G.R. No. 162336 ; February 1, 2010
HILARIO P. SORIANO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS (BSP), PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (PDIC), PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ANTONIO C. BUAN, and STATE PROSECUTOR ALBERTO R. FONACIER, Respondents.

FACTS

Sometime in 2000, the Office of Special Investigation (OSI) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) transmitted a letter dated March 27, 2000 to the Department of Justice (DOJ), attaching five affidavits and other documents. These documents alleged that spouses Enrico and Amalia Carlos had an outstanding loan of ₱8 million with the Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. (RBSM) but had never applied for or received it. Instead, it was alleged that Hilario P. Soriano, then president of RBSM, ordered, facilitated, and received the loan proceeds without authorization from RBSM’s Board of Directors and without report to the BSP. The OSI letter requested a preliminary investigation and the filing of criminal charges against Soriano for Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents and for Violation of Section 83 of Republic Act No. 337 (the DOSRI law). State Prosecutor Alberto R. Fonacier conducted the preliminary investigation and subsequently filed two Informations against Soriano before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The first Information (Criminal Case No. 237-M-2001) was for Estafa through falsification of commercial documents, alleging Soriano and a co-accused falsified loan documents to make it appear Enrico Carlos applied for an ₱8 million loan, which they then converted for their personal benefit. The second Information (Criminal Case No. 238-M-2001) was for violation of the DOSRI law, alleging Soriano, as bank president, indirectly secured an ₱8 million loan from RBSM for his personal use without the required board approval and reporting, by using the name of depositor Enrico Carlos without his knowledge. Soriano moved to quash the Informations on two grounds: (1) the court had no jurisdiction because the OSI letter-complaint was defective for lack of oath and subscription and because the OSI officers lacked authority to file it; and (2) the facts charged do not constitute an offense because estafa and a DOSRI violation are inherently incompatible. The RTC denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, prompting Soriano to elevate the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring the informations void due to an allegedly defective complaint.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that a person cannot be charged simultaneously for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code and for violation of Section 83 of R.A. No. 337 (DOSRI law) based on the same set of acts.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that the OSI letter was merely a transmittal or cover letter, not the complaint itself. The complaint-affidavits were the five sworn affidavits attached to the letter, which fully complied with the requirements of Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court as they were subscribed and sworn to before a notary public. The transmittal letter, being a mere communication, did not need to be under oath. The authority of the OSI officers to initiate the complaint was also upheld, as the BSP, through its Monetary Board, has the power to conduct investigations and file appropriate cases against bank officials for violations of banking laws.
2. On the second issue, the Court held that a person can be charged with both estafa through falsification of commercial documents and violation of the DOSRI law for the same act. The offenses are distinct and have different elements. Violation of the DOSRI law (Section 83 of R.A. No. 337 ) punishes a bank director or officer for directly or indirectly borrowing bank funds without the required written approval of the majority of the board of directors. Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code punishes the misappropriation or conversion of money or property received in trust. The Court ruled that 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 use the fraudulent nature of the loan as a defense to escape culpability for circumventing the DOSRI law. The two offenses protect different interests: the DOSRI law safeguards bank depositors and the public interest by preventing insider abuse, while estafa protects property rights. Therefore, a single act may give rise to multiple liabilities where the law provides for it.