Rule 117

HILARIO P. SORIANO v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 162336 February 1, 2010

(INFORMATION CHARGES MORE THAN ONE OFFENSE)

Facts:

Criminal charges for Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial was filed against herein petitioner
Hilario P. Soriano stating that spouses Enrico and Amalia Carlos appeared to have an outstanding loan of
₱8 million with RBSM but had never applied for nor received such loan; that it was petitioner, who was
then president of RBSM, who had ordered, facilitated, and received the proceeds without the
authorization of RBSM's Board of Directors and no report is submitted to BSP

The other Information was for violation of Section 83 of RA 337 that he allegedly indirectly secured an ₱8
million loan with RBSM, for his personal use and benefit, without the written consent and approval of the
bank's Board of Directors, without entering the said transaction in the bank's records, and without
transmitting a copy of the transaction to the supervising department of the bank.

Petitioner moved to quash the informations on 2 ground: that the court had no jurisdiction over the
offense charged and that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. RTC denied for lack of merit.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with CA

Issue:

Whether a loan transaction within the ambit of the DOSRI law (violation of Section 83 of RA 337,
as amended) could also be the subject of Estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code.

Held:

In the context of his Motion to Quash Information on the ground that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense.43 It is settled that in considering a motion to quash on such ground, the test is
"whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the
offense charged as defined by law. The trial court may not consider a situation contrary to that set forth in
the criminal complaint or information. Facts that constitute the defense of the petitioner[s] against the
charge under the information must be proved by [him] during trial. Such facts or circumstances do not
constitute proper grounds for a motion to quash the information on the ground that the material averments
do not constitute the offense".

The broad interpretation of the prohibition in Section 83 is justified by the fact that it even
expressly covers loans to third parties where the third parties are aware of the transaction (such as
principals represented by the DOSRI), and where the DOSRI’s interest does not appear to be beneficial
but even burdensome (such as in cases when the DOSRI acts as a mere guarantor or surety). If the law
finds it necessary to protect the bank and the banking system in such situations, it will surely be illogical
for it to exclude a case like this where the DOSRI acted for his own benefit, using the name of an
unsuspecting person. A contrary interpretation will effectively allow a DOSRI to use dummies to
circumvent the requirements of the law.

In sum, the informations filed against petitioner do not negate each other.