Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan

Facts:

In the case of People v. Estrada, et al., the Special Prosecution Panel filed on January 20, 2003 before the Sandiganbayan a Request for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum for the issuance of a subpoena directing the President of Export and Industry Bank (EIB, formerly Urban Bank) or his/her authorized representative to produce multiple documents from the said bank.

The Special Prosecution Panel also filed a Request for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum directed to the authorized representative of Equitable-PCI Bank to produce statements of account pertaining to certain accounts in the name of "Jose Velarde" and to testify thereon.

The Sandiganbayan granted both requests and subpoenas were accordingly issued.

The Special Prosecution Panel filed still another Request for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum for the President of EIB or his/her authorized representative to produce the same documents subject of the initial Subpoena Duces Tecum and to testify thereon on the hearings and subsequent dates until completion of the testimony. The request was likewise granted by the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner, claiming to have learned from the media that the Special Prosecution Panel had requested for the issuance of subpoenas for the examination of bank accounts belonging to him, attended the hearing of the case on January 27, 2003 and filed before the Sandiganbayan a letter of even date expressing his concerns on bank secrecy.

In open court, the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan, through Associate Justice Edilberto Sandoval, advised petitioner that his remedy was to file a motion to quash, for which he was given up to the following day.

Petitioner, unassisted by counsel, thus filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum praying that the subpoenas previously issued to the President of the EIB be quashed.

Before the Motion to Quash was resolved by the Sandiganbayan, the prosecution filed 2 Requests for the Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum again to direct the President of the EIB and Aurora C. Baldoz, Vice President-CR-II of the PDIC to produce, on the hearings, the same documents subject of the preceding subpoenas among others, respectively.

Petitioner, this time assisted by counsel, filed an Urgent Motion to Quash Subpoenae Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum praying that the subpoena directed to Aurora Baldoz be quashed for the same reasons which he cited in the Motion to Quash he had earlier filed which was denied.

An MR was filed but was denied.

Issue:

Whether petitioner’s accounts are excepted from the protection of R.A. 1405

Held:

The plunder case now pending with the Sandiganbayan necessarily involves an inquiry into the whereabouts of the amount purportedly acquired illegally by former President Joseph Estrada.

In light then of this Court’s pronouncement in Union Bank, the subject matter of the litigation cannot be limited to bank accounts under the name of President Estrada alone, but must include those accounts to which the money purportedly acquired illegally or a portion thereof was alleged to have been transferred.

The case of U.S. v. Frazin, involving the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (RFPA) of the United States, is instructive.

Because the statute, when properly construed, excludes a suppression remedy, it would not be appropriate for us to provide one in the exercise of our supervisory powers over the administration of justice. Where Congress has both established a right and provided exclusive remedies for its violation, we would "encroach upon the prerogatives" of Congress were we to authorize a remedy not provided for by statute. United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1313 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825, 98 S.Ct. 72, 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).

The same principle was reiterated in U.S. v. Thompson:

x x x When Congress specifically designates a remedy for one of its acts, courts generally presume that it engaged in the necessary balancing of interests in determining what the appropriate penalty should be. See Michaelian, 803 F.2d at 1049 (citing cases); Frazin, 780 F.2d at 1466. Absent a specific reference to an exclusionary rule, it is not appropriate for the courts to read such a provision into the act.

Even assuming arguendo, however, that the exclusionary rule applies in principle to cases involving R.A. 1405, the Court finds no reason to apply the same in this particular case.

With the filing of the plunder case against former President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan, the Ombudsman, using the above independent information, may now proceed to conduct the same investigation it earlier conducted, through which it can eventually obtain the same information previously disclosed to it by the PDIC, for it is an inescapable fact that the bank records of petitioner are no longer protected by R.A. 1405 for the reasons already explained above.

Since conducting such an inquiry would, however, only result in the disclosure of the same documents to the Ombudsman, this Court, in avoidance of what would be a time-wasteful and circuitous way of administering justice, upholds the challenged subpoenas.