BVR & ASSOCIATES
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • VIRTUAL ASSISTANT
    • FINANCIAL PLANNING
    • ASSET MANAGEMENT
    • HUMAN RESOURCES
  • About
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • SERVICES

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer


Soriano v People    591 SCRA 244

10/22/2020

0 Comments

 
​Soriano v People
591 SCRA 244
 
Facts:
State Prosecutor Josefino Subia charged Soriano in the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, with violation of Section 83 of Republic Act 334 or the General Banking Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1795, or violation of the Director, Officer, Stockholder or Related Interest (DOSRI) rules.
 
An information for estafa thru falsification of commercial document was also filed against Soriano and Ilagan. The information was docketed as Criminal Case No. 1719-M-2000 and 1720-M-2000, respectively, and were raffled to Branch 14, presided by Judge Petrita Braga Dime.
 
Another information for violation of Section 83 of RA 337 was filed against Soriano, this time covering  the P15 million loan obtained in the name of Rogelio Mañaol. Soriano and Ilagan were also indicted for estafa thru falsification of commercial document for obtaining said loan. The cases were docketed as 1980-M-2000 and 1981-M-2000, respectively, and were raffled to Branch 77, presided by Judge Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
 
Petitioners Soriano and Ilagan filed a Motion to Quash before both salas. Petitioners argued that the prosecutor charged more than one offense for a single act.
Both salas of RTC denied Motion to Quash. Petitioners filed a Rule 65 before the CA but it was dismissed. Petitioners filed Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
 
Issue:
Whether the two judges correctly denied the Motion to Quash.
 
Held:
Yes. Petitioners assail the validity of the information against them on the ground that more than one offense is charged. They point that Soriano was charged with violation of DOSRI Rules and with estafa thru falsification of commercial document for allegedly obtaining loans. Thus, they claim that the information were duplicitous.  The found no merit in petitioner's argument that the violation of the DOSRI law and the commission of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents are inherently inconsistent with each other.
Indisputably, duplicity of offense in a single information is a ground to quash the information under the Rules of Criminal Procedure with states that a complaint or information must charge but one offense except only those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses. 
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • VIRTUAL ASSISTANT
    • FINANCIAL PLANNING
    • ASSET MANAGEMENT
    • HUMAN RESOURCES
  • About
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • SERVICES