View full case

JOSEPH VICTOR G. EJERCITO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Joseph Victor G. Ejercito ("petitioner") challenging the Sandiganbayan Resolutions denying his motions to quash subpoenas duces tecum/ad testificandum and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. The three resolutions were issued in Criminal Case No. 26558 for plunder. The Special Prosecution Panel requested subpoenas duces tecum from the President of Export and Industry Bank (EIB) and the authorized representative of Equitable-PCI Bank. Petitioner attended the hearing and filed a letter expressing his concerns about the breach of banking secrecy laws and the alleged illegal obtaining of evidence. Petitioner argued that the subpoenas should be quashed as they were in violation of his rights.

The petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the subpoenas, claiming that his bank accounts are covered by the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law and do not fall under any of the exceptions. He alleged that the detailed information in the subpoenas could only have been obtained through illegal disclosure by the EIB and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). The prosecution filed additional requests for subpoenas, which were also issued by the Sandiganbayan. The petitioner then filed an Urgent Motion to Quash, but it was denied by the Sandiganbayan through a Resolution. The petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was also denied. The issues raised include whether the petitioner's trust account is covered by the term "deposit" under the law, whether the accounts are excepted from the protection of the law, and whether the information in the subpoenas was obtained through illegal disclosure. The respondent argues that trust accounts fall under the broad definition of "deposits" under the law.

This case involves the interpretation of Republic Act No. 1405, also known as the Bank Secrecy Law. The petitioner, who is facing charges of plunder, sought to prevent the disclosure of his trust account held in a bank. He argued that plunder is neither bribery nor dereliction of duty, and therefore his account should be protected under the Bank Secrecy Law. Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy Law provides that all deposits with banks or banking institutions, including investments in government bonds, are considered as confidential and may not be examined by any person or government official, except under certain circumstances. These circumstances include written permission from the depositor, impeachment cases, orders of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty, and cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of litigation. The court held that cases of unexplained wealth, such as plunder, are similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty. The court reasoned that the policy of public scrutiny and the notion that a public office is a public trust apply to both types of cases. The court emphasized that public officials should be aware that their lives, particularly those relevant to their duties, are open to scrutiny. The court also referred to Republic Act No. 7080, which defines the crime of plunder. The law includes amassing ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts, one of which is bribery. The court noted the similarity between plunder and bribery in terms of acquiring ill-gotten wealth, further supporting the argument that plunder falls within the exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Law.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether petitioner's Trust Account No. 858 is covered by the term "deposit" as used in R.A. 1405.

  2. Whether petitioner's Trust Account No. 858 and Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9 are excepted from the protection of R.A. 1405.

  3. Whether the "extremely-detailed" information contained in the Special Prosecution Panel's requests for subpoena was obtained through a prior illegal disclosure of petitioner's bank accounts, in violation of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.

RULING:

  1. Trust Account as Covered Deposit

    • Trust Account No. 858 is covered by the term "deposit" as used in R.A. 1405. The Court held that the term "deposits" is to be understood broadly and not limited to accounts creating a creditor-debtor relationship between the depositor and the bank.

  2. Exceptions to Bank Secrecy Protection

    • The accounts fall under two exceptions to the protection of R.A. 1405: (1) the examination of bank accounts is upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, and (2) the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation—applicable since plunder involves unexplained wealth similar to bribery.

  3. Illegal Disclosure and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

    • The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine does not apply in this case for two reasons: R.A. 1405 does not provide for the exclusionary rule, and the primary source of information (the Ombudsman’s investigation) was found to be lawful at the time it was conducted.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Secrecy of Bank Deposits (R.A. 1405) The term "deposit" should be understood broadly to include various types of accounts that banks can use for authorized loans, in line with the law’s policy to boost economic development.

  • Exceptions to Confidentiality under R.A. 1405 Exceptions include court-ordered examinations in cases of bribery, dereliction of duty, and when the money is the subject of litigation.

  • Plunder as Comparable to Bribery As plunder involves unexplained wealth, it is considered analogous to bribery and thus falls under the exceptions to bank secrecy laws.

  • Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine This doctrine does not apply unless specifically included in the statute; it presupposes an illegal act, which was not present in this case.

  • Judicial Interpretations' Prospective Application New judicial doctrines, especially those reversing previous rulings, should be applied prospectively, not retroactively, to ensure fairness to those who relied on old doctrines in good faith.