Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Ejercito V. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous Lu6MrQm
    This case involves a petition filed by Joseph Estrada to quash subpoenas issued by the Sandiganbayan for his bank accounts as part of a plunder case against him. The Supreme Court ruled that Estrada's bank accounts, including a trust account and savings account, did not fall under the protection of the Bank Secrecy Law and could be examined. Two exceptions applied: 1) examination was ordered by a competent court for cases involving bribery or dereliction of duty, which the plunder case was analogous to, and 2) the money in the accounts was the subject matter of ongoing litigation. The petition to quash the subpoenas was therefore dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ejercito V. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous Lu6MrQm
    25 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition filed by Joseph Estrada to quash subpoenas issued by the Sandiganbayan for his bank accounts as part of a plunder case against him. The Supreme Court ruled that Estrada's bank accounts, including a trust account and savings account, did not fall under the protection of the Bank Secrecy Law and could be examined. Two exceptions applied: 1) examination was ordered by a competent court for cases involving bribery or dereliction of duty, which the plunder case was analogous to, and 2) the money in the accounts was the subject matter of ongoing litigation. The petition to quash the subpoenas was therefore dismissed.

    Original Description:

    f

    Original Title

    jm1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition filed by Joseph Estrada to quash subpoenas issued by the Sandiganbayan for his bank accounts as part of a plunder case against him. The Supreme Court ruled that Estrada's bank accounts, including a trust account and savings account, did not fall under the protection of the Bank Secrecy Law and could be examined. Two exceptions applied: 1) examination was ordered by a competent court for cases involving bribery or dereliction of duty, which the plunder case was analogous to, and 2) the money in the accounts was the subject matter of ongoing litigation. The petition to quash the subpoenas was therefore dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views2 pages

    Ejercito V. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous Lu6MrQm
    This case involves a petition filed by Joseph Estrada to quash subpoenas issued by the Sandiganbayan for his bank accounts as part of a plunder case against him. The Supreme Court ruled that Estrada's bank accounts, including a trust account and savings account, did not fall under the protection of the Bank Secrecy Law and could be examined. Two exceptions applied: 1) examination was ordered by a competent court for cases involving bribery or dereliction of duty, which the plunder case was analogous to, and 2) the money in the accounts was the subject matter of ongoing litigation. The petition to quash the subpoenas was therefore dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    EJERCITO V.

    SANDIGANBAYAN
    G.R. Nos. 157294-95; EN BANC

    Facts:
    The three resolutions were issued in Criminal Case No. 26558, 'People of the Philippines
    v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, et al., for plunder. In that case, the Special Prosecution Panel
    filed 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 or his/her
    authorized representative to produce the documents during the hearings scheduled on
    January 22 and 27, 2003, particularly Trust Account No. 858 and Savings Account No.
    0116-17345-9. 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 expressing his concerns. Petitioner filed on
    January 28, 2003 a Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum praying
    that the subpoenas previously issued to the President of the EIB dated January 21 and
    January 24, 2003 be quashed. Petitioner claimed that his bank accounts are covered by
    R.A. No. 1405 (The Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law) and do not fall under any of the
    exceptions stated therein.He further claimed that the specific identification of documents
    in the questioned subpoenas, including details on dates and amounts, could only have
    been made possible by an earlier illegal disclosure thereof by the EIB and the Philippine
    Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) in its capacity as receiver of the then Urban Bank.
    Respondent People posits that Trust Account No. 858 may be inquired into, not merely
    because it falls under the exceptions to the coverage of R.A. 1405, but because it is not
    even contemplated therein. For, to respondent People, the law applies only to 'deposits'
    which strictly means the money delivered to the bank by which a creditor-debtor
    relationship is created between the depositor and the bank.

    Issue:
    Is petitioner's Trust Account No. 858 and Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9 are excepted
    from the protection of R.A. 1405?

    Ruling:
    No. The contention that trust accounts are not covered by the term 'deposits, as used in
    R.A. 1405, by the mere fact that they do not entail a creditor-debtor relationship between
    the trustor and the bank, does not lie. An examination of the law shows that the term
    'deposits' used therein is to be understood broadly and not limited only to accounts which
    give rise to a creditor-debtor relationship between the depositor and the bank. If the
    money deposited under an account may be used by banks for authorized loans to third
    persons, then such account, regardless of whether it creates a creditor-debtor relationship
    between the depositor and the bank, falls under the category of accounts which the law
    precisely seeks to protect for the purpose of boosting the economic development of the
    country. These accounts are no longer protected by the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law,
    there being two exceptions to the said law applicable in this case, namely: (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. Exception (1) applies since the plunder case pending
    against former President Estrada is analogous to bribery or dereliction of duty, while
    exception (2) applies because the money deposited in petitioner's bank accounts is said
    to form part of the subject matter of the same plunder case. Cases of unexplained wealth
    are similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty and no reason is seen why these two
    classes of cases cannot be excepted from the rule making bank deposits confidential.
    Indeed, all the above-enumerated overt acts are similar to bribery such that, in each case,
    it may be said that no reason is seen why these two classes of cases cannot be excepted
    from the rule making bank deposits confidential. 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.

    Petition Dismissed.

    You might also like