Soriano v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Office of Special Investigation (OSI) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) transmitted a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting the filing of criminal charges against petitioner Hilario P. Soriano. The letter alleged that Soriano, then president of Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. (RBSM), ordered, facilitated, and received the proceeds of an ₱8 million loan purportedly for spouses Enrico and Amalia Carlos, who denied applying for or receiving such loan. The loan was allegedly not authorized by RBSM's Board of Directors and not reported to the BSP. Based on this, two informations were filed: one for Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents and another for Violation of Section 83 of RA 337 (DOSRI law). Procedural History: Petitioner moved to quash the informations, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to a defective complaint and that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, as estafa and DOSRI violation are incompatible. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion. The Court of Appeals (CA) also denied petitioner's subsequent petition for certiorari, affirming the RTC's rulings. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner assails the CA's decision, raising issues regarding the compliance of the complaint with procedural requirements, the possibility of prosecuting both estafa and DOSRI violations for the same transaction, the propriety of certiorari as a remedy, and entitlement to an injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the complaint complied with the mandatory requirements under Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and Section 18, paragraphs (c) and (d) of RA 7653. Whether a loan transaction within the ambit of the DOSRI law could also be the subject of Estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code. Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy against an Order denying a Motion to Quash. Whether petitioner is entitled to a writ of injunction.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed September 26, 2003 Decision and February 5, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (Compliance with Complaint Requirements): The Court held that the BSP letter was merely a transmittal or cover letter, not the complaint itself. The attached affidavits, subscribed and sworn to before a notary public, constituted the complaint-affidavits that initiated the preliminary investigation. This substantially complied with Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the requirements of Section 18, paragraphs (c) and (d) of RA 7653 did not apply because the BSP merely transmitted the affidavits of complainants to the DOJ, rather than instituting the complaint itself. The witnesses who executed the affidavits, possessing personal knowledge, qualified as "any competent person" to initiate a complaint for a public crime like estafa. On the second issue (DOSRI Violation and Estafa Co-existence): The Court affirmed that a loan transaction violating the DOSRI law can also be the subject of Estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that petitioner, as bank president, indirectly obtained an ₱8 million loan by using the name of a depositor without proper board approval and reportorial requirements. This loan, obtained through falsification and converted for personal benefit, constituted both a DOSRI violation and estafa. The Court clarified that the loan proceeds, obtained fraudulently, were held by the petitioner in a fiduciary capacity for the bank, making them capable of misappropriation, and thus did not negate the estafa charge. The broad prohibition under Section 83 of RA 337 covers indirect borrowings, preventing DOSRI officials from using dummies to circumvent the law. On the third issue (Propriety of Certiorari): The Court reiterated its consistent ruling that a special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. The proper procedure is to enter a plea, proceed to trial, and if an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom. The Court found no special or exceptional circumstances in this case to justify an immediate resort to certiorari, thus the CA did not commit reversible error in dismissing the petition. On the fourth issue (Entitlement to Injunction): The Court found no compelling reason to grant the injunctive relief sought by the petitioner. The requisites for injunctive relief, including a clear and unmistakable right, a material and substantial invasion of that right, and an urgent necessity to prevent serious damage, were not met. Given the findings on the earlier issues, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated a clear legal right that would warrant the issuance of an injunction.
Main Doctrine
A bank officer violates the DOSRI law when he acquires bank funds for his personal benefit, even if such acquisition was facilitated by a fraudulent loan application. Directors, officers, stockholders, and their related interests cannot be allowed to interpose the fraudulent nature of the loan as a defense to escape culpability for their circumvention of Section 83 of Republic Act (RA) No. 337.