G.R. No. 168644, February 16, 2010
BSB GROUP, INC., represented by its President, Mr. RICARDO BANGAYAN, Petitioner, vs. SALLY GO a.k.a. SALLY GO-BANGAYAN, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner BSB Group, Inc., represented by its President Ricardo Bangayan, filed a complaint for qualified theft against respondent Sally Go, Bangayan’s wife and the company’s cashier. The complaint alleged that between January 1988 and October 1989, respondent received several checks from company customers, endorsed them, and deposited the aggregate amount of ₱1,534,135.50 into her personal account at Security Bank and Trust Company (Security Bank) instead of turning them over to the company. An Information for qualified theft was filed, alleging the taking of “cash money” in the said amount with abuse of confidence. During trial, the prosecution presented Elenita Marasigan, a Security Bank representative, to testify and identify the checks allegedly deposited into respondent’s account. Respondent filed a Motion to Suppress this testimony and the accompanying documents, invoking the absolute confidentiality of bank deposits under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1405 and arguing irrelevancy, as the Information specified the theft of “cash money,” not checks. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ordering the testimony stricken from the records. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the testimony of the Security Bank representative and the accompanying documents regarding respondent’s bank account are admissible as evidence, or if they are irrelevant and excluded by the bank secrecy law (R.A. No. 1405).

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision. The subject evidence is inadmissible.
1. On Relevancy: The fact in issue, as defined by the allegations in the Information, is the taking of “cash money.” The proffered evidence pertained to checks deposited into a bank account. The Court held that “cash money” and “checks” are not synonymous. Checks are merely negotiable instruments that represent money and are not money per se. Therefore, the evidence regarding the checks and their deposit was not relevant to proving the specific crime of theft of cash as charged. Evidence must have a direct relation to the fact in issue to be relevant.
2. On R.A. No. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law): The Court ruled that the disclosure of the bank account details violated R.A. No. 1405. The law declares bank deposits as “absolutely confidential” and prohibits their examination or disclosure except in specific instances, such as when the deposit is the subject matter of the litigation. For this exception to apply, the account itself must be the very subject of the action. In this case, the subject matter of the qualified theft case was the alleged taking of cash money. The bank account was merely where the proceeds of the allegedly stolen checks were supposedly placed; it was not itself the property alleged to have been stolen. Consequently, the exception did not apply, and the disclosure was unlawful. The testimony based on such disclosure was correctly ordered suppressed.
The Court emphasized the necessity of establishing the elements of a crime with exactitude and the protective intent of R.A. No. 1405 to encourage private deposits in banks.