 Ricardo Bangayan represents BSB group, a domestic corporation.

 His wife, Sally is the cashier.

 Petitioner filed a complaint for estafa and/or qualified theft against respondent;
several checks issued by the customers(P1.5M+), were deposited in her personal
account at Security Bank.
 Respondent was charged with qualified theft before the RTC.
 Because the checks were already encashed and deposited in the bank; MOTION
to Issue SUBPOENA
 RTC issued the subpoena.
 Respondent moved to quash the subpoena, noting that the Metrobank account
was not mentioned in the complaint filed.
 Petitioner opposed the motion to quash. Respondent then, filed a supplemental
motion to quash, invoking the ABSOLUTE CONFIDENTIAL nature of the
MetroBank account under RA 1405.
 RTC denied the motion to quash.
 Meanwhile, the prosecution was able to present Marasigan, the representative of
Security Bank.
 She testified that the respondent, while being the cashier of BSB, has credited
the checks to her personal account with Security Bank
 Before completing the testimony, respondent filed a motion to suppress to
exclude Marasigan’s testimony on the ground that it is irrelevant and because of
confidential nature of bank accounts.
 RTC DENIED.

 Upon appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court.

 Hence, a petition for review was filed by petitioner before the Supreme Court
alleging that the CA committed error in appreciating the contention of the
respondent. The petitioner claimed that the bank account had a direct relation to
the case at hand and thus, subject to the exception from the rule of confidentiality
of bank accounts.

W/N the admission of the Testimony of Marasigan in the case constitute a violation
under RA 1405 as well as the evidence of checks allegedly deposited in her personal
account.

HELD:
The source of the right of expectation of privacy of bank accounts is statutory.

The absolute confidentiality of bank accounts under RA 1405 actually aims to protect
from any unwarranted inquiry or investigation if the purpose of the inquiry or
investigation is merely to determine the existence and nature, as well as the amount
deposited in any given bank account.

In this case, petitioner posits that the account maintained by the respondent in Security
bank contains proceeds of the checks that she had fraudulently appropriated to her
personal use and thus it falls into the exception of the rule on confidentiality of bank
accounts – that the money kept in the account is the subject matter in litigation.

In UnionBank vs CA, the inquiry allowed exempted must be premised on the fact that
the money deposited in the account is itself the subject of the action. Subject matter of
the action is to be determined from INFORMATION that charges the respondent with
the offense, and not from the evidence sought by the prosecution to be admitted into
the records.

In this case, the information makes no factual allegation that involves the checks subject
of the testimonial and documentary evidence sought to be suppressed. The subject
bank account was also not mentioned in the information.

The security bank account was not the subject matter. It is the supposed P1.5 M that was
alleged to be stolen by the respondent.

THE COURT ruled that the admission of the testimonial and documentary evidence
regarding the SecurityBank bank account is an attempt to inquire into a bank account
that is protected by the law.

Thus, the testimonial and documentary evidence are not only incompetent by exclusion
under RA 1405 but also irrelevant because there was no logical connection to the
information that charged the respondent.

DOCTRINE ON SYLLABUS:

RA 1405 has to purposes. It aims to discourage private hoarding. It aims to encourage

the people to deposit their money in banking institutions so that it may be utilized in a
way to help the economy.

Secrecy of bank deposits is always the general rule. In case of doubt, it must be
interpreted in favor of secrecy.