You are on page 1of 1

Soriano vs People and BSP

G.R. No. 162336 February 1, 2010

Soriano was charged for estafa through falsification of commercial documents for allegedly
securing a loan of 48 million in the name of two (2) persons when in fact these individuals did not
make any loan in the bank, nor did the bank's officers approved or had any information about
the said loan. The state prosecutor conducted a Preliminary Investigation on the basis of letters
sent by the officers of Special Investigation of BSP together with 5 affidavits and filed two (2)
separate information against Soriano for estafa through falsification of commercial documents
and violation of DORSI law.

Soriano moved for the quashal of the two (2) informations based on the ground:
1. that the court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged, for the letter transmitted by
the BSP to the DOJ constituted the complaint and was defective for failure to comply with
the mandatory requirements of Sec. 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, such as statment
of address of the petitioner and oath of subscription and the signatories were not
authorized persons to file the complaint; and
2. that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, for the commission of estafa uner par.
1(b) of Art. 315 of the RPC is inherently incompatible with the violation of DORSI law (Sec.
83 or RA 337 as amended by PD 1795), and therefore a person cannot be charged of both

Whether or not the complaint filed complied with the mandatory requirements of law.
Whether or not the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy in an order denying
a Motion to Quash.

Yes, the letters transmitted were not intended to be the complaint but merely transmitted for
preliminary investigation. The affidavits and not the letter transmitting them initiated the
preliminary investigation and therefore is the complaint which substantially complied with the
manadory requirements of law.

No. The proper procedure in such a case is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial without
prejudice on his part to present special defenses he had invoked in his motion to quash and if
after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner
authorized by law.