HILARIO P. SORIANO, G.R. NO. 163400 PETITIONER, VS. HON. CAESAR A. CASANOVA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 80, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS, BULACAN; HON. BASILIO R. GABO, JR., PRE…

Soriano versus Casanova

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Hilario P. Soriano, the former president of the Rural Bank of San Miguel in Bulacan, against Judge Caesar A. Casanova of Branch 80 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, and the other respondents. Soriano was charged with four separate counts of estafa under the Revised Penal Code, and he asked the trial court to quash the informations on the ground that it never acquired jurisdiction over the offense. The case matters because it settles two questions every bar candidate must know: what a complaint for preliminary investigation really is, and whether the denial of a motion to quash may be brought straight to a higher court on certiorari.

Procedural History

The Office of the Special Investigator of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the Litigation and Investigation Services of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation sent two transmittal letters to the Chief State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, attaching the sworn affidavits of several bank officers and employees. Acting on these, the State Prosecutor filed four separate informations for estafa before Branch 80 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan.

Soriano moved to quash the informations, arguing that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. The trial court denied the motion in an order dated December 4, 2001, and denied his motion for reconsideration on April 19, 2002. Soriano then went to the Court of Appeals by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, claiming grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on August 15, 2003, and denied his motion for reconsideration on April 28, 2004. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Hilario P. Soriano was the president of the Rural Bank of San Miguel, a domestic banking institution. In May and June of 2000, the Bangko Sentral and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation sent two letters to the Chief State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice. The first letter described Soriano's failure to account for an aggregate of 21 million pesos of bank funds, part of which was used to purchase five manager's checks payable to Soriano Holdings Corporation, where he was chief executive officer and treasurer-in-trust, and part of which was deposited to that corporation's account. The second letter described his failure to account for 12.6 million pesos, part of an emergency loan granted by the Bangko Sentral to the bank, which was delivered to him on his instructions and never entered in the bank's books.

Attached to these letters were the sworn affidavits of bank officers and employees who had personal knowledge of the transactions. The letters themselves were not filed under oath. They merely requested that a preliminary investigation be conducted and the corresponding criminal charges be filed.

On May 2, 2001, the State Prosecutor filed four separate informations for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a), of the Revised Penal Code, alleging that Soriano defrauded the bank of various amounts through false pretenses committed on different occasions in 1999. Soriano moved to quash, insisting that the transmittal letters were the complaint and were fatally defective because they were not sworn to and were not authorized by the Bangko Sentral Governor. The trial court and the Court of Appeals both rejected this argument.

Issues

• Whether or not the transmittal letters of the Bangko Sentral and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation constituted the complaint for preliminary investigation, such that their lack of oath rendered the proceedings defective.
• Whether or not Section 18, paragraphs (c) and (d), of the New Central Bank Act required the complaint to be filed under the authority of the Bangko Sentral Governor or by Monetary Board resolution.
• Whether or not the denial of a motion to quash may be questioned by certiorari before trial and before final judgment.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3, paragraph (a), of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 3. Procedure. The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner: (a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for official file. The affidavit shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public, each of whom must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.

This is the provision Soriano invoked, and the Court measured the affidavits against it to test substantial compliance.

Section 18, paragraphs (c) and (d), of Republic Act Number 7653, the New Central Bank Act, provides:

Section 18. Representation of the Monetary Board and the Bangko Sentral. The Governor of the Bangko Sentral shall be the principal representative of the Monetary Board and of the Bangko Sentral and, in such capacity and in accordance with the instruction of the Monetary Board, shall be empowered to: (c) represent the Bangko Sentral, either personally or through counsel, including private counsel, as may be authorized by the Monetary Board, in any legal proceedings, action or specialized legal studies; and (d) delegate his power to represent the Bangko Sentral, as provided in subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this section, to other officers upon his own responsibility.

Soriano argued that this provision required the Governor's authority for the complaint, and the Court addressed it directly.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the transmittal letters were not the complaint contemplated by the Rules. A close scrutiny of the letters showed that the officers merely intended to transmit the affidavits of the bank employees to the Department of Justice. Nowhere did the letters aver personal knowledge of the events constituting the offense. The affidavits, not the letters, were intended to initiate the preliminary investigation, and since the affidavits were subscribed and sworn to before a notary public, Section 3, paragraph (a), of Rule 112 was substantially complied with.

On the second issue, the Court held that Section 18 of the New Central Bank Act did not apply, because the Bangko Sentral did not institute the complaint but merely transmitted the affidavits of the complainants. Estafa is a public crime that may be initiated by any competent person, and the affiants who had personal knowledge of Soriano's acts fell within that phrase.

On the third issue, the Court reiterated the general rule that the remedy of an accused from the denial of a motion to quash is to go to trial on the merits and, if an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal. The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order that cannot be questioned by certiorari. The exception in the Morales case did not apply, because the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction and committed no grave abuse of discretion.

Doctrine

First, for purposes of preliminary investigation, the complaint need not be filed by the offended party. Unless the offense cannot be prosecuted de oficio, it may be filed by any competent person, and estafa is a public crime. Second, transmittal or covering letters that merely forward sworn affidavits to the Department of Justice are not themselves the complaint, so their lack of oath does not violate Section 3, paragraph (a), of Rule 112. Third, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order; the remedy is trial on the merits and appeal, not certiorari, absent grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, with costs against Soriano.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a transmittal letter is not a complaint, and the denial of a motion to quash is interlocutory and not a proper subject of certiorari. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of a complaint for preliminary investigation under Rule 112 and the general rule against questioning interlocutory orders before final judgment.