Tante, Vince Albert S.

17-101636

G.R. Nos. 157294-95. November 30, 2006.

JOSEPH VICTOR G. EJERCITO, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents. Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan (Special Division)

Facts:
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 (EIB,
formerly Urban Bank) or his/her authorized representative to produce bank accounts of the petitioner,
other relevant documents and testimonies, and also the statement of accounts in the name of Jose
Velarde during the hearings. The Sandiganbayan granted the requests and issued subpoenas.

Petitioner then filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum praying that
the subpoenas previously issued to the President of the EIB be quashed. In its motion, petitioner claimed
that the accounts are covered by the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law and do not fall under any of the
exceptions. It further alleged that the “extremely-detailed” information was obtained by the
Ombudsman from the bank officials concerned during a previous investigation of the charges against
President Estrada, such inquiry into his bank accounts would itself be illegal.

The Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner’s Motion to Quash and his Motion for
Reconsideration. Thus, petitioner filed a petition to the Supreme Court.

Issue/s:

Whether or not exclusionary rule apply in the case.

Ruling:

No

R.A. 1405, it bears noting, nowhere provides that an unlawful examination of bank accounts
shall render the evidence obtained therefrom inadmissible in evidence. Section 5 of R.A. 1405 only
states that “[a]ny violation of this law will subject the offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment of
not more than five years or a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos or both, in the discretion of
the court.”

The case of U.S. v. Frazin,11 involving the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (RFPA) of the
United States, is instructive.

“Because the statute, when properly construed, excludes a suppression remedy, it would not be
appropriate for us to provide one in the exercise of our supervisory powers over the administration of
Tante, Vince Albert S.
17-101636

justice. Where Congress has both established a right and provided exclusive remedies for its violation,
we would “encroach upon the prerogatives” of Congress were we to authorize a remedy not provided
for by statute.

Petition dismissed.