G.R. No. 240458, January 08, 2020
Hilario P. Soriano, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Two separate Informations were filed against petitioner Hilario P. Soriano, the president of Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. (RBSM). In Criminal Case No. 1719-M-2000, he was charged with violating Section 83 of the General Banking Act (Republic Act No. 337, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1795) for indirectly borrowing a loan of PhP15 million from RBSM without the required written consent and approval of the majority of the bank’s board of directors, and without transmitting a copy to the supervising department, using the name of depositor Virgilio J. Malang without his knowledge. In Criminal Case No. 1720-M-2000, he was charged with Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents, conspiring with the bank manager, Rosalinda Ilagan, by falsifying loan documents to make it appear Malang applied for the loan, and converting the proceeds of PhP14,775,000.00 for their personal gain.
The prosecution established that on June 27, 1997, RBSM released an unsecured loan of PhP15,000,000.00 in Malang’s name without proper documentation, Credit Committee or Board approval. A Manager’s Check for PhP14,775,000.00 payable to Malang was issued. Malang testified he did not apply for or receive the loan proceeds; he had initially signed blank documents upon petitioner’s encouragement but later withdrew his application. The loan proceeds were deposited into a purported current account of Malang at RBSM, from which two checks were drawn and deposited into another purported account of Malang at Merchants Rural Bank of Talavera, Inc. (MRBTI). Upon petitioner’s instruction, the manager Ilagan deposited and later withdrew the amount via 30 MRBTI checks, which were then used to purchase Land Bank cashier’s checks payable to third parties. These Land Bank checks were deposited into RBSM to pay off petitioner’s previous irregular loans. The defense failed to file its formal offer of evidence. Ilagan died during the pendency of the case.
The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty on both counts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties.

ISSUE

The core issues involve the correctness of petitioner’s conviction for violation of the General Banking Act and for Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the modified decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that all elements of violation of Section 83 of the General Banking Act were proven: petitioner was a bank officer; he indirectly borrowed from RBSM; and he did so without the written consent and approval of the majority of the board of directors and without reporting it to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. The Court also found all elements of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents present: petitioner, a bank officer, falsified loan documents by making it appear Malang participated in the loan transaction when he did not; the falsification was the means to commit estafa; and the bank, its creditors, and the BSP were defrauded in the amount of PhP14,775,000.00. The Court modified the penalties in accordance with recent laws. For the violation of the General Banking Act, the penalty of ten years imprisonment and a PhP200,000.00 fine was affirmed. For Estafa thru Falsification, applying Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code on complex crimes and Republic Act No. 10951, the penalty was adjusted to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, plus a fine of PhP5,000.00 for falsification. The monetary award was also modified, imposing legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until full satisfaction.