A bank officer violates the DOSRI law (Section 83 of RA 337) when he acquires bank funds for his personal benefit, even if such acquisition was facilitated by a fraudulent loan application using a third party's name; such fraudulent acquisition does not negate the "indirect borrowing" and can concurrently constitute the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents, as the officer holds the funds in a fiduciary capacity and misappropriates them.

The Office of Special Investigation (OSI) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) transmitted a letter with five affidavits to the Department of Justice (DOJ), alleging that Hilario P. Soriano, then president of the Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. (RBSM), orchestrated a fraudulent P8 million loan. The loan appeared in the name of spouses Enrico and Amalia Carlos, who denied applying for or receiving it. It was alleged that Soriano ordered, facilitated, and received the loan proceeds without board authorization or proper reporting, using an unsuspecting depositor's name.

• Sometime in 2000, the BSP's Office of Special Investigation (OSI) transmitted a letter to the DOJ, attaching five affidavits for filing criminal charges against Hilario P. Soriano, then President of the Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. (RBSM).
• The affidavits indicated that spouses Enrico and Amalia Carlos had an outstanding P8 million loan with RBSM but had never applied for nor received such a loan.
• It was alleged that petitioner Soriano ordered, facilitated, and received the proceeds of this P8 million loan.
• The loan was not authorized by RBSM's Board of Directors, and no report thereof was submitted to the BSP.
• State Prosecutor Albert R. Fonacier conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause.
• Two informations were filed: Criminal Case No. 237-M-2001 for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents (Art. 315, par. 1(b) RPC in relation to Art. 172 RPC and PD 1689), and Criminal Case No. 238-M-2001 for violation of Section 83 of RA 337, as amended by PD 1795 (DOSRI law).
• The estafa information alleged that Soriano, in abuse of confidence as RBSM President, falsified loan documents to make it appear Enrico Carlos secured the loan, and then converted the P8 million proceeds for his personal gain.
• The DOSRI information alleged that Soriano, as RBSM President, indirectly borrowed or secured the P8 million loan for his personal use without the written consent and approval of the bank's Board of Directors, without entering it into bank records, and without transmitting a copy to the supervising department, using Enrico Carlos's name.

• The letter transmitted by the BSP to the DOJ, which constituted the complaint, was defective for not complying with Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court (e.g., lacked petitioner's address, oath, and subscription).
• The OSI officers who signed the letter-complaint were not authorized by the BSP Governor or the Monetary Board, violating Section 18, pars. (c) and (d) of RA 7653 (New Central Bank Act).
• The offenses of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the RPC and violation of the DOSRI law are inherently incompatible; one cannot be charged for both.
• A DOSRI violation implies the offender obtained a loan (becoming owner of the proceeds), while estafa (misappropriation) implies the offender held the money in trust. If he owned the money (DOSRI), he could not misappropriate it (estafa).
• A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy against an Order denying a Motion to Quash under certain circumstances.
• Petitioner is entitled to a writ of injunction to prevent the continuation of the criminal proceedings.
• Petitioner moved for partial withdrawal of the petition concerning the first issue (validity of the complaint) citing the Court's ruling in Soriano v. Hon. Casanova.

• The OSI letter was not the complaint-affidavit itself but a transmittal letter; the attached affidavits, duly subscribed and sworn, comprised the actual complaint-affidavit and complied with the Rules.
• The two offenses (estafa thru falsification and DOSRI violation) are separate and distinct, and the prosecution of one does not bar the other.
• The facts alleged in the informations, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the elements of both offenses charged.
• The BSP did not institute the complaint but merely transmitted affidavits of complainants to the DOJ, so Section 18 of RA 7653 does not apply.
• The offenses charged are public crimes and can be initiated by any competent person with personal knowledge.

• Whether the complaint complied with the mandatory requirements under Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and Section 18, paragraphs (c) and (d) of RA 7653.
• 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.
• Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy against an Order denying a Motion to Quash.
• Whether petitioner is entitled to a writ of injunction.

• The BSP letter, taken with the attached affidavits, complied with the requirements under Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The affidavits, not the transmittal letter, initiated the preliminary investigation and were properly subscribed. The requirements of Section 18 of RA 7653 did not apply as BSP merely transmitted affidavits for public crimes.
• A loan transaction violating the DOSRI law can also be the subject of Estafa. The petitioner's theory that he became owner of the loan proceeds (if DOSRI) is false; he held the P8 million in trust as President of the bank. The falsification to make it appear another person (Enrico Carlos) applied for the loan allowed petitioner to obtain and convert the funds, remaining a fiduciary. The DOSRI violation occurred through indirect borrowing using a dummy, without required approvals, even if the loan was not in his name.
• A special civil action for certiorari is generally not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. The proper procedure is to enter a plea, go to trial, and if convicted, appeal. No exceptional circumstances justified certiorari in this case.
• Petitioner is not entitled to a writ of injunction as he failed to show a clear and unmistakable right that was invaded, nor an urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.

• Stare Decisis — Once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. Applied by citing Soriano v. Hon. Casanova and Santos-Concio v. Department of Justice to affirm that affidavits attached to a transmittal letter, if properly subscribed, can initiate a preliminary investigation and comply with Rule 112, Sec 3(a).
• Complaint for Preliminary Investigation — A complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the fiscal need not be filed by the offended party; unless the offense cannot be prosecuted de oficio, it may be filed by any competent person. Applied to validate the initiation of charges based on affidavits of witnesses transmitted by BSP.
• Motion to Quash (Facts Charged Do Not Constitute an Offense) — The test is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined by law. Defenses must be proved during trial. Applied to find that the informations sufficiently alleged elements of DOSRI violation and estafa.
• Fiduciary Duty of Bank Officers — Directors and officers of a bank are considered in equity as bearing a fiduciary relation to the corporation, its stockholders, and depositors, demanding utmost disclosure and fair dealing. Applied to establish that petitioner held the P8 million in trust for the bank, making misappropriation possible.
• DOSRI (Directors, Officers, Stockholders, and Related Interests) Violation (Section 83, RA 337) — Prohibits bank directors or officers from directly or indirectly borrowing bank funds or becoming an obligor for money loaned by the bank, except with written approval of the majority of directors, excluding the director concerned, with proper recording and reporting. Applied to find that petitioner's act of securing a loan through a dummy for his benefit, without board approval, constituted an indirect borrowing and violated this provision.
• Estafa by Misappropriation (Article 315(1)(b) RPC) — Punishes the act of misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same. Applied by finding that petitioner, in his fiduciary capacity as bank president, received bank funds (loan proceeds fraudulently obtained) and converted them for his personal gain.
• Propriety of Certiorari (Rule 65) against Denial of Motion to Quash — A special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information; the accused should proceed to trial and appeal any adverse decision. Applied to dismiss petitioner's resort to certiorari as improper.
• Injunctive Relief — Requires a clear and unmistakable right, material and substantial invasion of that right, and urgent necessity to prevent serious damage. Applied to deny the injunction sought by petitioner for failing to establish these requisites.

• "A bank officer violates the DOSRI 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."
• "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. Both premises are wrong."
• "The prohibition in Section 83 is broad enough to cover various modes of borrowing. It covers loans by a bank director or officer (like herein petitioner) which are made either: (1) directly, (2) indirectly, (3) for himself, (4) or as the representative or agent of others."
• "In fine, the Court has consistently held that a special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information."

• Soriano v. Hon. Casanova (G.R. No. 163400, March 31, 2006) — Cited as controlling precedent (stare decisis) for the ruling that affidavits attached to a BSP transmittal letter, if properly subscribed, comply with the requirements for initiating a preliminary investigation under Rule 112, Sec 3(a), and that Section 18 of RA 7653 does not apply when BSP merely transmits such affidavits for public crimes.
• Santos-Concio v. Department of Justice (G.R. No. 175057, January 29, 2008) — Cited to elaborate on the ruling in Soriano v. Casanova, confirming that a preliminary investigation can validly proceed based on affidavits of competent persons attached to a referral/transmittal letter, even if the letter itself is not sworn.
• Ebarle v. Sucaldito (156 SCRA 803) — Referenced (as cited by the CA) to support the principle that a complaint for preliminary investigation, for public crimes like estafa, can be filed by any competent person, not necessarily the offended party.
• Soriano v. People (G.R. Nos. 159517-18, June 30, 2009) — Cited as a case involving the same petitioner and similarly worded informations for DOSRI violation and estafa, where the Court held there was no basis for quashal as the informations contained material allegations for both offenses. Also cited for the ruling on the impropriety of certiorari to assail denial of a motion to quash.
• Go v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (G.R. No. 178429, October 23, 2009) — Cited for defining the elements of a DOSRI law violation and for the broad interpretation of "borrowing" under Section 83 of RA 337, including indirect borrowing. Also cited regarding the fiduciary duty of bank directors/officers.
• People v. Concepcion (44 Phil. 126 (1922)) — Referenced to illustrate the concept of indirect borrowing in DOSRI cases.
• Olalia v. Hizon (274 Phil. 66 (1991)) — Cited for the principles governing the issuance of an injunction, emphasizing caution and the need for a clear legal right.
• Ting v. Velez-Ting (G.R. No. 166562, March 31, 2009) — Cited for the definition of stare decisis.
• Caballero v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 137355-58, September 25, 2007) — Cited in relation to the test for a motion to quash on the ground that facts charged do not constitute an offense.
• Torres v. Hon. Garchitorena (442 Phil. 765 (2002)) — Also cited in relation to the test for a motion to quash.
• Boncodin v. National Power Corporation Employees Consolidated Union (NECU) (G.R. No. 162716, September 27, 2006) — Cited for the requisites to justify injunctive relief.

• Section 83 of Republic Act No. 337 (General Banking Act), as amended by PD 1795 — This is the DOSRI law. Its relevance is central as petitioner was charged with violating this provision by indirectly borrowing from the bank he presided over without proper board approval and reporting.
• Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court — This rule outlines the requirements for a complaint or affidavit in a preliminary investigation (e.g., oath, subscription, address of respondent). Its relevance stems from petitioner's argument that the BSP's letter-complaint was defective under this rule.
• Section 18, paragraphs (c) and (d) of Republic Act No. 7653 (New Central Bank Act) — These provisions concern the authority of the BSP Governor to represent the Monetary Board and the BSP. Its relevance is due to petitioner's claim that the OSI officers lacked authority from the BSP Governor or Monetary Board to file the complaint.
• Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code (Estafa) — This article defines estafa by misappropriation. Its relevance is that petitioner was charged with this crime for allegedly converting the loan proceeds for his personal benefit.
• Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents) — Relevant as the estafa charge was "thru Falsification of Commercial Documents," indicating that the loan documents were falsified.
• Presidential Decree No. 1689 (Increasing the Penalty for Certain Forms of Swindling or Estafa) — Relevant as it was cited in relation to the estafa charge, potentially affecting the penalty.
• Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court) — This is the procedural basis for the petition filed before the Supreme Court.
• Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus) — Relevant because petitioner used this rule to challenge the denial of his Motion to Quash before the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court discussed its propriety.