Scribd
Upload
3K views

BSB GROUP V GO

1) BSB Group filed charges against its former cashier Sally Go for allegedly stealing over 1.5 million pesos by depositing customer checks into her personal bank account. 2) When the prosecution subpoenaed bank records from Security Bank and Metrobank to show the deposits, Go claimed the records were confidential under the Bank Secrecy Act. 3) The Court of Appeals ruled the bank records were protected from disclosure by law as Go was only accused of stealing cash, not depositing checks. Philippine law considers bank deposits absolutely confidential except under limited exceptions.

Uploaded by

ALEXA
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views

BSB GROUP V GO

1) BSB Group filed charges against its former cashier Sally Go for allegedly stealing over 1.5 million pesos by depositing customer checks into her personal bank account. 2) When the prosecution subpoenaed bank records from Security Bank and Metrobank to show the deposits, Go claimed the records were confidential under the Bank Secrecy Act. 3) The Court of Appeals ruled the bank records were protected from disclosure by law as Go was only accused of stealing cash, not depositing checks. Philippine law considers bank deposits absolutely confidential except under limited exceptions.

Uploaded by

ALEXA
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

SPECIAL COMMERCIAL LAWS- SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS

BSB GROUP, INC., represented by its President, Mr. RICARDO BANGAYAN,


Petitioner, vs. SALLY GO a.k.a. SALLY GO-BANGAYAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 168644 | February 16, 2010 | PERALTA, J.
Short Title: BSB Group, Inc v Go
FACTS: Petitioner BSB Group, Inc. is a duly organized domestic corporation presided
by its representative, Ricardo Bangayan (Bangayan). Respondent Sally Go is
Bangayans wife who was employed in the company as a cashier, and was engaged,
among others, to receive and account for the payments made by the various
customers of the company.
In 2002, Bangayan filed with the Manila Prosecutor Office a complaint for estafa
and/or qualified theft against respondent, alleging that several checks representing
the aggregate amount of P1,534,135.50 issued by the company customers were,
instead of being turned over to the company coffers, indorsed by respondent who
deposited the same to her personal banking account maintained at Security Bank
and Trust Company (Security Bank) in Divisoria Branch.
Respondent was charged before the RTC Manila for grave abuse of confidence being
then employed as cashier, and with intent to gain and without the knowledge and
consent of the owner when she took, stole, and carried away cash money in the
total amount of P1,534,135.50 belonging to BSB GROUP OF COMPANIES represented
by RICARDO BANGAYAN, to the damage and prejudice of said owner in the aforesaid
amount of P1,534,135.50, Philippine currency.
When arraigned, respondent entered a negative plea and the trial ensued. The
prosecution moved for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum /ad testificandum
against the respective managers or records custodians of Security Bank Divisoria
Branch, as well as of the Asian Savings Bank (now Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co.
[Metrobank]). When the trial court granted the motion and issued the corresponding
subpoena, the respondent filed a motion to quash the subpoena noting to the court
that there was no mention made of the said bank account in the complaint-affidavit.
Since Petitioner argued for the relevancy of the Metrobank account as there were
two checks which respondent allegedly deposited with the said bank, respondent
filed a supplemental motion to quash, invoking the absolutely confidential nature of
the Metrobank account under the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1405, to
which the trial court did not sustain for lack of merit.
The prosecution then presented Elenita Marasigan (Marasigan), the representative

of Security Bank, to prove that respondent was able to run away with the checks
issued to the company by its customers, endorse the same, and credit the
corresponding amounts to her personal deposit account with Security Bank.
When the subject checks were presented to Marasigan for identification and
marking, respondent filed a Motion to Suppress seeking the exclusion of Marasigan
testimony and accompanying documents on the subject Security Bank account, and
invoked in addition to irrelevancy, the privilege of confidentiality under R.A. No.
1405.
RTC Manila denied the motion filed by respondent Sally Go for the suppression of
the testimonial and documentary evidence relative to a Security Bank account, and
denied reconsideration.
CA reversed and set aside the two orders issued by the RTC Manila.
Hence, this Petition for Review under Rule 45.
ISSUE:
1. WON CA had seriously erred in reversing the assailed orders of the trial court.
2. WON Marasigan's testimony dealing with respondent deposit account with
Security Bank constitutes an unallowable inquiry under R.A. 1405.
RULING:
1. No. The Court of Appeals was correct in reversing the assailed orders of the trial
court.
As the Information in this case accuses respondent of having stolen cash, proof
tending to establish that respondent has actualized her criminal intent by indorsing
the checks and depositing the proceeds thereof in her personal account, becomes
not only irrelevant but also immaterial and, on that score, inadmissible in evidence.
2. No. Marasigan's testimony is not an allowable inquiry under RA1405. While the
fundamental law has not bothered with the triviality of specifically addressing
privacy rights relative to banking accounts, there, nevertheless, exists in our
jurisdiction a legitimate expectation of privacy governing such accounts. The source
of this right of expectation is statutory, and it is found in R.A. No. 1405, otherwise
known as the Bank Secrecy Act of 1955.
Should there be doubts in upholding the absolutely confidential nature of bank
deposits against affirming the authority to inquire into such accounts, then such
doubts must be resolved in favor of the former. This attitude persists unless

congress lifts its finger to reverse the general state policy respecting the absolutely
confidential nature of bank deposits.
R.A. No. 1405 has two allied purposes. It hopes to discourage private hoarding and
at the same time encourage the people to deposit their money in banking
institutions, so that it may be utilized by way of authorized loans and thereby assist
in economic development. Owing to this piece of legislation, the confidentiality of
bank deposits remains to be a basic state policy in the Philippines. 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.
Section 2 of the Law declares that all deposits of whatever nature with banks or
banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the
Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are
hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be
examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or
office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment,
or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of
public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject
matter of the litigation.
Subsequent statutory enactments have expanded the list of exceptions to this
policy yet the secrecy of bank deposits still lies as the general rule, falling as it does
within the legally recognized zones of privacy. There is, in fact, much disfavor to
construing these primary and supplemental exceptions in a manner that would
authorize unbridled discretion, whether governmental or otherwise, in utilizing these
exceptions as authority for unwarranted inquiry into bank accounts. It is then
perceivable that the present legal order is obliged to conserve the absolutely
confidential nature of bank deposits.
The admission of testimonial and documentary evidence relative to respondent
Security Bank account serves no other purpose than to establish the existence of
such account, its nature and the amount kept in it. 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.
In any given jurisdiction where the right of privacy extends its scope to include an
individuals financial privacy rights and personal financial matters, there is an
intermediate or heightened scrutiny given by courts and legislators to laws
infringing such rights. Should there be doubts in upholding the absolutely
confidential nature of bank deposits against affirming the authority to inquire into

such accounts, then such doubts must be resolved in favor of the former. This
attitude persists unless congress lifts its finger to reverse the general state policy
respecting the absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 87600 dated April 20, 2005, reversing the September 13,
2004 and November 5, 2004 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 36 in Criminal Case No. 02-202158, is AFFIRMED.

You might also like