Petitioner, the BSB
Group, Inc., is a duly organized domestic corporation presided by its herein
representative, Bangayan. Respondent Sally Go is Bangayan’s wife who was
employed in the company as a cashier, and was engaged, among others, to receive
and account for the payments made by the various customers of the company.
In 2002, Bangayan
filed with the Manila Prosecutor’s Office a complaint for estafa and/or qualified
theft against respondent, alleging that several checks representing the
aggregate amount of ₱1,534,135.50 issued by the company’s customers in payment
of their obligation were, instead of being turned over to the company’s
coffers, indorsed by respondent who deposited the same to her personal banking
account maintained at Security Bank in Divisoria, Manila Branch. Upon a finding
that the evidence adduced was uncontroverted, the assistant city prosecutor
recommended the filing of the Information for qualified theft against
respondent.
Respondent entered
a negative plea when arraigned. The trial ensued. On the premise that
respondent had allegedly encashed the subject checks and deposited the
corresponding amounts thereof to her personal banking account, the prosecution
moved for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum /ad testificandum against the
respective managers or records custodians of Security Bank’s Divisoria Branch,
as well as of the Asian Savings Bank (now Metrobank) in Jose Abad Santos,
Tondo, Manila Branch. The trial court granted the motion and issued the
corresponding subpoena.
The prosecution was
able to present in court the testimony of Marasigan, the representative of
Security Bank. In a nutshell, Marasigan’s testimony sought to prove that
between 1988 and 1989, respondent, while engaged as cashier at the BSB Group,
Inc., was able to run away with the checks issued to the company by its
customers, endorse the same, and credit the corresponding amounts to her
personal deposit account with Security Bank. In the course of the testimony,
the subject checks were presented to Marasigan for identification and marking
as the same checks received by respondent, endorsed, and then deposited in her
personal account with Security Bank. But before the testimony could be
completed, respondent filed a Motion to Suppress, seeking the exclusion of
Marasigan’s testimony and accompanying documents thus far received, bearing on
the subject Security Bank account. This time respondent invokes, in addition to
irrelevancy, the privilege of confidentiality under R.A. No. 1405.
The trial court,
nevertheless, denied the motion. An MR was subsequently filed, but it was also
denied.
Issue:
Whether or not the
evidence may be admitted to court by operation of R.A. No. 1405
Held:
No.
It is conceded that
while the fundamental law has not bothered with the triviality of specifically
addressing privacy rights relative to banking accounts, there, nevertheless,
exists in our jurisdiction a legitimate expectation of privacy governing such
accounts. The source of this right of expectation is statutory, and it is found
in R.A. No. 1405, otherwise known as the Bank Secrecy Act of 1955.
R.A. No. 1405 has
two allied purposes. It hopes to discourage private hoarding and at the same
time encourage the people to deposit their money in banking institutions, so
that it may be utilized by way of authorized loans and thereby assist in
economic development. Owing to this piece of legislation, the confidentiality
of bank deposits remains to be a basic state policy in the Philippines. Section
2 of the law institutionalized this policy by characterizing as absolutely
confidential in general all deposits of whatever nature with banks and other
financial institutions in the country. It declares:
Section 2. All
deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the
Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the
Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby
considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined,
inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office,
except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or
upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of
public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the
subject matter of the litigation.
Subsequent
statutory enactments have expanded the list of exceptions to this policy yet
the secrecy of bank deposits still lies as the general rule, falling as it does
within the legally recognized zones of privacy. There is, in fact, much
disfavor to construing these primary and supplemental exceptions in a manner
that would authorize unbridled discretion, whether governmental or otherwise,
in utilizing these exceptions as authority for unwarranted inquiry into bank
accounts. It is then perceivable that the present legal order is obliged to
conserve the absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits.
In taking exclusion
from the coverage of the confidentiality rule, petitioner in the instant case
posits that the account maintained by respondent with Security Bank contains
the proceeds of the checks that she has fraudulently appropriated to herself
and, thus, falls under one of the exceptions in Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 that
the money kept in said account is the subject matter in litigation.
The subject matter
of the action in the case at bar is to be determined from the indictment that
charges respondent with the offense, and not from the evidence sought by the
prosecution to be admitted into the records. In the criminal Information filed
with the trial court, respondent, unqualifiedly and in plain language, is
charged with qualified theft by abusing petitioner’s trust and confidence and
stealing cash in the amount of ₱1,534,135.50. The said Information makes no
factual allegation that in some material way involves the checks subject of the
testimonial and documentary evidence sought to be suppressed. Neither do the
allegations in said Information make mention of the supposed bank account in
which the funds represented by the checks have allegedly been kept.
In other words, it
can hardly be inferred from the indictment itself that the Security Bank
account is the ostensible subject of the prosecution’s inquiry. Without
needlessly expanding the scope of what is plainly alleged in the Information,
the subject matter of the action in this case is the money amounting to
₱1,534,135.50 alleged to have been stolen by respondent, and not the money
equivalent of the checks which are sought to be admitted in evidence. Thus, it
is that, which the prosecution is bound to prove with its evidence, and no
other.
The admission of
testimonial and documentary evidence relative to respondent’s Security Bank
account serves no other purpose than to establish the existence of such
account, its nature and the amount kept in it. It constitutes an attempt by the
prosecution at an impermissible inquiry into a bank deposit account the privacy
and confidentiality of which is protected by law. On this score alone, the
objection posed by respondent in her motion to suppress should have indeed put
an end to the controversy at the very first instance it was raised before the
trial court.
In sum, the Court
held that the testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of respondent’s
supposed bank account with Security Bank and the documentary evidence
represented by the checks adduced in support thereof, are not only incompetent
for being excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant
to the case, inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable
connection to the prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.
No comments:
Post a Comment