Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The
monthly
amortization
was
increased
to P1,468.92 in November 1984, and to P1,691.51
beginning January 1985. However, Arcilla opted to
une 30,resign from the bank in December 1986.
2005
Conformably with the Deed of Conditional Sale, the
x------------------------------ -----bank informed him, on June 11, 1987, that the
-------------x
balance of his loan account with the bank had been
converted to a regular housing loan, thus:
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Amount converted
toPH Loan
P 155,218.79 - 1
Interest Rate
9%
6 mos
6,802.45 - 2
9%
24,342.91 - 3
9%
Plus: MRI at PC. 41/thousand P1,614.20
76.41
P186,364.15 Total P1,690.61[7] ========
On July 24, 1987, Arcilla signed three Promissory
Notes[8] for the total amount of P186,364.15. He was
also obliged to pay service charge and interests, as
follows:
10 mos.
22 yrs.
conditions
preceding
to
undue
injury
or
damage matters
that
are
appropriate for the trial. [Emphasis
supplied]
The facts and circumstances necessary to be included
in the Information are determined by reference to the
definition and elements of the specific crimes. The
Information must allege clearly and accurately the
elements of the crime charged.[16]
Elements of Violation of
Section 83 of RA 337
Under Section 83, RA 337, the following elements
must be present to constitute a violation of its first
paragraph:
1. the offender is a director or officer of any
banking institution;
2. the offender, either directly or indirectly, for
himself or as representative or agent of
another, performs any of the following acts:
a. he borrows any of the deposits or
funds of such bank; or
b. he becomes a guarantor, indorser,
or surety for loans from such bank
to others, or
c.
he becomes in any manner an
obligor for money borrowed from
bank or loaned by it;
3. the offender has performed any of such acts
without the written approval of the majority
of the directors of the bank, excluding the
offender, as the director concerned.
A simple reading of the above elements
easily rejects Gos contention that the law penalizes a
bank director or officer only either for borrowing the
banks deposits or funds or for guarantying loans by
the bank, but not for acting in both capacities. The
essence of the crime is becoming an obligor of the
bank without securing the necessary written
approval of the majority of the banks directors.
The second element merely lists down the
various modes of committing the offense. The third
offense
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the instant petition for
certiorari is hereby DENIED.[7]
Factual Antecedents
SECOND DIVISION
HILARIO P. SORIANO,
Petitioner,
- versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
BANGKO SENTRAL NG
PILIPINAS (BSP), PHILIPPINE
DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION (PDIC), PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR ANTONIO C.
BUAN, and STATE
PROSECUTOR ALBERTO R.
FONACIER,
Respondents. [1]
x------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
A bank officer violates the DOSRI[2] law when he acquires
bank funds for his personal benefit, even if such acquisition
was facilitated by a fraudulent loan application. Directors,
officers, stockholders, and their related interests cannot be
allowed to interpose the fraudulent nature of the loan as a
defense to escape culpability for their circumvention of
Section 83 of Republic Act (RA) No. 337.[3]
Before us is a Petition for Review
on Certiorari[4] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
assailing the September 26, 2003 Decision[5] and
the February 5, 2004 Resolution[6] of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 67657. The challenged Decision
disposed as follows:
CONTRARY TO LAW.[19]
Both cases were raffled to Branch 79 of the RTC
of Malolos, Bulacan.[20]
[21]
Issues
Restated, petitioner raises the following issues[34] for our
consideration:
I
Whether the complaint complied with
the mandatory requirements provided
under Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court and Section 18,
paragraphs (c) and (d) of RA 7653.
II
Whether a loan transaction within the
ambit of the DOSRI law (violation of
Section 83 of RA 337, as amended)
could also be the subject of Estafa
under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised
Penal Code.
III
Is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
the proper remedy against an Order
denying a Motion to Quash?
IV
Whether petitioner is entitled to a writ
of injunction.
Our Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
First Issue:
Whether the complaint complied
with the mandatory requirements
provided under Section 3(a), Rule
112 of the Rules of Court and
Section 18, paragraphs (c) and (d) of
Republic Act No. 7653
Petitioner moved to withdraw the first issue from the
instant petition
party. The
rule
has
been
that, unless
the
offense
subject
thereof is one that
cannot
be
prosecuted de
oficio, the same
may be filed, for
preliminary
investigation
purposes, by any
competent person.
The crime of
estafa is a public
crime which can be
initiated by any
competent person.
The witnesses who
executed
the
affidavits based on
their
personal
knowledge of the
acts committed by
the petitioner fall
within the purview
of any competent
person who may
institute
the
complaint for a
public crime. x x
x (Emphasis and
italics supplied)
A preliminary investigation
can thus validly proceed on the basis of
an affidavit of any competent person,
without the referral document, like the
NBI-NCR Report, having been sworn
to by the law enforcer as the nominal
complainant. To require otherwise is a
needless exercise. The cited case
of Oporto, Jr. v. Judge Monserate does
not appear to dent this proposition.
After all, what is required is to reduce
the evidence into affidavits, for while
Fourth Issue:
Whether petitioner is entitled to a
writ of injunction
The requisites to justify an injunctive relief are: (1) the right
of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; (2) the
invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and
substantial; and (3) there is an urgent and paramount
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. A clear
legal right means one clearly founded in or granted by law
or is enforceable as a matter of law. Absent any clear and
unquestioned legal right, the issuance of an injunctive writ
would constitute grave abuse of discretion.[57] Caution and
prudence must, at all times, attend the issuance of an
injunctive writ because it effectively disposes of the main
case without trial and/or due process.[58] In Olalia v. Hizon,
[59]
the Court held as follows:
BANKING
Petitioner,
versus
HI-TRI
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION and LUZ R. BAKUNAWA,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
SERENO, J.:
Before the Court is a Rule 45 Petition for
Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Rizal
Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) against
respondents Hi-Tri Development Corporation (HiTri) and Luz R. Bakunawa (Bakunawa). Petitioner
seeks to appeal from the 26 November 2009 Decision
and 27 May 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
(CA),[1] which reversed and set aside the 19 May
2008 Decision and 3 November 2008 Order of the
Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil
Case No. 06-244.[2] The case before the RTC
involved the Complaint for Escheat filed by the
Republic of the Philippines (Republic) pursuant to
Act No. 3936, as amended by Presidential Decree
No. 679 (P.D. 679), against certain deposits, credits,
and unclaimed balances held by the branches of
various banks in the Philippines. The trial court
declared the amounts, subject of the special
proceedings, escheated to the Republic and ordered
Five
Hundred
Fourteen
Pesos
and
Twenty Nine
Centavos
(1,019,514.
29);
3.
That
the
defendants
be ordered to
pay
to
plaintiffs
spouses
moral
damages in
the amount
of
2,000,000.0
0; and
4.
That
the
defendants
be ordered to
pay plaintiffs
attorneys
fees in the
amount
of
50,000.00.
Being part and parcel of
said complaint, and consistent with
their prayer in Civil Case No. Q91-10719 that Teresita Mil[l]an be
correspondingly ordered to receive
the amount of One Million
Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred
Fourteen Pesos and Twenty Nine
[Centavos] (1,019,514.29)[], the
Spouses Bakunawa, upon advice of
their counsel, retained custody of
RCBC Managers Check No. ER
034469 and refrained from
canceling or negotiating it.
All
throughout
the
proceedings in Civil Case No. Q91-10719,
especially
during
negotiations
for
a
possible
any
fund
movement. Since
the Corporation
never
received
any statements of
account
from
RCBC to that
effect, and more
importantly,
never
received
any single letter
from
RCBC
noting
the
absence of fund
movement
and
advising
the
Corporation that
the deposit would
be treated as
dormant.
On April 28, 2008,
[Manuel Bakunawa] sent another
letter to x x x RCBC reiterating
their position as above-quoted.
In a letter dated May 19,
2008, x x x RCBC replied and
informed [Hi-Tri and Spouses
Bakunawa] that:
The
Banks
Ermita
BC
informed Hi-Tri
and/or
its
principals
regarding
the
inclusion
of
Managers Check
No. ER034469 in
the
escheat
proceedings
docketed as Civil
Case No. 06-244,
as well as the
status
thereof,
between
28
January 2008 and
1 February 2008.
(c)
(d)