Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/368206886/BSB-vs-Go
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:17:48+00:00

Document:
SALLY GO a.k.a. SALLY GO­BANGAYAN, Respondent.
The basic antecedents are no longer disputed.
others, to receive and account for the payments made by the various customers of the company.
entrusted with the said amount of money.
11 The trial court granted the motion and issued the corresponding subpoena. respondent claimed that the money represented by the Security Bank account was neither relevant nor material to the case. Finding merit in the petition. 2004. the representative of Security Bank..lawphil. SO ORDERED. 01­14­006. 1405. 168644 Bank (now Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. in Jose Abad Santos. 2003. and then deposited in her personal account with Security Bank. 2004 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No. in the same motion. addressed to Metrobank. hence. it denied the motion to quash for lack of merit. No. [Metrobank]). Marasigan’s testimony sought to prove that between 1988 and 1989. Aggrieved. She invited particular attention to that portion of the criminal Information which averred that she has stolen and carried away cash money in the total amount of ₱1. respondent opined that admitting the testimony of Marasigan. allegedly deposited the proceeds of the supposed checks. 1405.12 Respondent filed a motion to quash the subpoena dated November 4. the privilege of confidentiality under R.26 Petitioner believed that what constituted the subject matter in litigation was to be determined by the allegations in the information and.html 2/8 . The trial court.R. there was no mention made of the said bank account.534. the checks which the prosecution had Marasigan identify. and in effect striking out Marasigan’s testimony dealing with respondent’s deposit account with Security Bank. In this Petition24 under Rule 45. in addition to the Security Bank account identified as Account No. nevertheless.18 seeking the exclusion of Marasigan’s testimony and accompanying documents thus far received. nevertheless waived her objection to the irrelevancy of the Security Bank account mentioned in the same complaint­affidavit. 2004 Order.17 But before the testimony could be completed. argued for the relevancy of the Metrobank account on the ground that the complaint­affidavit showed that there were two checks which respondent allegedly deposited in an account with the said bank. in addition to irrelevancy.) No.19 A motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed. The assailed orders dated September 13. the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the assailed orders of the trial court in its April 20. Manila Branch.25 It asserted that apart from the fact that the said evidence had a direct relation to the subject matter of the case for qualified theft and. endorse the same.15 The trial court did not sustain respondent; hence. but it was also denied in the Order dated November 5.16 Meanwhile.20 These two orders are the subject of the instant case.21 The decision reads: WHEREFORE.27 For her part. endorsed. noting to the court that in the complaint­affidavit filed with the prosecutor.A. The testimony of the SBTC representative is ordered stricken from the records. This time respondent invokes. in this respect.14 To this. respondent filed a Motion to Suppress.23 petitioner is now before the Court pleading the same issues as those raised before the lower courts.A. and credit the corresponding amounts to her personal deposit account with Security Bank.135. because nothing in the criminal information suggested that the money therein deposited was the subject matter of the case. would http://www. 2004 and November 5. she. should be suppressed by the trial court at least for violating respondent’s right to due process. In the course of the testimony. respondent elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Tondo. 2005 Decision. to which respondent. Interestingly. Inc. which declared to be erroneous the limitation of the present inquiry merely to what was contained in the information.28 More in point.1/2/2018 G.A. petitioner averred in the main that the Court of Appeals had seriously erred in reversing the assailed orders of the trial court.50. respondent filed a supplemental motion to quash. while engaged as cashier at the BSB Group. 1405. opposing respondent’s move. was able to run away with the checks issued to the company by its customers. inasmuch as she was admittedly willing to address the allegations with respect thereto. the prosecution was able to present in court the testimony of Elenita Marasigan (Marasigan). denied the motion in its September 13. the subject checks were presented to Marasigan for identification and marking as the same checks received by respondent. In a nutshell.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010. as well as the testimony itself of Marasigan. bearing on the subject Security Bank account. 2004 Order of the trial court.22 With the denial of its motion for reconsideration. brings the case under one of the exceptions to the coverage of confidentiality under R.13 Petitioner. it alluded to the assailed November 5. respondent. while respondent characterized the Metrobank account as irrelevant to the case. the petition is hereby GRANTED. invoking the absolutely confidential nature of the Metrobank account under the provisions of Republic Act (R. She advanced the notion that the term "cash money" stated in the Information was not synonymous with the checks she was purported to have stolen from petitioner and deposited in her personal banking account. and believing that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in acting the way it did. Thus. as well as the evidence pertaining to the Security Bank account.
135. In estafa by conversion. after deliberative estimation. is to be addressed by considering whether they have such direct relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non­existence; or whether they relate collaterally to a fact from which. necessitates that evidence presented must have a tendency to prove that the offender has unlawfully taken money belonging to another. whether these pieces of evidence sought to be suppressed in this case the testimony of Marasigan. the Court would be able to establish that the checks involved. but also the checks themselves. as the Information in this case accuses http://www. whether these elements concur in a way that overcomes the presumption of guiltlessness. It is qualified when.534. is immaterial in relation to the formal allegation in an information for that offense; a check. Thus.lawphil.30 We derive from the conflicting advocacies of the parties that the issue for resolution is whether the testimony of Marasigan and the accompanying documents are irrelevant to the case.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010. is normally accepted under commercial usage as a substitute for cash. is not of such character. on the one hand. No. In theft. These checks would then constitute the best evidence to establish their contents and to prove the elemental act of conversion in support of the proposition that the offender has indeed indorsed the same in his own name. and as alleged in the instant case. Prefatorily. the act of unlawful taking connotes deprivation of personal property of one by another with intent to gain. excluded by operation of R. fundamental is the precept in all criminal prosecutions. in pursuing a case for this offense. as well as the checks purported to have been stolen and deposited in respondent’s Security Bank account are relevant. No. and it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose of the property stolen because the deprivation relative to the offended party has already ensued from such act of execution. for instance. hence.36 The allegation of theft of money. And it is in this respect that what the offender does with the check subsequent to the act of unlawfully taking it becomes material inasmuch as this offense is a continuing one. 168644 violate the secrecy rule under R. by process of logic. that there is no difference between cash and check is true in other instances.35 The fact in issue appears to be that respondent has taken away cash in the amount of ₱1. deposited by the latter to her personal account with Security Bank. hence.32 The prosecution of this offense necessarily focuses on the existence of the following elements: (a) there was taking of personal property belonging to another; (b) the taking was done with intent to gain; (c) the taking was done without the consent of the owner; (d) the taking was done without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things; and (e) it was done with abuse of confidence. petitioner seeks to establish the existence of the elemental act of taking by adducing evidence that respondent. and the evidence that respondent had first stolen the checks and deposited the same in her banking account. petitioner asserted the sufficiency of the allegations in the criminal Information for qualified theft.R. finds the subject evidence to be indeed inadmissible. takes the personal property of another without the latter’s consent. on the other hand. and whether they are also violative of the absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits and. while not regarded as legal tender. And the Court. Petitioner held that the checks represented the cash money stolen by respondent and. because it in effect.A. 31 Theft is present when a person. however.html 3/8 . at several times between 1988 and 1989. It posits that through Marasigan’s testimony. with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. 1405. The question of admissibility of the evidence thus comes to the fore. as the same has sufficiently alleged the elements of the offense charged. copies of which were attached to the complaint­affidavit filed with the prosecutor.1/2/2018 G. Petitioner addresses the incongruence between the allegation of theft of cash in the Information. whether the thing converted is cash or check. but rather of some other crime probably estafa. that the constitutive acts of the offense must be established with unwavering exactitude and moral certainty because this is the critical and only requisite to a finding of guilt. Interestingly.37 In other words. But this line of argument works more prejudice than favor. petitioner has taken pains in attempting to draw a connection between the evidence subject of the instant review. not of theft.38 Theft. No. for our purposes. thereafter. seeks to establish the commission. among others. but were.A.33 In turn. the prosecution may establish its cause by the presentation of the checks involved. after all. had indeed been received by respondent as cashier. Moreover. In support of this allegation. and the credit it represents in stated monetary value is properly capable of appropriation. and the allegation of theft in the Information by claiming that respondent had fraudulently deposited the checks in her own name. 1405. hence. the subject matter in this case is not only the cash amount represented by the checks supposedly stolen by respondent. Petitioner is mistaken.50 from the coffers of petitioner. deposited some of its checks to her personal account with Security Bank. is a question that must pass the test of relevancy and competency in accordance with Section 334 Rule 128 of the Rules of Court. Thus. it is committed with abuse of confidence.29 In its reply. by impressing upon the Court that there obtains no difference between cash and check for purposes of prosecuting respondent for theft of cash. an inference may be made as to the existence or non­existence of the fact in issue.
1405. becomes not only irrelevant but also immaterial and. No.. the Court found guidance in the relevant portions of the legislative deliberations on Senate Bill No. on that score.A. 1405.A. falling as it does within the legally recognized zones of privacy. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines. the law? http://www. for purposes of the record. and it is found in R. but such attachment or garnishment will bring out into the open the value of such deposit. No. 3977which later became Republic Act No. But where the primary aim is to determine whether he has a bank deposit in order to bring about a proper assessment by the [BIR]. so that it may be utilized by way of authorized loans and thereby assist in economic development. or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials. No. It hopes to discourage private hoarding and at the same time encourage the people to deposit their money in banking institutions. except upon written permission of the depositor. 1avvphi1 Subsequent statutory enactments43 have expanded the list of exceptions to this policy yet the secrecy of bank deposits still lies as the general rule. such inquiry is not allowed by this proposed law. Ramos: The attachment will only apply after the court has pronounced sentence declaring the liability of such person. 1405 has two allied purposes. say.39 otherwise known as the Bank Secrecy Act of 1955. Mr.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010. 351 and House Bill No. whether governmental or otherwise. 1405 actually aims at protection from unwarranted inquiry or investigation if the purpose of such inquiry or investigation is merely to determine the existence and nature. much disfavor to construing these primary and supplemental exceptions in a manner that would authorize unbridled discretion. 168644 respondent of having stolen cash. The source of this right of expectation is statutory. 1405. Mr.000. constitutes an unallowable inquiry under R.A. 3977. in fact. I should like the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to clarify this further.. the confidentiality of bank deposits remains to be a basic state policy in the Philippines. Marcos: But under our rules of procedure and under the Civil Code. Suppose an individual has a tax case. It merely required Tan Kim Liong to inform the court whether or not the defendant B&B Forest Development Corporation had a deposit in the China Banking Corporation only for purposes of the garnishment issued by it.A. Let us assume for instance that there is a preliminary attachment which is for garnishment or for holding liable all moneys deposited belonging to a certain individual.R. are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined. Ortega. Marcos: Now. Thus. its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities. It is conceded that while the fundamental law has not bothered with the triviality of specifically addressing privacy rights relative to banking accounts. We now address the issue of whether the admission of Marasigan’s testimony on the particulars of respondent’s account with Security Bank. the attachment or garnishment of money deposited is allowed. or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.42 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. bureau or office.46 That case principally addressed the issue of whether the prohibition against an examination of bank deposits precludes garnishment in satisfaction of a judgment. 40 R. nevertheless. proof tending to establish that respondent has actualized her criminal intent by indorsing the checks and depositing the proceeds thereof in her personal account. as well as the amount of the deposit in any given bank account.1/2/2018 G.00 worth of tax liability. Is that prohibited by. x x x The lower court did not order an examination of or inquiry into the deposit of B&B Forest Development Corporation. there. No. in utilizing these exceptions as authority for unwarranted inquiry into bank accounts. government official.44 There is. 351 and House Bill No. inquired or looked into by any person. exists in our jurisdiction a legitimate expectation of privacy governing such accounts. inadmissible in evidence. It will be noted from the discussion of the conference committee report on Senate Bill No.41 Owing to this piece of legislation. which later became the Bank Secrecy Act. It declares: Section 2.lawphil. ₱1. Ruling on that issue in the negative. It is then perceivable that the present legal order is obliged to conserve the absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits. as contemplated in the law. and because of this the deposit of this individual [has been] attached by the [BIR].html 4/8 . that it was not the intention of the lawmakers to place banks deposits beyond the reach of execution to satisfy a final judgmentThus: x x x Mr. as well as of the corresponding evidence of the checks allegedly deposited in said account. and it held that the absolute confidentiality rule in R.45 The measure of protection afforded by the law has been explained in China Banking Corporation v. so that the bank would hold the same intact and not allow any withdrawal until further order. or in cases of impeachment. He is being held liable by the Bureau of Internal Revenue [(BIR)] or.
DIOSDADO M. citing Mathay v.html 5/8 .. which the prosecution is bound to prove with its evidence. We find full merit in and affirm respondent’s objection to the evidence of the prosecution. and not the money equivalent of the checks which are sought to be admitted in evidence.50 alleged to have been stolen by respondent. its nature and the amount kept in it. and no other. and not from the evidence sought by the prosecution to be admitted into the records.48 that the subject matter of the action refers to the physical facts; the things real or personal; the money. 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.A.50 in which the Court noted that the inquiry into bank deposits allowable under R. No. Ramos: Into the very nature of such deposit. are not only incompetent for being excluded by operation of R. we hold 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. Court of Appeals. while Mathay did explain what the subject matter of an action is. it nevertheless did so only to determine whether the class suit in that case was properly brought to the court. Thus. 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. thus.135. To highlight this thesis.R. The Court of Appeals was. correct in reversing the assailed orders of the trial court. 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.53 WHEREFORE.50.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010.534. x x x Mr. there is an intermediate or heightened scrutiny given by courts and legislators to laws infringing such rights.A. This attitude persists unless congress lifts its finger to reverse the general state policy respecting the absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits. 168644 Mr. Branch 36 in Criminal Case No.51 Given this perspective. is AFFIRMED. reversing the September 13. it seems that petitioner’s theory is valid to a point. PERALTA Associate Justice http://www.534. we deduce that the subject matter of the action in the case at bar is to be determined from the indictment that charges respondent with the offense. It comes clear that 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. unqualifiedly and in plain language. yet a deeper treatment tends to show that it has argued quite off­tangentially. In the criminal Information filed with the trial court. x x x47 In taking exclusion from the coverage of the confidentiality rule. 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. No. In any given jurisdiction where the right of privacy extends its scope to include an individual’s financial privacy rights and personal financial matters. petitioner avers. is made only for the purpose of satisfying a tax liability already declared for the protection of the right in favor of the government; but when the object is merely to inquire whether he has a deposit or not for purposes of taxation. then such doubts must be resolved in favor of the former. because. Marcos: The law prohibits a mere investigation into the existence and the amount of the deposit. 2004 and November 5. In sum. falls under one of the exceptions in Section 2 of R. Consolidated Bank and Trust Co. Mr.52 Should there be doubts in upholding the absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits against affirming the authority to inquire into such accounts. therefore. 2004 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. No. 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.A.. This. They are likewise irrelevant to the case. is charged with qualified theft by abusing petitioner’s trust and confidence and stealing cash in the amount of ₱1. the subject matter of the action in this case is the money amounting to ₱1. the petition is DENIED. however. 1405 must be premised on the fact that the money deposited in the account is itself the subject of the action. it can hardly be inferred from the indictment itself that the Security Bank account is the ostensible subject of the prosecution’s inquiry. No. which in the instant case should refer to the money deposited in the Security Bank account.135.R. it is that.49 On the surface. SP No. Ramos: It is only prohibited to the extent that the inquiry. then this is fully covered by the law. No.lawphil. respondent. 87600 dated April 20. A final note. lands. 2005. On this score alone.. What indeed constitutes the subject matter in litigation in relation to Section 2 of R. Without needlessly expanding the scope of what is plainly alleged in the Information. In other words. inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the prosecution of respondent for qualified theft. SO ORDERED. 02­202158. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA­G.1/2/2018 G. 1405. 1405 has been pointedly and amply addressed in Union Bank of the Philippines v. in relation to which the suit is prosecuted. chattels and the like.A. 1405 that the money kept in said account is the subject matter in litigation.
REYNATO S. concurring. CA rollo. at 12­21. it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. PUNO Chief Justice Footnotes 1 Penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon­Magtolis.1/2/2018 G. 136­145.. Reyes. with Associate Justices Perlita J. p. Vol. p. 5 Records. Jr.html 6/8 . http://www. 9 Supra note 5. 6 Id. at 3­4. at 176­178. 15 Id. Chairperson C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13.lawphil. Reyes. No.R. NACHURA Associate Justice Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice A T T E S T A T I O N I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. 12 Id. at 137­138. 13 Supra note 5 at 165­169. 2. Vol. 6. 14 Id. at 173­174. at 219­221. 10 Id. JR. CORONA Associate Justice Third Division. 7 Id. at 163­164. RENATO C. at 161­162. 2 Records. 8 Id. 1. 3 Id. at 6­8. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. 4 Presided by Judge Wilfredo D. 11 Id. VELASCO. 16 Id. 168644 WE CONCUR: RENATO C. at 379­381. at 1. Tria Tirona and Jose C. CORONA Associate Justice Chairperson PRESBITERO J. Article VIII of the Constitution.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010. pp. 369.
4. 29 Rollo. Rules of Court; Fishman v. cited in EVIDENCE RULES 128­134. 38 Id. 9160. No. 46 G. 22 Id. 37 Galvez v. 2007. 2004. 8­50; TSN. People. 40 Republic v. 136­145. 31 Catuiran v. pp. 3­30. 33 Id. No. 24 Rollo. 343.J. 1955. No. 42 Id. 179­181. 302. No. 1973. 4­65; TSN. 36 Valenzuela v. G. 41 Section 1. at 686. 15th ed. 2009; and People v.A.A. at 193­210. pp. 160188. 32 Reyes. 23 Id. Court of Appeals. Eugenio. G.R. G. 20 Id. pp. 18 Supra note 2. Book II.1/2/2018 G. 42 SCRA 278.html 7/8 . 181492. 28 Rollo. 525 SCRA 306. Admissibility of evidence. L­34964. 27­54. No.L.. at 14.R. pp. 26 Id. p.R.. 1971.R. January 31. pp. Republic Act No. 3019; R. at 379­381. November 29.—Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. February 14. 2008. 25 Id. September 22. pp. 2008.R. G.. 2004. 35 Sec. 21 CA rollo. No. 17 (1996). 7653; R. 168644 17 TSN. R. 49 SCRA 355.R. 78 N. 30 Supra note 24. 173­178. December 16." The law was approved on September 9. 19 Supra note 2. Rule 128. 1405. May 8. 34 Section 3. at 369.R. June 21. 45 Id. L­22760. at 173. 414. 708­709 (2001). Francisco. later on modified by R. Obmiranis. No. No. at 145. 175647. 174629. 27 Rollo.lawphil. 1972. 3rd ed. 43 Presidential Decree No. 300. 545 SCRA 384. No. 20. pp. 39 It carries the title "An Act Prohibiting Disclosure of or Inquiry Into Deposits With Any Banking Institution And Providing Penalty Therefor. People. August 20.A. G. No. at 358­359.J. 685.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010. Consumer’s Brewing Co. January 8. 44 Supra note 40. at 17­18. http://www. 2004. Revised penal Code.
R.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_168644_2010. 51 Id. 1999. 53 Supra note 40. 134699. 12. House of Representatives.lawphil.) 48 G. The portion of the discussion was lifted from Vol. 1974. (Emphasis supplied. at 358­359. No.R. 321 SCRA 563. 49 Supra note 47. 73­74.R.1/2/2018 G. Congressional Record. at 573. No. 50 G. 58 SCRA 559.html 8/8 . pp. July 27. The Lawphil Project ­ Arellano Law Foundation http://www. pp. (Emphasis supplied. at 571. December 23. 3839­3840. L­23136. August 26. 1955. No.) 52 16B Am Jur 2d $605. No. II. 168644 47 Supra note 46. See citation 83 therein.
Aeneas - The Protagonist of the Aeneid.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.