GR 163400; (March, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163400 , March 31, 2006
Hilario P. Soriano, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Caesar A. Casanova, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Hilario P. Soriano, President of Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. (RBSM), was charged with four counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The charges stemmed from allegations that he misappropriated bank funds, including a BSP emergency loan and other deposits, by diverting them to Soriano Holdings Corporation, where he served as Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer-in-Trust. The criminal informations were filed by State Prosecutor Josefino A. Subia based on sworn affidavits from BSP and PDIC personnel, which were transmitted to the Department of Justice via unsworn transmittal letters from the BSP and PDIC.
Petitioner moved to quash the informations, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was fatally defective. He contended that the unsworn transmittal letters constituted the complaint, violating Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which requires a complaint to be under oath. He further asserted that the letters contravened Section 18 of R.A. No. 7653 (New Central Bank Act), which mandates that BSP complaints require delegated authority from the Governor or a Monetary Board Resolution. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the sworn affidavits, not the transmittal letters, constituted the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the estafa cases despite the filing of unsworn transmittal letters from the BSP and PDIC.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The Court held that the sworn affidavits of the complaining witnesses, not the unsworn transmittal letters, constituted the complaint initiating the preliminary investigation. These affidavits, which detailed the alleged estafa, were executed under oath and complied with the requirements of Section 3(a), Rule 112. The transmittal letters were merely procedural cover letters forwarding the sworn documents and did not form part of the substantive complaint. Thus, there was substantial compliance with the Rules.
Regarding R.A. No. 7653 , the Court ruled that the BSP did not institute the complaint itself; it merely transmitted the affidavits of competent persons who witnessed the offenses. Since estafa is a public crime, any competent person may file a complaint, and the BSP’s transmittal did not require specific authorization under the law. The Court also found no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the motion to quash, as the jurisdictional requirements were met. The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order, and certiorari is not generally available unless there is a clear jurisdictional error, which was absent here.