Case Summary (G.R. No. 157294-95)
Procedural Background
Petitioner sought certiorari relief from Sandiganbayan resolutions that denied his motions to quash subpoenas duces tecum/ad testificandum served on the Export and Industry Bank and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation. These subpoenas required production of documents relating to his trust and savings accounts in connection with the plunder case against his father, former President Joseph Estrada.
Special Prosecution Panel’s Subpoena Requests
In Criminal Case No. 26558 (“People v. Estrada, et al.”), the Special Prosecution Panel filed:
• January 20 & 23, 2003 requests for subpoenas duces tecum/ad testificandum directed to the President or authorized representative of Export and Industry Bank to produce Trust Account No. 858 documents (account opening papers, trading orders, confirmation advices, manager’s checks, trust agreements, ledgers) and Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9 signature cards and statements.
• January 20, 2003 request for a subpoena to Equitable-PCI Bank’s representative for statements of accounts in the name of “Jose Velarde.”
The Sandiganbayan granted these requests and issued the subpoenas on January 21, 24 and 31, 2003.
Petitioner’s Objections and Motions to Quash
Petitioner learned from media reports about the subpoenas and attended the January 27, 2003 hearing. He filed a letter to the court asserting:
• The bank secrecy laws shield his accounts absent depositor’s written consent or recognized exceptions.
• The prosecution’s specific identification of documents indicated prior illegal disclosure of his confidential records.
• He needed time to retain counsel and requested a ten-day abeyance on issuance of subpoenas.
On January 28 and February 7, 2003, petitioner (first unrepresented, then with counsel) filed motions to quash the Export and Industry Bank and PDIC subpoenas, reiterating secrecy law protections and alleging prior illicit disclosures.
Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions Denying Motions to Quash
• February 7, 2003 Resolution denied the January 28 motion to quash.
• February 12, 2003 Resolution denied the February 7 motion for PDIC subpoena.
• March 11, 2003 Resolution denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The Sandiganbayan held that the subpoenas fell within recognized exceptions to deposit confidentiality.
Issues Raised in the Petition
- Whether Trust Account No. 858 is covered by “deposit” under R.A. 1405.
- Whether petitioner’s trust and savings accounts fall within R.A. 1405’s exceptions.
- Whether the prosecution’s detailed subpoena requests were based on illegally obtained disclosures invoking the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine and a due process violation.
Coverage of Trust Accounts under the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law
The Court affirmed that R.A. 1405’s term “deposits of whatever nature” encompasses trust accounts. Section 1 declares a policy to encourage bank deposit and investment of funds, and Section 2 extends absolute confidentiality to “all deposits of whatever nature,” including investments. The broad language (“of whatever nature” and “or invested”) precludes narrow interpretation.
Exceptions to Bank Secrecy Law—Bribery and Plunder Analogy
Two exceptions in Section 2 apply:
• Court order in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials.
• Where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of litigation.
The Court held that plunder falls within the bribery-dereliction exception. R.A. 7080 equates ill-gotten wealth from combinations of criminal acts (including bribery) with corruption, invoking public scrutiny analogous to bribery or dereliction of duty.
Investments as Subject Matter of Litigation
Under Union Bank v. Court of Appeals, “subject matter of the litigation” means the property or thing in dispute. Plunder proceedings necessarily involve tracing ill-gotten wealth. Petitioner’s accounts allegedly contain assets diverted from former President Estrada, making them central to the litigation.
Allegation of Illegal Disclosure and “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine
Petitioner’s claim that the subpoenas were tainted by prior illegal disclosure was rejected. R.A. 1405 does not provide for suppression of evidence; it prescribes criminal penalties for violations. The Court declined to read an exclusionary remedy into the statute, following U.S. precedents interpreting the Right to Financial Privacy Act and Bank Secrecy Act.
Lawful Acquisition of Detailed Account Information
The Court credited evidence that as early as February 2001, the Ombudsman lawfully issued subpoenas under P.D. 1630 and R.A. 6770 to secure petitioner’s banking documents. The prosecution’s later requests before the Sandiganbayan merely relied on the same information lawfully obtained. The detailed enumerations in the subpoenas derived from legitimate sources, including impeachment materials, press reports, and PDIC certifications.
Non-retroactivity of Mar
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157294-95)
Background of the Case
- Petitioner Joseph Victor G. Ejercito holds Trust Account No. 858 and Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9 with Export and Industry Bank (formerly Urban Bank).
- His father, former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, faces plunder and illegal use of alias charges in Sandiganbayan Criminal Cases Nos. 26558 and 26565.
- On January 20 and 23, 2003, the Special Prosecution Panel sought subpoenas duces tecum/ad testificandum from the Sandiganbayan for detailed bank documents related to petitioner’s accounts.
- Subpoenas were granted January 21 and 24, 2003; petitioner learned of them only through the media and in open court on January 27, 2003.
Motions to Quash and Sandiganbayan Resolutions
- January 28, 2003: petitioner (unassisted) filed a Motion to Quash the January 21 and 24 subpoenas, invoking R.A. 1405’s bank secrecy and alleging “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
- January 31, 2003: prosecution requested further subpoenas for the same and additional documents; subpoenas issued the same day.
- February 7, 2003: petitioner (with counsel) filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the January 31 subpoena to PDIC; Sandiganbayan denied the January 28 motion.
- February 12, 2003: Sandiganbayan denied the Urgent Motion to Quash; March 11, 2003: motion for reconsideration also denied.
Petition for Certiorari
- Petitioner invoked Rule 65, seeking annulment of Sandiganbayan resolutions dated February 7 and 12 and March 11, 2003 for grave abuse of discretion.
- He contended that his accounts are protected by R.A. 1405, that evidence was tainted by prior illegal disclosure, and that his due-process rights were violated by lack of notice.
Issues for Resolution
- Do Trust Account No. 858 and Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9 fall within R.A. 1405’s confidentiality rule or its exceptions?
- Is plunder (R.A. 7080) analogous to bribery or dereliction of duty, thus fitting R.A. 1405’s exception for court-ordered inquiry in such cases?
- Are the accounts “subject matter of the litigation” under R.A. 1405?
- Did prior Ombudsman subpoenas unlawfully obtain the detailed information (“fruit of the poisonous tree”)?
- Did Sandiganbayan violate due process by failing to notify petitioner of subpoena requests or grants?