Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Soriano v. BSP)
(Soriano v. BSP)
SORIANO v. BSP
February 1, 2010 The second was for violation of Section 83 of RA 337, as amended by PD
Del Castillo, J. 1795. The said provision refers to the prohibition against the so-called DOSRI loans.
The information alleged that, in his capacity as President of RBSM, he indirectly
SUMMARY: Spouses Enrico and Amalia Carlos appeared to have a loan of P8 million secured an P8 million loan with RBSM, for his personal use and benefit, without the
with RBSM, but had never applied for such loan. Hilario Soriano, president of RBSM, written consent and approval of the bank's Board of Directors, without entering the
allegedly ordered, facilitated, and received the proceeds of the loan; and the P8 said transaction in the bank's records, and without transmitting a copy of the
million loan had never been authorized by RBSM's Board of Directors and no report transaction to the supervising department of the bank. His ruse was facilitated by
was submitted to the Department of Rural Banks, Supervision and Examination placing the loan in the name of an unsuspecting RBSM depositor, one Enrico Carlos.
Sector of the BSP. 2 Informations were filed against him under the DOSRI law and
Estafa under RPC. He alleged that the two are inconsistent but the SC ruled that he Soriano filed a motion to quash alleging that the facts charged do not
can be charged for both. constitute an offense. He contended that the commission of estafa under paragraph
1(b) of Article 315 of the RPC is inherently incompatible with the violation of DOSRI
DOCTRINE: A bank officer violates the DOSRI law when he acquires bank funds for law (as set out in Section 83 of RA 337, as amended by PD 1795), hence a person
his personal benefit, even if such acquisition was facilitated by a fraudulent loan cannot be charged for both offenses. He theorized that the characterization of
application. Directors, officers, stockholders, and their related interests cannot be possession is different in the two offenses. If he acquired the loan as DOSRI, he
allowed to interpose the fraudulent nature of the loan as a defense to escape owned the loaned money and therefore, cannot misappropriate or convert it as
culpability for their circumvention of Section 83 of Republic Act (RA) No. 337. The contemplated in the offense of estafa. Conversely, if he committed estafa, then he
prohibition in Section 83 is broad enough to cover various modes of borrowing. It merely held the money in trust for someone else and therefore, did not acquire a loan
covers loans by a bank director or officer which are made either: (1) directly, (2) in violation of DOSRI rules.
indirectly, (3) for himself, (4) or as the representative or agent of others. It applies
even if the director or officer is a mere guarantor, indorser or surety for someone ISSUE: Whether a loan transaction within the ambit of the DOSRI law (violation
else's loan or is in any manner an obligor for money borrowed from the bank or of Section 83 of RA 337, as amended) could be the subject of Estafa under
loaned by it. The covered transactions are prohibited unless the approval, Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC- YES
reportorial and ceiling requirements under Section 83 are complied with. The
prohibition is intended to protect the public, especially the depositors, from the
overborrowing of bank funds by bank officers, directors, stockholders and related RATIO: In considering a motion to quash on such ground, the test is “whether the
interests, as such overborrowing may lead to bank failures. facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the
offense charged as defined by law. Facts that constitute the defense against the
charge must be proved by [him] 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”.
FACTS: Spouses Enrico and Amalia Carlos appeared to have an outstanding loan of
P8 million with the Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. (RBSM), but had never
applied for nor received such loan. Hilario Soriano, president of RBSM, allegedly Both informations would establish the essential elements of the crime of
ordered, facilitated, and received the proceeds of the loan; and the P8 million loan DOSRI violation and estafa thru falsification of commercial documents.
had never been authorized by RBSM's Board of Directors and no report was
submitted to the Department of Rural Banks, Supervision and Examination Sector of In Criminal Case No. 238-M-2001 for violation of DOSRI rules, the information
the BSP. alleged that Soriano was the president of RBSM; that he was able to indirectly obtain
a loan from RBSM by putting the loan in the name of depositor Enrico Carlos; and
2 Informations were filed against Soriano. that he did this without complying with the requisite board approval, reportorial, and
ceiling requirements.
The first was for estafa through falsification of commercial documents,
under Article 315, paragraph 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to In Criminal Case No. 237-M-2001 for estafa thru falsification of commercial
Article 172 of the RPC and PD 1689. It basically alleged that petitioner and his co- documents, the information alleged that petitioner, by taking advantage of his
accused, in abuse of the confidence reposed in them as RBSM officers, caused the position as president of RBSM, falsified various loan documents to make it appear
falsification of a number of loan documents, making it appear that one Enrico Carlos that an Enrico Carlos secured a loan of P8 million from RBSM; that he succeeded in
filled up the same, and thereby succeeded in securing a loan and converting the loan obtaining the loan proceeds; that he later converted the loan proceeds to his own
personal gain and benefit; and that his action caused damage and prejudice to RBSM, reportorial and ceiling requirements under Section 83 are complied with. The
its creditors, the BSP, and the PDIC. prohibition is intended to protect the public, especially the depositors, from the
overborrowing of bank funds by bank officers, directors, stockholders and related
There is no basis for the quashal of the informations as “they contain interests, as such overborrowing may lead to bank failures. It has been said that
material allegations charging Soriano with violation of DOSRI rules and estafa thru “banking institutions are not created for the benefit of the directors [or officers].
falsification of commercial documents”. While directors have great powers as directors, they have no special privileges as
individuals. They cannot use the assets of the bank for their own benefit except as
permitted by law. Stringent restrictions are placed about them so that when acting
Also, Soriano’s theory is based on the false premises that the loan was both for the bank and for one of themselves at the same time, they must keep within
extended to him by the bank in his own name, and that he became the owner of the certain prescribed lines regarded by the legislature as essential to safety in the
loan proceeds. Both premises are wrong. The bank money (amounting to P8 million) banking business.”
which came to his possession was money held in trust or administration by him for
the bank, in his fiduciary capacity as the President of said bank. It is not accurate to
say that petitioner became the owner of the P8 million because it was the proceeds of A direct borrowing is one that is made in the name of the DOSRI himself or
a loan. That would have been correct if the bank knowingly extended the loan to where the DOSRI is a named party, while an indirect borrowing includes one that is
petitioner himself. But that is not the case here. According to the information for made by a third party, but the DOSRI has a stake in the transaction. The latter type –
estafa, the loan was supposed to be for another person, a certain “Enrico Carlos”; indirect borrowing – applies here.
Soriano, through falsification, made it appear that said “Enrico Carlos” applied for the
loan when in fact he (“Enrico Carlos”) did not. Through such fraudulent device, he The information describes the manner of securing the loan as indirect;
obtained the loan proceeds and converted the same. Under these circumstances, it names Soriano as the benefactor of the indirect loan; and states that the
cannot be said that petitioner became the legal owner of the P8 million. Thus, he requirements of the law were not complied with. It contains all the required
remained the bank’s fiduciary with respect to that money, which makes it capable of elements for a violation of Section 83, even if petitioner did not secure the loan in his
misappropriation or conversion in his hands. own name.
The next question is whether there can also be, at the same time, a charge The broad interpretation of the prohibition in Section 83 is justified by the
for DOSRI violation in such a situation wherein the accused bank officer did not fact that it even expressly covers loans to third parties where the third parties are
secure a loan in his own name, but was alleged to have used the name of another aware of the transaction (such as principals represented by the DOSRI), and where
person in order to indirectly secure a loan from the bank. We answer this in the the DOSRI’s interest does not appear to be beneficial but even burdensome (such as
affirmative. Section 83 of RA 337 reads: in cases when the DOSRI acts as a mere guarantor or surety). If the law finds it
necessary to protect the bank and the banking system in such situations, it will surely
Section 83. No director or officer of any banking institution shall, either directly or be illogical for it to exclude a case like this where the DOSRI acted for his own benefit,
indirectly, for himself or as the representative or agent of others, borrow any of the using the name of an unsuspecting person. A contrary interpretation will effectively
deposits of funds of such bank, nor shall he become a guarantor, indorser, or surety allow a DOSRI to use dummies to circumvent the requirements of the law.
for loans from such bank to others, or in any manner be an obligor for moneys
borrowed from the bank or loaned by it, except with the written approval of the In sum, the informations filed against petitioner do not negate each other.
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 DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed September 26,
entry shall be transmitted forthwith to the Superintendent of Banks. The office of 2003 Decision as well as the February 5, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
any director or officer of a bank who violates the provisions of this section shall CA-G.R. SP No. 67657 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
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. x x x SO ORDERED.