Case Digest (G.R. No. 157294-95)
Facts:
Joseph Victor G. Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan (Special Division) and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 157294-95, November 30, 2006, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Joseph Victor G. Ejercito moved to quash several subpoenas duces tecum/ad testificandum issued by the Sandiganbayan (Special Division) in Criminal Case No. 26558 (People v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, et al., for plunder). The Special Prosecution Panel had filed requests for subpoenas on January 20 and 23, 2003, directing Export and Industry Bank (EIB, formerly Urban Bank) and Equitable-PCI Bank to produce detailed documents pertaining to petitioner’s Trust Account No. 858 and Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9, including trading orders, confirmation advices, manager’s checks and trust agreements; the Sandiganbayan granted those requests and issued subpoenas in January 2003.Petitioner first attended the hearing on January 27, 2003 unrepresented and sent a letter complaining of a suspected prior illegal disclosure of his bank records; he was told to file a motion to quash by noon of January 28. He filed a pro se motion to quash on January 28 and, assisted by counsel, an urgent motion to quash on February 7. The Sandiganbayan denied the January 28 motion by Resolution dated February 7, 2003, denied the February 7 motion by Resolution dated February 12, 2003, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated March 11, 2003. Petitioner then filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Supreme Court, assailing those three Sandiganbayan resolutions.
The record showed that the detailed information the Special Prosecution Panel used derived in part from subpoenas previously issued by the Ombudsman to Urban Bank/PDIC in February–March 2001 (before this Court’s decision in Marquez v. Desierto, G.R. No. 135882, June 27, 2001); PDIC, as receiver of Urban Bank, had complied and supplied documents. The Sandiganbayan credited the People’s account that the Ombudsman’s production occurred in February–March 2001 and thus predated Marquez. The issues framed below were whether trust accounts fall within the protection of R.A. No. 1405 (Secrecy of Bank Deposits), whether the exceptions to that secrec...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is a trust account (Trust Account No. 858) covered by the term “deposit” as used in R.A. No. 1405?
- Are petitioner’s Trust Account No. 858 and Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9 excepted from the protection of R.A. No. 1405 because (a) plunder is analogous to bribery/dereliction of duty, and/or (b) the money in those accounts is the “subject matter of the litigation”?
- Were the “extremely-detailed” particulars relied on by the Special Prosecution Panel obtained through an illegal disclosure such that the subpoenas must be quashed under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doc...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)