Scribd
Upload
80 views1 page

SORIANO vs. PEOPLE Week 2

The document discusses a case where Soriano was charged with estafa through falsification of commercial documents for securing a loan of 48 million in the name of two individuals without their approval or knowledge. The court ruled that while the loan transaction violated the Directors, Officers, Stockholders and their Related Interests (DORSI) Law, Soriano's actions could also be considered estafa since he remained a fiduciary of the bank with respect to the loan proceeds and was capable of misappropriating or converting them.

Uploaded by

Renato C. Silvestre Jr.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views1 page

SORIANO vs. PEOPLE Week 2

The document discusses a case where Soriano was charged with estafa through falsification of commercial documents for securing a loan of 48 million in the name of two individuals without their approval or knowledge. The court ruled that while the loan transaction violated the Directors, Officers, Stockholders and their Related Interests (DORSI) Law, Soriano's actions could also be considered estafa since he remained a fiduciary of the bank with respect to the loan proceeds and was capable of misappropriating or converting them.

Uploaded by

Renato C. Silvestre Jr.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

SORIANO VS PEOPLE AND BSP

G.R. NO. 162336 | FEBRUARY 1, 2010


DEL CASTILLO, J.:
(DOSRI Law)
FACTS:
Soriano was charged for estafa through falsification of commercial documents for
allegedly securing a loan of 48 million in the name of two (2) persons when in fact these
individuals did not make any loan in the bank, nor did the bank's officers approved or had any
information about the said loan. The state prosecutor conducted a Preliminary Investigation on
the basis of letters sent by the officers of Special Investigation of BSP together with 5 affidavits
and filed two (2) separate information against Soriano for estafa through falsification of
commercial documents and violation of Directors, Officers, Stockholders and their Related
Interests (DORSI) Law.
Petitioner moved to quash these information. Essentially, the petitioner theorized that the
characterization of possession is different in the two offenses. If petitioner acquired the loan as
DOSRI, he owned the loaned money and therefore, cannot misappropriate or convert it as
contemplated in the offense of estafa. Conversely, if petitioner committed estafa, then he merely
held the money in trust for someone else and therefore, did not acquire a loan in violation of
DOSRI rules. The trial court denied petitioner’s Motion to Quash for lack of merit. The MR was
denied as well. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA which was also
denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
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.
RULING:
YES, petitioner’s theory is based on the false premises that the loan was extended to him
by the bank in his own name, and that he became the owner of the loan proceeds. Under the
circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner became the legal owner of the P8 million. Thus,
petitioner remained the banks fiduciary with respect to that money, which makes it capable of
misappropriation or conversion in his hands.
The prohibition in Sec. 83 is broad enough to cover various modes of borrowing and is
intended to protect the public. It has been said that banking institutions are not created for the
benefit of the directors [or officers]. A direct borrowing is obviously one that is made in the
name of the DOSRI himself or where the DOSRI is a named party, while an indirect borrowing
includes one that is made by a third party, but the DOSRI has a stake in the transaction. The
latter type indirect borrowing applies here.

You might also like