Case Digest: Soriano vs People and BSP

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Soriano vs People and BSP

G.R. No. 162336                                                                     February 1, 2010

Facts:
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 offenses.
Issue:
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.

Ruling:
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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Ebralinag vs The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR No 95770 95887

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR Nos. 95770 and 95887                                                     March 1, 1993 Facts: The petitioners (Ebralinag, et al.) are elementary and high school students who were expelled from their classes by public school authorities for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA 1265 and Department Order No. 8 of the DepEd. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion” which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God". They feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21". They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of th
Read more

Tax Case Digest: ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita GR No 168056

By PactaSuntServanda -
ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita G.R. No. 168056                                       September 1, 2005 Facts: ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition o questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).  Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties; Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties; These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Issues: Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the
Read more

Case Digest: Estrada vs Escritor 492 SCRA 1 AM No P-02-1651

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Estrada vs. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651,  August 4, 2003 Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes  that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who h
Read more