1) The petitioner, the president of a rural bank, was accused of violating banking laws related to loans to directors, officers, stockholders, and related interests (DOSRI).
2) Specifically, he was accused of facilitating an unauthorized 8 million peso loan to individuals that never applied for or received the loan, and keeping the proceeds for himself.
3) He was charged with both estafa (fraud) through falsifying documents and violating the law restricting DOSRI loans. However, the petitioner argued that one cannot be charged with both offenses simultaneously.
1) The petitioner, the president of a rural bank, was accused of violating banking laws related to loans to directors, officers, stockholders, and related interests (DOSRI).
2) Specifically, he was accused of facilitating an unauthorized 8 million peso loan to individuals that never applied for or received the loan, and keeping the proceeds for himself.
3) He was charged with both estafa (fraud) through falsifying documents and violating the law restricting DOSRI loans. However, the petitioner argued that one cannot be charged with both offenses simultaneously.
1) The petitioner, the president of a rural bank, was accused of violating banking laws related to loans to directors, officers, stockholders, and related interests (DOSRI).
2) Specifically, he was accused of facilitating an unauthorized 8 million peso loan to individuals that never applied for or received the loan, and keeping the proceeds for himself.
3) He was charged with both estafa (fraud) through falsifying documents and violating the law restricting DOSRI loans. However, the petitioner argued that one cannot be charged with both offenses simultaneously.
1) The petitioner, the president of a rural bank, was accused of violating banking laws related to loans to directors, officers, stockholders, and related interests (DOSRI).
2) Specifically, he was accused of facilitating an unauthorized 8 million peso loan to individuals that never applied for or received the loan, and keeping the proceeds for himself.
3) He was charged with both estafa (fraud) through falsifying documents and violating the law restricting DOSRI loans. However, the petitioner argued that one cannot be charged with both offenses simultaneously.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
BANKING LAWS
HILARIO P. SORIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 162336 | 1 February
2010 Restrictions on Bank Exposure to DOSRI DOCTRINE: Violation of DOSRI law and Estafa under the RPC may be prosecuted simultaneously. FACTS: •The Office of Special Investigation (OSI) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), through its officers, transmitted a letter to Jovencito Zuo, the Chief State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice (DOJ). The said letter were accompanied with five affidavits which would allegedly serve as basis for filing criminal charges for Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents, in relation to P.D. No. 1689, and for Violation of Sec. 83 of R.A. 337, as amended, against the petitioner herein. The five affidavits, along with other documents stated that Sps. Enrico and Amalia Carlos appeared to have an outstanding loan of Php 8 million with the Rural Bank of San Miguel (RBSM), but had never applied nor received such loan; and that it was petitioner, who was the president of RBSM, who had ordered, facilitated, and received the proceeds of the loans; and that the said Php 8 million loan had never been authorized by the RBSM Board of Directors and no report thereof had been submitted to the Department of Rural Banks, Supervision and Examination Sector of the BSP. The State Prosecutor acted on the letters as well the annexes that were transmitted by the BSP. The first information filed against petitioner was for the crime of Estafa through falsification of commercial documents. It alleged that petitioner, in abuse of the confidence reposed in him as president of RBSM, caused the falsification of a number of loan documents, making it appear that one Enrico Carlos filled up the same, and thereby succeeded in securing a loan and converting the loan proceeds for his personal gain and benefit. oThe second information filed against petitioner was for the violation of Sec. 83 of R.A. 337 as amended. The said provision refers to the prohibition against DOSRI loans. The information alleged that, in his capacity as president of RBSM, petitioner indirectly secured an Php 8 Million loan with RBSM, for his personal use and benefit, without the written consent and approval of RBSM’s Board of Directors, without entering the said transaction into the bank’s records, and without transmitting a copy of the transaction to the supervising department of the BSP. Upon the basis of the two information, petitioner moved to quash them on two grounds, namely: that the court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged, and that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. On to the second ground, petitioner contended that the commission of Estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC is inherently incompatible with the violation of DOSRI law under Sec. 83 of R.A. 337, as amended. Thus a person cannot be charged for both offenses. Petitioner argues that a violation of DOSRI law requires the offender to obtain a loan from his bank, without complying with the procedural, reportorial, or ceiling requirements. On the other hand, Estafa requires the offender to
