GR 159517; (June, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159517-18; June 30, 2009
HILARIO P. SORIANO and ROSALINDA ILAGAN, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS (BSP), and PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (PDIC), Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Hilario P. Soriano and Rosalinda Ilagan were the President and General Manager, respectively, of the Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. (RBSM). They were charged with multiple criminal offenses before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The charges stemmed from two loan transactions in 1997 where petitioners, allegedly conspiring, falsified loan applications and bank records to make it appear that Virgilio J. Malang and Rogelio Mañaol obtained loans of ₱15,000,000.00 each, when in fact they did not. The loan proceeds were then allegedly credited to the named individuals’ accounts and converted for the petitioners’ personal use.
Consequently, separate Informations were filed against Soriano for violation of Section 83 of the General Banking Act (DOSRI Rules) for indirectly obtaining loans without the required board approval. Furthermore, both petitioners were charged with Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents for each loan transaction. The RTC denied their motions to quash these informations, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioners thus elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Informations filed against the petitioners sufficiently allege the elements of the crimes charged, specifically violation of the DOSRI Rules under Section 83 of the General Banking Act and Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents, to withstand a motion to quash.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the Informations validly charge offenses with sufficient factual averments. For the violation of Section 83, the Information clearly alleges that Soriano, as bank president, indirectly borrowed bank funds using a depositor’s name without the written approval of the majority of the board of directors, which is the core prohibition of the law. The allegation that he “indirectly” borrowed satisfies the statutory element.
Regarding Estafa through Falsification, the Informations adequately state the elements of the complex crime. They allege that petitioners, in their official capacities, conspired to falsify loan documents to make it appear that Malang and Mañaol applied for loans, which they did not. This act of falsification was the means to defraud the bank. The subsequent allegation that they converted the proceeds to their personal use and benefit constitutes the element of fraud and damage. The Court emphasized that in a motion to quash, the test is the sufficiency of the allegations in the Information, not the evidence, and all the essential elements of the offenses are plainly recited therein.