Soriano v. Casanova
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Hilario P. Soriano, president of Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. (RBSM), was accused of estafa. The Office of Special Investigation (OSI) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the Litigation and Investigation Services (LIS) of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) transmitted letters to the Department of Justice (DOJ) containing sworn affidavits of bank employees detailing alleged estafa committed by petitioner. These affidavits narrated petitioner's failure to account for P21.0 million (P10.0 million for manager's checks payable to Soriano Holdings Corporation (SHC) and P11.0 million deposited to SHC's PCI Bank account) and P12.6 million (emergency loan from BSP delivered to petitioner and not reflected on RBSM's books). Procedural History: State Prosecutor Josefino A. Subia filed four (4) separate informations for estafa against petitioner before Branch 80, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos, Bulacan. Petitioner moved to quash the informations, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the transmittal letters from BSP and PDIC were not under oath and thus fatally defective as complaints, violating Section 3(a) of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. He also argued non-compliance with Section 18(c) and (d) of R.A. No. 7653 (New Central Bank Act) as the letters lacked authorization from the BSP Governor. The RTC denied the motion to quash, finding jurisdiction based on the sworn affidavits. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's denial, ruling that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and that the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order, not subject to certiorari until final judgment. The Petition: Petitioner sought review of the CA's decision, reiterating his arguments that the transmittal letters, not being under oath and lacking BSP Governor's authorization, constituted defective complaints, divesting the RTC of jurisdiction. He argued that certiorari under Rule 65 was proper due to the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
Issue(s)
Whether the transmittal letters from the BSP and PDIC to the DOJ constitute the "complaint" contemplated by Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the offense charged despite the alleged defects in the complaint. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's denial of the motion to quash.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the transmittal letters as complaints: The Court held that the transmittal letters from the BSP and PDIC to the DOJ were not intended to be the "complaint" envisioned under Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The tenor of the letters indicated they were merely intended to transmit the sworn affidavits of bank employees who had personal knowledge of the alleged offenses. The letters themselves did not contain averments of personal knowledge by the BSP or PDIC officers regarding the criminal violations. Therefore, the Court found that the sworn affidavits, which were subscribed and sworn to before a notary public, were the documents intended to initiate the preliminary investigation. This constituted substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. On the acquisition of jurisdiction: The Court ruled that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the offense. Since the sworn affidavits, not the transmittal letters, were the basis for initiating the preliminary investigation, and these affidavits were executed under oath by individuals with personal knowledge of the acts constituting the alleged estafa, the procedural requirements for initiating a criminal case were substantially met. The crime of estafa, being a public crime, can be initiated by any competent person, and the affiants in this case qualified as such. On the propriety of certiorari and the denial of the motion to quash: The Court reiterated the general rule that the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari until a final judgment is rendered. The Court found that the exception for grave abuse of discretion, as cited in Morales v. Court of Appeals, did not apply here. Because the trial court had substantially complied with the Rules of Court and thus validly acquired jurisdiction, it did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to quash. The proper remedy for the petitioner was to proceed to trial and, if an adverse decision was rendered, to appeal the case.
Main Doctrine
The transmittal letters from government agencies to the Department of Justice, which merely forward sworn affidavits of witnesses containing narrations of criminal offenses, do not constitute the "complaint" contemplated by Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Substantial compliance with the rules on preliminary investigation is met when the sworn affidavits, intended to initiate the investigation, are properly executed and subscribed under oath.