Talavera, Inc. (MRBTI), Land Bank-Gapan personnel, Philippine Clearing House and PDIC representatives. Principio’s examination revealed RBSM had granted unsecured and irregular loans and that the June 27, 1997 manager’s check for P14,775,000 (net) payable to Malang was released despite incomplete documentation and without board approval. Malang testified he withdrew his loan application and never received proceeds; checks drawn in his name were deposited and then routed through MRBTI and Land Bank to pay obligations including petitioner’s prior irregular loans. RBSM general manager Rosalinda Ilagan (co-accused) produced the credit folder; she later died and her liability was noted extinguished by the RTC.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 17, Malolos City) found petitioner guilty on both counts in a Decision dated October 13, 2015, sentencing him under Section 83 to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of P200,000, and for estafa through falsification to an indeterminate sentence (10 years +1 day to 20 years) with civil indemnity of P14,775,000 plus 12% interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CR No. 39252 (Decision February 28, 2018) affirmed the convictions but modified penalties: (a) for Section 83, ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of P10,000; and (b) for the complex crime of estafa through falsification, an indeterminate term from 4 years, 2 months (prision correccional, minim...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s guilt in Criminal Case No. 1719‑M‑2000 for violation of Section 83 of R.A. No. 337, as amended, proved beyond reasonable doubt?
- Was petitioner’s guilt in Criminal Case No. 1720‑M‑2000 for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents proved be...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)