19 - Soriano V People

Soriano v. People G.R. No.
162336
TL;DR Five affidavits were submitted, which would allegedly serve as bases for filing
criminal charges for Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents. The petitioner
moved to quash these informations on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over
the offense charged for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 3(a),
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The RTC denied the motion. The CA affirmed the decision.
The Supreme Court held that there is substantial compliance with the rules as the affidavits,
not the letters transmitting them, initiated the preliminary investigation.
Facts: The Office of Special Investigation (OSI) of the BSP transmitted a letter to the DOJ,
which was attached with five affidavits, which would allegedly serve as bases for filing
criminal charges for Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents. These five
affidavits, along with other documents, stated that spouses Enrico and Amalia Carlos
appeared to have an outstanding loan of P8 million with the Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc.
(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 of the loan;
and that the P8 million loan had never been authorized by RBSM’s Board of Directors and no
report thereof had ever been submitted to the Department of Rural Banks, Supervision and
Examination Sector of the BSP.
Two separate informations against petitioner.
Petitioner moved to quash these information.
Essentially, the petitioner theorized that the characterization of possession is

different in the two offenses. If petitioner acquired the loan as DOSRI, he owned the loaned
money and therefore, cannot misappropriate or convert it as contemplated in the offense of
estafa. Conversely, if petitioner committed estafa, then he merely held the money in trust
for someone else and therefore, did not acquire a loan in violation of DOSRI rules.
The trial court denied petitioner’s Motion to Quash for lack of merit. The MR was
denied as well.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA which was also
denied. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether the complaint complied with the mandatory requirements provided under
Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and Section 18, paragraphs (c) and (d) of
Ruling: YES. There is substantial compliance.
The petitioner informed the Court of the promulgation of a Decision entitled Soriano
v. Hon. Casanova,37 which also involved petitioner and similar BSP letters to the DOJ.
According to petitioner, the said Decision allegedly ruled squarely on the nature of the BSP
letters and the validity of the sworn affidavits attached thereto. For this reason, petitioner
moved for the partial withdrawal of the instant petition insofar as it involved the issue of
"whether or not a court can legally acquire jurisdiction over a complaint which failed to
comply with the mandatory requirements provided under Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court and Section 18, paragraphs (c) and (d) of RA 7653"
To be sure, the BSP letters involved in Soriano v. Hon. Casanova39 are not the same
as the BSP letter involved in the instant case. However, the BSP letters in Soriano v. Hon.
Casanova and the BSP letter subject of this case are similar in the sense that they are all
signed by the OSI officers of the BSP, they were not sworn to by the said officers, they all
contained summaries of their attached affidavits, and they all requested the conduct of a
preliminary investigation and the filing of corresponding criminal charges against petitioner
Soriano. Thus, the principle of stare decisis dictates that the ruling in Soriano v. Hon.
Casanova be applied in the instant case.
We held in Soriano v. Hon. Casanova, after a close scrutiny of the letters transmitted
by the BSP to the DOJ, that these were not intended to be the complaint, as envisioned
under the Rules. They did not contain averments of personal knowledge of the events and
transactions constitutive of any offense. The letters merely transmitted for preliminary
investigation the affidavits of people who had personal knowledge of the acts of petitioner.
We ruled that these affidavits, not the letters transmitting them, initiated the preliminary
investigation. Since these affidavits were subscribed under oath by the witnesses who
executed them before a notary public, then there was substantial compliance with Section
3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.

19 - Soriano V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19 - Soriano V People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

19 - Soriano V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soriano v. People G.R. No.

Two separate informations against petitioner.

Petitioner moved to quash these information.

Essentially, the petitioner theorized that the characterization of possession is

Ruling: YES. There is substantial compliance.

You might also like