Bank accounts of people being prosecuted for violation of R.A. No. 3019 hidden under other people's name can be also investigated

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]

Anti-Graft Law provides additional exception to the rule against the disclosure of bank deposits

Section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law is intended to amend Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405 by providing an additional exception to the rule against the disclosure of bank deposits.

Facts: DOJ special prosecutors Emilio Gancayco and Florentino Flor required Philippine National Bank to produce at a hearing the records of the bank deposits of Ernesto Jimenez, former administrator of the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Administration, who was then under investigation for unexplained wealth. PNB declined to reveal its records, invoking Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405.

Gancayco and Flor cited Section 8 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) in support of their claim of authority and demanded anew that Eduardo Z. Romualdez, as bank president, produce the records or he would be prosecuted for contempt. Romualdez and PNB thus filed an action for declaratory judgment. After trial, the court rendered judgment, sustaining the power of the defendants to compel the disclosure of bank accounts of Jimenez. The court said that, by enacting section 8 of, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Congress clearly intended to provide an additional ground for the examination of bank deposits for without such provision, prosecutors would be hampered if not altogether frustrated in the prosecution of those charged with having acquired unexplained wealth while in public office. Romualdez and PNB appealed.

Held: While Republic Act No. 1405 provides that bank deposits are "absolutely confidential ... and [therefore] may not be examined, inquired or looked into," except in those cases enumerated therein, the Anti-Graft Law directs in mandatory terms that bank deposits "shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary." The only conclusion possible is that section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law is intended to amend section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405 by providing additional exception to the rule against the disclosure of bank deposits.

With regard to the claim that disclosure would be contrary to the policy making bank deposits confidential, it is enough to point out that while section 2 of Republic Act 1405 declares bank deposits to be "absolutely confidential, "it nevertheless allows such disclosure in the following instances: (1) Upon written permission of the depositor; (2) In cases of impeachment; (3) Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials; (4) In cases where the money deposited is the subject matter of the litigation. 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. The policy as to one cannot be different from the policy as to the other. This policy express the motion that a public office is a public trust and any person who enters upon its discharge does so with the full knowledge that his life, so far as relevant to his duty, is open to public scrutiny. [National Bank and Eduardo Z. Romualdez vs. Emilio Gancayco and Florentino Flor, G.R. No. L-18343, September 30, 1965]