THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 159517-18. June 30, 2009.]

HILARIO P. SORIANO and ROSALINDA ILAGAN , petitioners, vs .

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS
(BSP), and PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
(PDIC) , respondents.

DECISION

NACHURA , J : p

Petitioners Hilario P. Soriano and Rosalinda Ilagan (petitioners) appeal by

certiorari the August 5, 2003 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in the
consolidated cases CA-G.R. SP. Nos. 64648 and 64649.
The antecedents.
Hilario P. Soriano (Soriano) and Rosalinda Ilagan (Ilagan) were the President and
General Manager, respectively, of the Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. (RBSM).
Allegedly, on June 27, 1997 and August 21, 1997, during their incumbency as president
and manager of the bank, petitioners indirectly obtained loans from RBSM. They
falsi ed the loan applications and other bank records, and made it appear that Virgilio
J. Malang and Rogelio Mañaol obtained loans of P15,000,000.00 each, when in fact
they did not.
Accordingly, on May 4, 2000, State Prosecutor Josefino A. Subia charged Soriano
in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, with violation of Section 83 of
Republic Act No. 337 (R.A. No. 337) or the General Banking Act, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1795, or Violation of the Director, Of cer, Stockholder or
Related Interest (DOSRI) Rules (DOSRI Rules). The inculpatory portion of the
Information reads: CSEHIa

That on or about June 27, 1997 and thereafter, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, in his capacity as President of the Rural Bank
of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. did then and there, unlawfully, feloniously, and
indirectly borrow or secure a loan with Rural Bank of San Miguel-San Miguel
Branch amounting to Php15 million, without the consent and written approval of
the majority of the directors of the bank, by using the name of one depositor
VIRGILIO J. MALANG of San Miguel Bulacan who have no knowledge of the said
loan, and once in possession of the said amount of Php14,775,000.00, net of
interest converted the same to his own personal use and bene t, in agrant
violation of the said law. 2

On the same date, an information for estafa thru falsi cation of commercial document
was also filed against Soriano and Ilagan, viz.:
That on or about June 27, 1997 and thereafter, in San Miguel, Bulacan and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused HILARIO P. SORIANO
and ROSALINDA ILAGAN, as principals by direct participation, with unfaithfulness
or abuse of con dence and taking advantage of their position as President of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. and Manager of Rural Bank of San
Miguel-San Miguel Branch, a duly organized banking institutions under Philippine
Laws, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and
there, willfully and feloniously falsify loan documents consisting of loan
application/information sheet, and promissory note dated June 27, 1997,
disclosure statement on loan/credit transaction, credit proposal report, manager' s
check no. 06514 dated June 27, 1997 and undated RBSM-San Miguel Branch
check voucher, by making it appear that one VIRGILIO J. MALANG led the
aforementioned documents when in truth and in fact, VIRGILIO J. MALANG did
not participate in the execution of said loan document and that by virtue of said
falsi cation and with deceit and intent to cause damage, the accused credited the
loan proceeds of the loan amounting to Php14,775,000.00, net of interest, to the
account of VIRGILIO J. MALANG with the RBSM and thereafter converted the
same amount to their own personal gain and bene t, to the damage and
prejudice of the Rural Bank of San Miguel-San Miguel Branch, its creditors and
the Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas in the amount of Php14,775,000.00. ECTIcS

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

The informations were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 1719-M-2000 and 1720-M-
2000, respectively, and were raf ed to Branch 14, presided by Judge Petrita Braga
Dime.
Another information for violation of Section 83 of R.A. No. 337, as amended, was
led against Soriano, this time, covering the P15,000,000.00 loan obtained in the name
of Rogelio Mañaol. The information reads:
That on or about August 21, 1997 and thereafter, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused, in his capacity as President of the Rural
Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. did then and there, unlawfully, feloniously, and
indirectly borrow or secure a loan with Rural Bank of San Miguel-San Miguel
Branch, a domestic rural ba[n]king institution created, organized and existing
under Philippine laws, amounting to Php15.0 million, knowing fully well that the
same has been done by him without the written approval of the majority of [the]
board of directors of the said bank and which consent and approval the said
accused deliberately failed to obtain and enter the same upon the record of said
banking institution and to transmit a copy of which to the supervising department
of the said bank, as required by the General Banking Act, by using the name of
one depositor ROGELIO MAÑAOL of San Jose, San Miguel Bulacan who have no
knowledge of the said loan, and once in possession of the said amount of
Php15.0 million, converted the same to his own personal use and bene t, in
flagrant violation of the said law. 4
TIHDAa

Soriano and Ilagan were also indicted for estafa thru falsi cation of commercial
document for obtaining said loan. Thus:
That on or about August 21, 1997 and thereafter, in San Miguel, Bulacan and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused HILARIO P.
SORIANO and ROSALINDA ILAGAN , as principals by direct participation, with
unfaithfulness or abuse of con dence and taking advantage of their position as
President of Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. and Manager of Rural Bank
of San Miguel-San Miguel Branch, a duly organized banking institutions under
Philippine Laws, conspiring confederating and mutually helping one another, did
then and there, willfully and feloniously falsify loan documents consisting of loan
application/information sheet and promissory note dated August 21, 1997, by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 making it appear that one ROGELIO MAÑAOL lled up the
application/information sheet and led the aforementioned loan documents
when in truth and in fact, ROGELIO MAÑAOL did not participate in the execution
of said loan document and that by virtue of said falsi cation and with deceit and
intent to cause damage, the accused succeeded in securing a loan in the amount
of Php15.0 million, from Rural Bank of San Miguel-San Miguel Branch in the
name of ROGELIO MAÑAOL , which amount of Php15.0 million representing
loan proceeds the accused deposited to the account of ROGELIO MAÑAOL
maintained with Rural Bank of San Miguel and thereafter converted the same
amount to their own personal gain and bene t, to the damage and prejudice of
the Rural Bank of San Miguel-San Miguel Branch, its creditors, the Bangko Sentral
Ng Pilipinas and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation in the amount of
Php15.0 million.

CONTRARY TO LAW . 5

The cases were docketed as 1980-M-2000 and 1981-M-2000, respectively, and were
raffled to Branch 77, presided by Judge Aurora Santiago-Lagman. caSEAH

Petitioners moved to quash the informations in Criminal Case Nos. 1719-M-2000

and 1720-M-2000 (pending before Branch 14), and also in Criminal Case Nos. 1980-M-
2000 and 1981-M-2000 (pending with Branch 77), on grounds that: (i) more than one
(1) offense is charged; and (ii) the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
Speci cally, petitioners argued that the prosecutor charged more than one offense for
a single act. Soriano was charged with violation of DOSRI rules and estafa thru
falsi cation of commercial document for allegedly securing ctitious loans. They
further argued that the facts as alleged in the information do not constitute an offense.
In an Order 6 dated November 15, 2000, RTC Branch 77 denied the motion to
quash. Rejecting petitioners' arguments, it held:
Section 13 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that
the complaint or information must charge but only one offense, except only in
those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various
offenses. Under this Rule, the Information is defective when it charges two (2) or
more offenses. The rule enjoining the charging of two (2) or more offenses in one
information has for its aim to give the defendant the necessary knowledge of the
charge to enable him to prove his defense (People vs. Ferrer, 101 Phil. 234, cited
in Herrera Remedial Law IV., p. 72). While Section 3 (e) of Rule 117 of the Revised
Rules of Court provides as one of the grounds where the accused may move to
quash the complaint or information, considering Sec. 13 of Rule 110 of the Rules
as aforestated, it is apparent that the said ground refers to a situation where the
accused is being charged in one information or criminal complaint for more than
one offense. The record shows that two (2) Informations were led against the
herein accused, one in Criminal Case No. 1980-M-2000 against accused Hilario P.
Soriano for Violation of Sec. 83 of R.A. No. 337, as amended by PD 1795, and
another one in Criminal Case No. 1981-M-2000 against accused Hilario P. Soriano
and Rosalinda Ilagan for Estafa Thru Falsi cation of Commercial Documents.
Thus, each Information charges only one offense. DcTAIH

Even assuming that the two (2) cases arose from the same facts, if they violate
two (2) or more provisions of the law, a prosecution under one will not bar a
prosecution under another (Pp. vs. Tac-an , 182 SCRA 601; Lamera v. Court of
Appeals, 198 SCRA 186, cited in Herrera Criminal Procedure, Vol. 4, p. 453).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 Upon the foregoing, this Court nds that there is no basis to quash the
Informations filed in these two (2) cases as the accused are being charged therein
with only one offense in each Information. As to the assertion of the accused that
the facts charged do not constitute an offense, this Court nds that the
allegations of both parties are evidentiary and the same can only be determined
after a full blown trial on the merits of these cases where both parties will be
given a chance to present their evidence in support of their respective positions.
WHEREFORE, the instant motion is DISMISSED and the arraignment of both
accused and the pre-trial of these cases scheduled on December 4, 2000 at 10:00
o' clock in the morning, shall proceed as scheduled. 7CIAcSa

Petitioners' motion to quash informations in Criminal Case Nos. 1719-M-2000

and 1720-M-2000 before Branch 14 likewise suffered the same fate, as Judge Braga
Dime denied the same in an Order 8 dated November 27, 2000, holding that:
Duplicity in criminal pleading is the joinder of two or more distinct and separate
offenses in the same court of an indictment or information. (41 Am. Jur. 2d
1011). Whether two offenses are charged in an information, or otherwise, must
not be made to depend upon the evidence presented at the trial court but upon the
facts alleged in the information (Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija vs. CFI, 79 Phil.
165). Where an offense may be committed in any of the different modes provided
by law and the offense is alleged to have been committed in two or more modes
speci ed, the indictment is suf cient. The allegations in the information of the
various ways of committing the offense should be considered as a description of
only one offense and the information cannot be dismissed on the ground of
multifariousness (Jurado v. Suy Yan, L-30714, April 30, 1971) SEIDAC

A perusal of the criminal information led in the above-entitled cases indubitably

show that each information charges only but one offense. Thus, in Criminal Case
No. 1719-M-2000, Accused Hilario P. Soriano is charged only with violation of
Sec. 83 of RA 337, as amended by PD 1796, while in Criminal Case No. 1720-M-
2000, Accused Hilario P. Soriano and Rosalinda Ilagan are charged only with
Estafa thru falsification of commercial document.
On the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense

xxx xxx xxx

[b]y simply reading the information led against the Accused Hilario P. Soriano, in
Crim. Case No. 1719-M-2000 it is clear that the allegations, which is
hypothetically admitted by said accused, in the same information set out an
offense for violation of Sec. 83 of RA 337 as amended by PD No. 1795. CIcTAE

Finally, Accused, in addition to the two (2) grounds aforesaid, cited prematurity
and lack of probable cause which would warrant the quashal of the two (2)
informations.
These additional grounds relied upon by the Accused for the quashal of the two
(2) informations must necessarily fail because they are not one of the grounds
enumerated in Sec. 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court which this Court
shall not consider, in accordance with Sec. 2, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Quash, dated September 1,

2000 filed by both Accused is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. ETCcSa

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 SO ORDERED. 9

Petitioners went up to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, assailing the Orders of
Branch 77 and Branch 14. The petitions were docketed as CA-G.R. SP. Nos. 64648 and
64649. By decision 1 0 of August 5, 2003, the CA, which priorly consolidated the
petitions, sustained the denial of petitioners' separate motions to quash:
WHEREFORE , FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, these petitions are DENIED
DUE COURSE and accordingly DISMISSED . The assailed Orders dated
November 15, 2000 and February 12, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77,
Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Case Nos. 1980-M-2000 and 1981-M-2000, entitled,
"People of the Philippines vs. Hilario P. Soriano and People of the Philippines vs.
Hilario P. Soriano and Rosalinda Ilagan ", respectively, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 64648
and the Orders dated November 27, 2000 and March 9, 2001 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 14, Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Case Nos. 1719-M-2000 and 1720-
M-2000, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Hilario P. Soriano and People of the
Philippines vs. Hilario P. Soriano and Rosalinda Ilagan ", respectively, in CA-G.R.
SP. No. 64649 are affirmed . 1 1 AHCcET

Petitioners are now before this Court, submitting for resolution the same matters
argued before the RTC and the CA. They insist that RTC Branch 14 and Branch 77
abused their discretion in denying their motions to quash informations. Thus, they posit
that the CA committed reversible error in dismissing their petitions for certiorari.
The appeal should be denied.
The term grave abuse of discretion, in its juridical sense, connotes capricious,
despotic, oppressive or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse must be of such degree as to amount to an evasion of positive
duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner by reason of passion and hostility. The
word capricious, usually used in tandem with the term arbitrary, conveys the notion of
willful and unreasoning action. Thus, when seeking the corrective hand of certiorari, a
clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion is imperative. 1 2
DHITcS

We reviewed the records before us, and we discerned no caprice or arbitrariness

on the part of the RTC in denying the motions.
Petitioners assail the validity of the informations against them on the ground that
more than one (1) offense is charged. They point that Soriano was charged with
violation of DOSRI Rules and with estafa thru falsi cation of commercial document for
allegedly obtaining loans from RBSM. Thus, they claim that the informations were
duplicitous; hence, they should be quashed.
Indisputably, duplicity of offenses in a single information is a ground to quash the
Information under Section 3 (e), Rule 117 1 3 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The Rules prohibit the ling of a duplicitous information to avoid confusing the accused
in preparing his defense. 1 4
By duplicity of charges is meant a single complaint or information that charges
more than one offense. 1 5 Section 13 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure clearly states:
Duplicity of Offense. — A complaint or information must charge but one offense,
except only in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment
for various offenses.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Otherwise stated, there is duplicity (or multiplicity) of charges when a single
Information charges more than one offense. 1 6 HcSCED

In this case, however, Soriano was faced not with one information charging more
than one offense, but with more than one information, each charging a different offense
— violation of DOSRI rules in one, and estafa thru falsi cation of commercial
documents in the others. Ilagan, on the other hand, was charged with estafa thru
falsi cation of commercial documents in separate informations. Thus, petitioners
erroneously invoke duplicity of charges as a ground to quash the Informations.
Petitioners also contend that Soriano should be charged with one offense only,
because all the charges led against him proceed from and are based on a single act of
obtaining ctitious loans. Thus, Soriano argues that he cannot be charged with estafa
thru falsi cation of commercial document , considering that he is already being
prosecuted for obtaining a DOSRI loan. TDcCIS

The contention has no merit.

Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that a single act or incident might
offend two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law, 1 7 thus justifying
the filing of several charges against the accused.
In Loney v. People , 18 this Court, in upholding the ling of multiple charges
against the accused, held:
As early as the start of the last century, this Court had ruled that a single act or
incident might offend against two or more entirely distinct and unrelated
provisions of law thus justifying the prosecution of the accused for more than
one offense. The only limit to this rule is the Constitutional prohibition that no
person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for "the same offense ." In
People v. Doriquez , we held that two (or more) offenses arising from the same
act are not "the same" — DSETac

. . . if one provision [of law] requires proof of an additional fact or element

which the other does not, . . . . Phrased elsewise, where two different laws
(or articles of the same code) de ne two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of
them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses
arise from the same facts, if each crime involves some important act
which is not an essential element of the other .
xxx xxx xxx

Consequently, the ling of the multiple charges against petitioners, although

based on the same incident, is consistent with settled doctrine.

As aptly pointed out by the BSP in its memorandum, there are differences
between the two (2) offenses. A DOSRI violation consists in the failure to observe and
comply with procedural, reportorial or ceiling requirements prescribed by law in the
grant of a loan to a director, of cer, stockholder and other related interests in the bank,
i.e., lack of written approval of the majority of the directors of the bank and failure to
enter such approval into corporate records and to transmit a copy thereof to the BSP
supervising department. The elements of abuse of con dence, deceit, fraud or false
pretenses, and damage, which are essential to the prosecution for estafa, are not
elements of a DOSRI violation. The ling of several charges against Soriano was,
therefore, proper. IDATCE

Petitioners next question the suf ciency of the allegations in the informations,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 contending that the same do not constitute an offense.
The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash anchored on Section 3
(a), Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, is the suf ciency of the
19
averments in the information; that is, whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically
admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense charged as de ned by
law. 2 0 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 petitioners
against the charge under the information must be proved by them 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. 2 1
DACaTI

We have reviewed the informations and find that they contain material allegations
charging Soriano with violation of DOSRI rules and estafa thru falsi cation of
commercial documents.
In Criminal Case Nos. 1719 & 1980 for violation of DOSRI rules, the informations
alleged that Soriano was the president of RBSMI, while Ilagan was then its general
manager; that during their tenure, Soriano, with the direct participation of Ilagan, and by
using the names of Virgilio Malang and Rogelio Mañaol, was able to indirectly obtain
loans without complying with the requisite board approval, reportorial and ceiling
requirements, in violation of Section 83 of R.A. No. 377 2 2 as amended.
Similarly, the informations in Criminal Case Nos. 1720 & 1981 charge petitioners
with estafa thru falsi cation of commercial document . They allege that petitioners
made it appear that Virgilio J. Malang and Rogelio Mañaol obtained loans and received
the proceeds thereof when they did not in fact secure said loans or receive the amounts
reflected in the promissory notes and other bank records. CHDTEA

The information in Criminal Case No. 1720 further alleges the elements of estafa
under Article 315 (1) (b) 2 3 of the RPC to wit: (i) that money, goods or other personal
property be received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration,
or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the
same; (ii) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by
the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (iii) that such misappropriation or
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (iv) that there is demand made
by the offended party to the offender.
The information in Criminal Case No. 1981, on the other hand, further alleged the
following essential elements of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) 2 4 of the RPC: (i) that
there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (ii) that such false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (iii) that the offended party must have
relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means — that is, he was
induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means; and (iv) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered
damage. The informations in Criminal Case Nos. 1720 & 1981, thus, charge petitioners
with the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents.
Verily, there is no justi cation for the quashal of the Information led against
petitioners. The RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions.
In ne, the Court has consistently held that a special civil action for certiorari is
not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. The
proper procedure in such a case is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial without
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 prejudice on his part to present the 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. 2 5 Thus, petitioners should not have
forthwith led a special civil action for certiorari with the CA and instead, they should
have gone to trial and reiterated the special defenses contained in their motion to
quash. There are no special or exceptional circumstances in the present case that
would justify immediate resort to a ling of a petition for certiorari. Clearly, the CA did
not commit any reversible error, much less, grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
petition. EATCcI

WHEREFORE , the petition for review is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the
Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED . Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED . EASIHa

Ynares-Santiago, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr. and Peralta, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole (retired), with Associate Justices

Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. (now Presiding Justice) and Rosmari D. Carandang, concurring;
rollo, pp. 57-67.
2. Id. at 211-212.
3. Id. at 214-215.
4. Id. at 71.
5. Id. at 68-69.
6. Id. at 93-97.
7. Id. at 96-97.
8. Id. at 240-243.
9. Id. at 241-243.
10. Supra note 1.
11. Id. at 66-67.
12. Torres v. Abundo, Sr., G.R. No. 174263, January 24, 2007, 512 SCRA 564, 565.
13. Sec. 3. Grounds. — The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on
any of the following grounds:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) That more than one (1) offense is charged except in those cases in which the
existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses;
xxx xxx xxx
14. Loney v. People, G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006, 482 SCRA 194, 209.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 15. Id. at 208.
16. Id.
17. Loney v. People, supra, See Nierras v. Dacuycuy, G.R. Nos. 59568-76, 11 January 1990,
181 SCRA 1; People v. Doriquez, 133 Phil. 295 (1968); People v. Alvarez, 45 Phil. 472
(1923); People v. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64 (1922); United States v. Capurro, et al., 7 Phil. 24
(1906).
18. Supra at 209-210, 212.
19. Section 3. Grounds. — The accused may move to quash the complaint or information
on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
xxx xxx xxx
20. Caballero v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 137355-58, September 25, 2007, 534 SCRA 30,
43.
21. Torres v. Hon. Garchitorena, 442 Phil. 765, 777 (2002).
22. Sec. 83. No director or officer of any banking institution shall, either directly or
indirectly, for himself or as the representative or agent of other, borrow any of the
deposits of funds of such banks, nor shall he become a guarantor, indorser, or surety for
loans from such bank to others, or in any manner be an obligor for money borrowed
from the bank or loaned by it, except with the written approval of the majority of the
directors of the bank, excluding the director concerned. Any such approval shall be
entered upon the records of the corporation and a copy of such entry shall be
transmitted forthwith to the Superintendent of Banks. The office of any director or
officer of a bank who violates the provisions of this section shall immediately become
vacant and the director or officer shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than
one year nor more than ten years and by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more
than ten thousand pesos.

The Monetary Board may regulate the amount of credit accommodations that may be
extended, directly or indirectly, by banking institutions to their directors, officers, or
stockholders. However, the outstanding credit accommodations which a bank may
extend to each of its stockholders owning two per cent (2%) or more of the subscribed
capital stock, its directors, or its officers, shall be limited to an amount equivalent to the
respective outstanding deposits and book value of the paid-in capital contribution in the
bank: Provided, however, That loans and advances to officers in the form of fringe
benefits granted in accordance with rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the
Monetary Board shall not be subject to the preceding limitation.

23. ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the
means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

xxx xxx xxx

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods,
or any personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by
denying having received such money, goods, or other property.

24. ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the
means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

xxx xxx xxx

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess, power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means
of similar deceits.
xxx xxx xxx

25. Sasot v. People, G.R. No. 143193, June 29, 2005, 462 SCRA 138, 145.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com