You are on page 1of 3

1. Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 157294-95, 30 November 2006 Held: R.A.

Held: R.A. 1405 is broad enough to cover Trust Account No. 858. However, the
RA 1405 does not provide for the application of this rule. At all events, the protection afforded by the law is not absolute. There being recognized exceptions
Ombudsman is not barred from requiring the production of documents based thereto, as above-quoted Section 2 provides. In the present case, two exceptions
solely on information obtained by it from sources independentof its previous apply, to wit: (1) the examination of bank accounts is upon order of a competent
inquiry. court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, and (2) the money
Facts: Joseph Victor G. Ejercito is the owner of Trust Account No. 858 which was deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. Ejercito contends that
originally opened at Urban Bank but which is now maintained at Export and since plunder is neither bribery nor dereliction of duty, his accounts are not
Industry Bank, which is the purchaser and owner now of the former Urban Bank excepted from the protection of R.A. 1405.
and Urbancorp Investment, Inc. He is also the owner of Savings Account No. 0116-
17345-9 which was originally opened at Urban Bank but which is now maintained Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty
at Export and Industry Bank, the purchaser and owner of the former Urban Bank and no reason is seen why these two classes of cases cannot be excepted from the
and Urbancorp Investment, Inc. rule making bank deposits confidential. The policy as to one cannot be different
from the policy as to the other. This policy expresses the notion that a public office
Estrada was subsequently charged with Plunder. The Sandiganbayan a Request for is a public trust and any person who enters upon its discharge does so with the full
Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum for the issuance of a subpoena directing the knowledge that his life, so far as relevant to his duty, is open to public scrutiny.
President of Export and Industry Bank (EIB, formerly Urban Bank) or his/her Undoubtedly, cases for plunder involve unexplained wealth. The crime of bribery
authorized representative to produce various document related to the and the overt acts constitutive of plunder are crimes committed by public officers,
investigation. noble idea that a public office is a public trust and any person who enters upon its
discharge does so with the full knowledge that his life, so far as relevant to his duty,
The Special Prosecution Panel also filed a Request for Issuance of Subpoena Duces is open to public scrutiny applies with equal force.
Tecum/Ad Testificandum directed to the authorized representative of Equitable-
PCI Bank to produce statements of account pertaining to certain accounts in the Also, the plunder case now pending with the Sandiganbayan necessarily involves
name of Jose Velarde and to testify thereon. an inquiry into the whereabouts of the amount purportedly acquired illegally by
former President Joseph Estrada. Republic Act No. 1405 allows the disclosure of
The Sandiganbayan granted both requests by Resolution and subpoenas bank deposits in cases where the money deposited is the subject matter of the
were accordingly issued. The Special Prosecution Panel filed still another Request litigation. Hence, these accounts are no longer protected by the Secrecy of Bank
for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum for the President of EIB Deposits Law, there being two exceptions to the said law applicable in this case,
or his/her authorized representative to produce the same documents subject of the namely: (1)the examination of bank accounts is upon order of a competent court in
first Subpoena Duces Tecum and to testify thereon on the hearings scheduled and cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, and (2)the money
subsequent dates until completion of the testimony. The request was likewise deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. Exception (1) applies
granted by the Sandiganbayan. A Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum was since the plunder case pending against former President Estrada is analogous to
accordingly issued. Ejercito filed various motions to quash the various Subpoenas bribery or dereliction of duty, while exception (2) applies because the money
Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum previously issued. In his Motion to Quash, he deposited in Ejercitos bank accounts is said to form part of the subject matter of
claimed that his bank accounts are covered by R.A. No. 1405 (The Secrecy of Bank the same plunder case. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine or the
Deposits Law) and do not fall under any of the exceptions stated therein. He further exclusionary rule is inapplicable in cases of unlawful examination of bank accounts.
claimed that the specific identification of documents in the questioned subpoenas,
including details on dates and amounts, could only have been made possible by an
earlier illegal disclosure thereof by the EIB and the Philippine Deposit Insurance 2. Philippine National Bank v. Gancayco GR No. 18343, 30 September 1965
Corporation (PDIC) in its capacity as receiver of the then Urban Bank. The Section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law is intended to amend Section 2 of Republic Act
disclosure being illegal, he concluded, the prosecution in the case may not be No. 1405 by providing an additional exception to the rule against the disclosure
allowed to make use of the information. Before the motion was resolved by the of bank deposits.
Sandiganbayan, the prosecution filed another Facts: Emilio Gancayco and Florentino Flor, as special prosecutors of the
Department of Justice, required the Philippine National Bank to produce at a
Issue: Whether or not a Trust Account is covered by the term deposit as used in hearing the records of the bank deposits of Ernesto Jimenez, former administrator
R.A. 1405; of the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Administration, who was then under
investigation for unexplained wealth.
PNB refused to disclose his bank deposits, invoking Section 2 of Republic Act No. from the policy as to the other. This policy expresses the notion that a public office
1405. On the other hand, the prosecutors cited the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices is a public trust and any person who enters upon its discharge does so with the full
Act, particularly Section 8 therewith, to wit: knowledge that his life, so far as relevant to his duty, is open to public scrutiny.
3. BSB Group Inc. vs. Sally Go
G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010
Section 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. If in accordance with the Peralta, J.:
provisions of RA 1379, a public official has been found to have acquired during his
incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of FACTS: Petitioner, the BSB Group, Inc., is a duly organized domestic corporation
property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other presided by its herein representative, Ricardo Bangayan (Bangayan). Respondent
lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the Sally Go, alternatively referred to as Sally Sia Go and Sally Go-Bangayan, is
name of the spouse and unmarried children of such public official, may be taken Bangayan's wife, who was employed in the company as a cashier, and was engaged,
into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be among others, to receive and account for the payments made by the various
satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the customers of the company.
enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. In 2002, Bangayan filed with the Manila Prosecutor's Office a complaint for
PNB then filed an action for declaratory judgment in the CFI of Manila which ruled estafaand/or qualified theft against respondent, alleging that several
that Section 8 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act clearly intended to checks representing the aggregate amount of P1,534,135.50 issued by the
provide an additional ground for the examination of bank deposits. Hence, this company's customers in payment of their obligation were, instead of being turned
appeal. over to the company's coffers, indorsed by respondent who deposited the same to
Issue: Whether or not a bank can be compelled to disclose the records of her personal banking account maintained at Security Bank and Trust Company
accounts of a depositor who is under investigation for unexplained wealth (Security Bank) in Divisoria, Manila Branch. Upon a finding that the evidence
Held : Yes. While Republic Act No. 1405 provides that bank deposits are adduced was uncontroverted, the assistant city prosecutor recommended the filing
absolutely confidential and may not be examined, inquired or looked into, , the of the Information for qualified theft against respondent.
Anti-Graft Law directs in mandatory terms that bank deposits shall be taken into Accordingly, respondent was charged before the Regional Trial Court of
consideration notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary Manila. She was found guilty; that in the commission of the said offense,
said accused acted with grave abuse of confidence, being then employed as cashier
While No reconciliation is possible between Republic Act No. 1405 and Republic by said complainant at the time of the commission of the said offense and as such
Act No. 3019 as the two laws are so repugnant to each other. Thus, while Section 2 she was entrusted with the said amount of money.
of Republic Act No. 1405 provides that bank deposits are absolutely confidential Respondent entered a negative plea when arraigned. The trial ensued.
and, therefore, may not be examined, inquired or looked into, except in those On the premise that respondent had allegedly encashed the subject checks and
cases enumerated therein, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-graft law) deposited the corresponding amounts thereof to her personal banking account.
directs in mandatory terms that bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in Petitioner, opposing respondent's move, argued for the relevancy of the
the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the Metrobank account on the ground that the complaint-affidavit showed that there
contrary. The only conclusion possible is that Section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law is were two checks which respondent allegedly deposited in an account with the
intended to amend Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405 by providing an additional said bank. To this, respondent filed a supplemental motion to quash, invoking the
exception to the rule against the disclosure of bank deposits. absolutely confidential nature of the Metrobank account under the provisions of
Republic Act(R.A.) No. 1405. The trial court did not sustain respondent; hence, it
With regard to the claim that disclosure would be contrary to the policy making denied the motion to quash for lack of merit.
bank deposits confidential, it is enough to point out that while Section 2 of Republic Meanwhile, the prosecution was able to present in court the testimony of
Act No. 1405 declares bank deposits to be absolutely confidential, it nevertheless Elenita Marasigan (Marasigan), the representative of Security Bank. In a nutshell
allows such disclosure in the following instances: (1) Upon written permission of ,Marasigan's testimony sought to prove that between 1988 and 1989, respondent
the depositor; (2) In cases of impeachment; (3) Upon order of a competent court in ,while engaged as cashier at the BSB Group, Inc., was able to run away with the
cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials; (4) In cases where the checks issued to the company by its customers, endorse the same, and credit the
money deposited is the subject of the litigation. corresponding amounts to her personal deposit account with Security Bank. In the
course of the testimony, the subject checks were presented to Marasigan for
Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty identification and marking as the same checks received by respondent, endorsed,
and no reason is seen why these two classes of cases cannot be excepted from the and then deposited in her personal account with Security Bank. CA affirmed RTCs
rule making bank deposits confidential. The policy as to one cannot be different decision.
any administrative body whatsoever. Salvacion therefore filed this action for
ISSUE: Whether or not there is no difference between cash and check for purposes declaratory relief in the Supreme Court.
of prosecuting respondent for theft of cash
ISSUE: Should Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Section 8 of
HELD: In theft, the act of unlawful taking connotes deprivation of personal Republic Act No. 6426, as amended by PD 1246, otherwise known as the Foreign
property of one by another with intent to gain, and it is immaterial that the offender Currency Deposit Act be made applicable to a foreign transient?
is able or unable to freely dispose of the property stolen because the deprivation
relative to the offended party has already ensued from such act of execution. The HELD: NO.
allegation of theft of money, hence, necessitates that evidence presented must
The provisions of Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246,
have a tendency to prove that the offender has unlawfully taken money belonging
to another. Interestingly, petitioner has taken pains in attempting to draw a insofar as it amends Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426, are hereby held to be
connection between the evidence subject of the instant review, and the allegation INAPPLICABLE to this case because of its peculiar circumstances. Respondents are
of theft in the Information by claiming that respondent had fraudulently deposited hereby required to comply with the writ of execution issued in the civil case and to
the checks in her own name. But this line of argument works more prejudice than release to petitioners the dollar deposit of Bartelli in such amount as would satisfy
favor, because it in effect, seeks to establish the commission, not of theft, but rather the judgment.
of some other crime probably estafa.
Moreover, that there is no difference between cash and check is true in Supreme Court ruled that the questioned law makes futile the favorable judgment
other instances. In estafa by conversion, for instance, whether the thing converted and award of damages that Salvacion and her parents fully deserve. It then
is cash or check, is immaterial in relation to the formal allegation in an information proceeded to show that the economic basis for the enactment of RA No. 6426 is not
for that offense; a check, after all, while not regarded as legal tender, is normally anymore present; and even if it still exists, the questioned law still denies those
accepted under commercial usage as a substitute for cash, and the credit it entitled to due process of law for being unreasonable and oppressive. The intention
represents instated monetary value is properly capable of appropriation. And it is of the law may be good when enacted. The law failed to anticipate the iniquitous
in this respect that what the offender does with the check subsequent to the act of effects producing outright injustice and inequality such as the case before us.
unlawfully taking it becomes material inasmuch as this offense is a continuing
one. In other words, in pursuing a case for this offense, the prosecution may The SC adopted the comment of the Solicitor General who argued that the Offshore
establish its cause by the presentation of the checks involved. These checks would Banking System and the Foreign Currency Deposit System were designed to draw
then constitute the best evidence to establish their contents and to prove deposits from foreign lenders and investors and, subsequently, to give the latter
the elemental act of conversion in support of the proposition that the offender has protection. However, the foreign currency deposit made by a transient or a tourist
indeed indorsed the same in his own name. is not the kind of deposit encouraged by PD Nos. 1034 and 1035 and given
incentives and protection by said laws because such depositor stays only for a few
4. KAREN E. SALVACION, minor, thru Federico N. Salvacion, Jr., father and Natural Guardian, and days in the country and, therefore, will maintain his deposit in the bank only for a
Spouses FEDERICO N. SALVACION, JR., and EVELINA E. SALVACION vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE short time. Considering that Bartelli is just a tourist or a transient, he is not entitled
PHILIPPINES, CHINA BANKING CORPORATION and GREG BARTELLI y NORTHCOTT
G.R. No. 94723 August 21, 1997
to the protection of Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246
against attachment, garnishment or other court processes.
FACTS: Greg Bartelli, an American tourist, was arrested for committing four counts Further, the SC said: In fine, the application of the law depends on the extent of its
of rape and serious illegal detention against Karen Salvacion. Police recovered from justice. Eventually, if we rule that the questioned Section 113 of Central Bank
him several dollar checks and a dollar account in the China Banking Corp. He was, Circular No. 960 which exempts from attachment, garnishment, or any other order
however, able to escape from prison. In a civil case filed against him, the trial court or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative
awarded Salvacion moral, exemplary and attorneys fees amounting to almost body whatsoever, is applicable to a foreign transient, injustice would result
P1,000,000.00. especially to a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused Greg Bartelli. This
would negate Article 10 of the New Civil Code which provides that in case of doubt
Salvacion tried to execute the judgment on the dollar deposit of Bartelli with the in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body
China Banking Corp. but the latter refused arguing that Section 11 of Central Bank intended right and justice to prevail.
Circular No. 960 exempts foreign currency deposits from attachment, garnishment,
or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or