This document discusses a case where a petitioner filed a complaint against a respondent for estafa and qualified theft. The petitioner alleged that several checks totaling 1.5 million pesos that were deposited into the respondent's personal bank account were misappropriated. The respondent argued that testimony regarding her bank account violated the absolute confidentiality of bank accounts under RA 1405. The Supreme Court ruled that the testimony was inadmissible as the bank account was not mentioned in the complaint and was not directly related to the subject matter of the case. Under RA 1405, bank accounts are strictly confidential unless the money deposited is itself the subject of litigation.
This document discusses a case where a petitioner filed a complaint against a respondent for estafa and qualified theft. The petitioner alleged that several checks totaling 1.5 million pesos that were deposited into the respondent's personal bank account were misappropriated. The respondent argued that testimony regarding her bank account violated the absolute confidentiality of bank accounts under RA 1405. The Supreme Court ruled that the testimony was inadmissible as the bank account was not mentioned in the complaint and was not directly related to the subject matter of the case. Under RA 1405, bank accounts are strictly confidential unless the money deposited is itself the subject of litigation.
Original Description:
GR No. 168644. Special Commercial Laws, Bank Secrecy, RA 1405
This document discusses a case where a petitioner filed a complaint against a respondent for estafa and qualified theft. The petitioner alleged that several checks totaling 1.5 million pesos that were deposited into the respondent's personal bank account were misappropriated. The respondent argued that testimony regarding her bank account violated the absolute confidentiality of bank accounts under RA 1405. The Supreme Court ruled that the testimony was inadmissible as the bank account was not mentioned in the complaint and was not directly related to the subject matter of the case. Under RA 1405, bank accounts are strictly confidential unless the money deposited is itself the subject of litigation.
This document discusses a case where a petitioner filed a complaint against a respondent for estafa and qualified theft. The petitioner alleged that several checks totaling 1.5 million pesos that were deposited into the respondent's personal bank account were misappropriated. The respondent argued that testimony regarding her bank account violated the absolute confidentiality of bank accounts under RA 1405. The Supreme Court ruled that the testimony was inadmissible as the bank account was not mentioned in the complaint and was not directly related to the subject matter of the case. Under RA 1405, bank accounts are strictly confidential unless the money deposited is itself the subject of litigation.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
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.
