The Anti-Graft Law warrant the examination of bank records not only in the name of the respondent's spouse, ascendants, descendants, relatives but also other persons.
Facts: Customs special agent Manuel Caturla is accused by the Bureau of Internal Revenue of having violated R.A. No. 3019 of the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" for having allegedly acquired property manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income. In the course of the preliminary investigation thereof, the Tanodbayan (now Office of the Ombudsman) issued a subpoena duces tecum to the Banco Filipino, commanding its representative to appear at a specified time at the Office of the Tanodbayan and furnish the latter with duly certified copies of the records in all its branches and extension offices, of the loans, savings and time deposits and other banking transactions, dating back to 1969, appearing in the names of Caturla, his wife, their children, and/or Pedro Escuyos. Caturla moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum but was denied by Tanodbayan Vicente Ericta. The Tanodbayan issued another subpoena which expanded its scope including the production of bank records not only of the persons enumerated above but of additional persons and entities as well. Banco Filipino filed a complaint for declaratory relief with the Court of First Instance of Manila but was denied for lack of merit by Judge Purisima.
Held: The inquiry into illegally acquired property — or property NOT "legitimately acquired" — extends to cases where such property is concealed by being held by or recorded in the name of other persons. To sustain the petitioner's theory, and restrict the inquiry only to property held by or in the name of the government official or employee, or his spouse and unmarried children would make available to persons in government who illegally acquire property an easy and fool-proof means of evading investigation and prosecution; all they would have to do would be to simply place the property in the possession or name of persons other than their spouse and unmarried children. This is an absurdity that we will not ascribe to the lawmakers. [Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Fidel Purisima, G.R. No. L-56429, May 28, 1988]
