motion to quash subpoena bank officials

8/3/2019 Motion to Quash Subpoena Bank Officials

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/motion-to-quash-subpoena-bank-officials 1/7

Republic of the Philippines"

Congress of the Philippines

Senate ';2 FEB -7 P2 :42

1;:; ' , ' . ' , i ! ; Y : ~ SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THEIMPEACHMENT OF

RENATO C. CORONA AS

CHIEF JUSTICE 0.1" THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE

PHILIPPINES.

REPRESENTATIVES NIEL

C. TUPAS, JR., JOSEPH

EMILIO A. ABAYA,

LORENZO R. TANADA III,

REYNALDO V. UMALI,

ARLENE J. BAG-AO, et al.

Case No. 002-2011

x-- ..---------- ...---., .-------------------------------...-_. __ .. ___ ..... M .. _______ .. . . . . . .________ . . . . . . . . . .__ ________ ___ .. - - - - . - - } . ~

MOTION TO QUASH

SUBI>OENA AD CAUTELAM

ChiefJustice Renato C. Corona ("C] Corona"), by counsel, and as a measure of

extreme caution dictated by the unusual circumstances of this case, without waiving

his right to ftle the appropriate legal remedy to question, 'lIDong others, the legality of

these proceedings, respectfully states:

Consolidated Opposition and RejOInder

Prln!' f nf'7



L This Hono(;lble Court's JZlbpoena Dttces Tecum Ad TestijicaJzdulJJ dated 6

February 2012 to (a) the Manager of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (<<BPI"), Ayala

Avenue Branch, and (b) the Manager, tile President or authorized representatives of

Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank), directs them to produce and testify on CJ

Corona's local currency bank accounts (for BPI) and foreign currency bank accounts

(for PSBank),

2, CJ Corona respectfully submits that the S'ttbpoenae issued by this

Honorable Courl wiH allow complainants to support their allegations under paragraph

2.4 of the "Verified" Complaint wherein CJ Corona was "suspected and accused of

having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank

accounts with huge deposits,"

3, The record of this case will show that this Honorable Court, u ~ r o u g h its

Resolution dated 27 January 2012, prohibited any introduction of evidence pertaining

to Par, 2.4 of the "Verified" Complaint, which includes evidence to prove CJ

Corona's suppm(-d bank accOlmts with huge deposits, fOJ: being violative of CJ

Corona's fundamental constitutional right to due process,

4, In fact, this Honorable Court filled that paragraph 2.4 shoLlld be

considered unw!itten, Hence, any evidence relating thereto should be deemed

inadmissible and irrelevant to these proceedings, The introductjon of the subpoenaed

documents relating to C) Corona's bank deposits should therefore not be allowed, lest

his constitutional right to due process be trampled upon,

Consolidated Opposition and &joinderPafJP ') Ilf 7



5. As regards the alleged dollar bank accounts in 1'S Bank, it should be

emphasized that any infoffi1ation or documents pertaining thereto are absolutely

conGdentiallmder Section 8 ofRA. No. 6426, as amended, which states:

Section 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. - All foreign currency

deposits amhorized under this Act, as amended by I'D No. 1035, as well as foreIgn

currency d"posits authorized under I'D No. 1034, are hereby declared as and

considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written

permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be

examined, inquired or looked into by any person, goyernment official, bureau or

office whether judicial or admmistrative or legislative. or any other entity whether

public or pr;vate; Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be

exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court,

legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (As

amended by I'D No. 1035, and further amended by I'D l'Jo. 1246, I'mm. Nov. 21,

1977.)

6. It is dear therefore that that no FeD shall be examined upon - even in

cases of impeachment - except upon w l ~ t t e n permission of the depositor. The

Supreme Coun emphasized this rule in [ntcr.gan et ai. P. Court o f A p p e a L \ ~ et al.:'

\ctually, this case should have been studied more carefully by all concerned.

The finest legal minds in the country from the parties' respective counsel, the

Provinual Prosecutor, the Department of Justice, the Solicitor General, and the

Court of Appeals - all appear to h7l'Je overlooked a Bil1gle factwhich dictates the

outcome of t h l ~ entire controversy. A circumspect review of the record shows us the

reason. The accounts in question are U.S. dollar depmits; consequently, the

applicable law is nOl Republic AI1 No. 1405 but Ri:j)ublic Act (RAJ No. 6426, known as

the "Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines," section 8 of wluch provides:

Sec. 8. Secre0' q/ Foreign CurreJlfj' J)e,tJoJz'/s.· All fore(gn currC;llcy depositsauthOrized under thIS Act, as amended by Presic1.ential Decree No.1 035, a.o:; well

foreign ..:urrency depOSit') authonzcd lmder PrcsKlential T)ccree No. 10.14, are

hereby rledar:cd as and considered of absolutely confidential nature and, {'xcept

upon the wntten jfJermlflion qf the depOJltor, in 110 illJtance ,fhul! fuel-foreign curren'!Jl dcpositJ be

eXflminE'd, inquired or /of)k,td into (J1!..y.perJoll, g011emment ifficial hureau or f!ffitC whether

judirial 01' administrative or legidative or /J'!)' other entz'ty )J)hethfJr publtc or p'rivate: PrOVided,

however" that said foreign currcncr deposits shall be exempt from attachment,

g a r 1 H S h f n . e n t ~ or any otJ.1cr order or process of any court, legislative body,

govenunellt agency or any adm111istrat1Vc body whatsOtVcf.[ (ttalics ~ u p p l i f ' d )

Thus, under R.A. No. 6426 there is only a bingle exception to th e

secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed only uponth e written permission of the depositor. InCldentally, the acts of private

respondents complained of happened before the enactment on Septemher 29.

2001 of RA . No. 9160 01herwise known as IheAnti-J\[oucy Laundering Act of 2001.

---_._._--_. -------_.-1 G.R. No. 128996, 15 F"omary 2002.

Como/idated 0ppoJition and Rejoinder

Pant> " flf7



A case for violation of Republic Act No. 6426 should have been the

proper case brought against private respondents. Private respondents Urn

and Reyes admitted that they had disclosed details of petitioners' dollar

deposits without the latter's written permission. I t does not matter if that such

disclosure was necessary to establish Citibank's case against Dante L. Santos

and Marilou Genuino. Lim's act of disclosing details of petitioners' bankrecords regarding their foreign currency deposits, with the authority of Reyes,

would appear to belong to that species of criminal acts punishable by special

laws, called malum prohibitum. In this regard, it has been held that:

\Xtbtle i f IS true that, as a rule and on principles of abstract justice, men are

not and should no t be held ctirnmally rfsponsibk for acts committed by themwtthout guilty knowledge and crimit1al Or at least evil intent x x x ~ th ( courl':; have

always recogi1lzed the power of the ICf,'1slaOlre, all grounds of public pohey and

compel1ed by n e c c s s i t y ~ «thf' great n ~ . 1 : : ; l e r of things," to forbid in a hmtted class of

cases the doing of ctrti1in acts, and to rnake theIr COlnrnlSSlon crirP..inal without

rC&lfd to the mtent ( ) f the doer. xxx [n such cases no judietal authority has the

power to ff:quirf:, in the enforcement of thel a w ~

such knm.'fltdge or motive to beshown. As \vas said in the case of Sutt I)J. iVkBrayer xxx:

'I t is a fmstaken notion that pOSItive, willful intent, as rlisbngulshcd from a

fllcre i n r e n t . ~ to violate the cnrninallaw, is an esselJriai1ngredicllt in every criminal

offense. and that where thert' is the absence of such mtent there 15 110 offense; t l l is

is especially so as to statutory offenses. \x/hen the statute plainly f()rbids an act to

be done, and i t {s done by SOfi1e p e r s o n ~ ti1f lavl lxnplies conclusively the guilty

intent, ~ t 1 t h o u g h the offender was hO!lCSr1V tnisu.h::en 2S to the !neaning of the law

he viola tes. When the language is plaul and POSltlVC, and the oftensc is not made to

depend upon the positive. \"IlltiII mtent "nd purpose, norhing is kft to

interpretation.)1

7. h is worthy to note that the Sa/l'tltilJfi 1). Centml Bank of he Philipp/lie! and

China Banking Cmpof'ation l ~ ~ Court of Appea/.l case:; cannot be made to apply to the

instant proceedings.

8. The Salvation case involved a rape case wherein the garnishment of

[()fcign accounts of a foreign transient was sought to satisfy an award of damages. Tt

did not involve an inquiry into the foreign accounts. The Supreme Court found did

not apply the Ct:nfidential nature of foreign currency deposits becausc it believed that

justice would better served if Salvacion's suffering was given compensation especially

since the Am.erican tourist, who is not even a citizen of the Philippines, absconded to

escape criminal prosecution.

2 ErnphaSIS supplied.

3 G.R. No. 94723, 21 August 1997.

4 G.R. No. 14.D687, IB DI'cembe,' 2006.

Con.rolidatfd Opposition and Rrjoinder

Prlfll ' 4 n f7



9. In the present case, there is stilI no [mal judgment against petitioner and

he has not been fOlU1d guilty of any crune, much less is he considered a foreign

transient who has been fClUnd to have aggrieved and damaged a Filipino citizen.

10. As regards the case of Chinabank, the Supreme Court found that Jose

Gotianuy, who accused his daughter, Mary Margaret Dee, of stealing, among others,

US dollar deposits, was a CI)··payee of the checks subject of said case, and thus a co-

depositor of the account where the subjeci checks were deposited. The Supreme

Court ruled that Jose Gotianuy's request was tantamount to the express pennission of

a depositor under R.A No. 6426.

11. To be sure, the peculiar and special circumstances surrounding the

Salvation and China/Jank cases are not present tn the present llnpeachment proceedings.

Hence, disclosure by the l'v1anager, fhe President or authorized representatives of PS

Bank of CJ Corona's bank aCColUlt/s is thus disallowed and prohibited lmder RA.

No. 6426.

12. J urthermore, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Intengan, as cited

above, the mere attachment of bank records petiaining to foreign currency deposits to

a complaint affida vit, without the depositors cunsent, is already considered a criminal

offense punishable by R A. 6426. This is the same illegal act committed by

complainants when they attached the unauthenticated signature cards and Application

and Agreement for Deposit Account of CJ Corona's purported bank aeCOlJ11t/s to

Con.rolidated Ofpo.rition and RejoinderPIIOP ., l it 7



their Supplemental Request as Annexes "Ji" to "A-4." Section 10 of R.A. No. 6426,

as amended, reads:

Penal prwisiom. - Any wllfui violation of this Act or any regulation duly

promulgated by the Monetary Board pursuant hereto shall subject the offender upon

conviction to an imprisonrnent of not less than one year nor more tban five years or

a fine of not less than five thousand pesos nor more than twenty-five thousand

pesos, or both such line and imprisonment at the chscretion of the court.

13. Any infonnation or subpoena issued pursuant to such an illegal act

cannot be condoned.

14. From the foregoing0 it is cleat that the presentation of CJ Corona's bank

accounts should r lGt be allowed. Hence, this Honorable Court's Subpoenae dated ___

February 2012 to the Bank of the Philippine Islands and Philippine Savings Bank

should be quashed.

PIUYER

\VHEREFORE, in VlCW of the fOf<:going, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona

respectfully prays that this Honorable Impeachment Court quash the Subpoenae Duces

'FeC-Jim Ad TeJtijacndum dated 6 February 2U12 a.ddressed to (a) the Manager of the

Bank of l"he Philippine Islands, Ayala l\v':Hue Branch, and (b) the Manager, the

President or authorized representativc;s of the Philippine Savings Bank.

Other reliefs, just or equitable under the Ci1"Cl.1mstanccs, are likewise pnyed for.

Makari fot· Pasay City, 7 February 201.2.

Consolidated OjJjJosition ti1lrl Rejoinder

Pnm'r:, IJf7



Copies furnished:

Respectfully Submitted by

Counsel for ChiefJustice Renata C. Corona.

JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS (RET.)PTR No. 2643828, January 4, 2011, Makati

IBP No. 846915 issued January 6, 2011, Manila I

Roll no .3814 MCLE-exempt

RAMON S. ESGUERRA

IBP No. 09520-Life/Cavite Chapter

PTR No. 264.3942/1-04-11/Makati CityRoll of Attorneys No. 30183

MCLE Compliance: III-0010576-3/25/1O

House of RepresentativesBatasan Complex

g,' UBatasan Hills, Quezon City

Senators of the Republic of the Philippines

GSIS Building

Macapagal Highway

Pasay City

Consolidated OppositIOn and RejoinderPant' 7 (){ 7

motion to quash subpoena bank officials

Documents