Intengan vs.

Court of Appeals (2002)

G.R. No. 128996 | 2002-02-15

Subject: Disclosure of foreign currency deposits allowed only upon the written
permission of the depositor; Violation of secrecy of foreign currency deposits is a
malum prohibitum; A violation of RA 6426 prescribes in eight years; Prescription has
set in for failure to file the appropriate charges

Facts:

Citibank filed a complaint for violation of section 31, in relation to section 144 of the
Corporation Code against two of its officers (a) Dante L. Santos, the Treasurer of the
Global Consumer Group of the bank and (b) Marilou Genuino, who served as Assistant
Vice President in the office of Mr. Dante Santos, and also as an Account Officer

Private respondent Vic Lim, a vice-president of Citibank, alleged that his investigations
revealed that Mr. Santos and Ms. Genuino, with the use of two companies in which they
have personal financial interest, namely Torrance Development Corporation and Global
Pacific Corporation, managed or caused existing bank clients/depositors to divert their
money from Citibank, N.A. to products offered by other companies that were
commanding higher rate of yields. This was done by first transferring bank clients'
monies to Torrance and Global accounts with Citibank which in turn placed the monies
of the bank clients in securities and other certificates of third parties. It also appeared
that out of these transactions, Mr. Dante L. Santos and Ms. Marilou Genuino derived
substantial financial gains.

To support the complaint, respondent Lim attached bank records pertaining to the
dollar deposits of petitioners Carmen Intengan, Rosario Neri, and Rita Brawner with
Citibank. Private respondent Joven Reyes, vice-president/business manager of the
Global Consumer Banking Group of Citibank, admits to having authorized Lim to state
the names of the clients involved and to attach the pertinent bank records, including
those of petitioners. The complaints were subsequently amended to include a charge of
estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

As an incident to the foregoing, petitioners filed respective motions for the exclusion
and physical withdrawal of their bank records that were attached to Lim's affidavit.
Thereafter, provincial Prosecutor Castro directed the filing of informations against
private respondents for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise known as
the Bank Secrecy Law.

Private respondents' counsel then filed an appeal before the Department of Justice
(DOJ). Then DOJ Secretary Franklin Drilon issued a Resolution ordering the withdrawal
of the informations against private respondents.

Petitioners sought the reversal of the DOJ resolutions via a petition for certiorari with
the Supreme Court who referred the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) . The CA
dismissed the petition, finding that the disclosure of petitioners' deposits was necessary
to substantiate the alleged scheme of Santos and Genuino. Citing the ruling in Mellon
Bank vs Magsino, the CA held that as long as the bank deposits are material to the
case, although not necessarily the direct subject matter thereof, a disclosure of the
same is proper and falls within the scope of the exceptions provided for by R.A. No.
1405, i.e., "in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the
litigation"

Hence, the present petition where petitioners assert that the disclosure of their bank
records was unwarranted and illegal.

Held:

Disclosure of foreign currency deposits allowed only upon the written

permission of the depositor

1. The accounts in question are U.S. dollar deposits; consequently, the applicable law
is not Republic Act No. 1405 but Republic Act No. 6426, known as the "Foreign
Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines"

2. Section 8 of RA 6426 provides:

Sec. 8. Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits.- All foreign currency deposits authorized
under this Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1035, as well as foreign
currency deposits authorized under Presidential Decree 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 such foreign currency deposits be
examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official bureau or office
whether judicial or administrative or legislative or any other entity whether public or
private: 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.

3. Thus, under R.A. No. 6426 there is only a single exception to the secrecy of foreign
currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed only upon the written permission of the
depositor.

4. Incidentally, the acts of private respondents complained of happened before the

enactment on September 29, 2001 of R.A. No. 9160 otherwise known as the Anti-
Money Laundering Act of 2001.

5. A case for violation of Republic Act No. 6426 should have been the proper case
brought against private respondents. Private respondents Lim and Reyes admitted that
they had disclosed details of petitioners' dollar deposits without the latter's written
permission.

Violation of secrecy of foreign currency deposits is a malum prohibitum

6. It 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' bank records regarding their foreign currency deposits, with the authority of
[petitioners], would appear to belong to that species of criminal acts punishable by
special laws, called malum prohibitum.

7. While it is true that, as a rule and on principles of abstract justice, men are not and
should not be held criminally responsible for acts committed by them without guilty
knowledge and criminal or at least evil intent xxx, the courts have always recognized
the power of the legislature, on grounds of public policy and compelled by necessity, to
forbid in a limited class of cases the doing of certain acts, and to make their
commission criminal without regard to the intent of the doer. xxx In such cases no
judicial authority has the power to require, in the enforcement of the law, such
knowledge or motive to be shown.

A violation of RA 6426 prescribes in eight years

8. Republic Act No. 6426 being a special law, the provisions of Act No. 3326, as
amended by Act No. 3763, are applicable.

9. A violation of Republic Act No. 6426 shall subject the offender to imprisonment of
not less than one year nor more than five years, or by a fine of not less than five
thousand pesos nor more than twenty-five thousand pesos, or both. Thus, applying Act
No. 3326, the offense prescribes in eight years.

Prescription has set in for failure to file the appropriate charges

10. Per available records, private respondents may no longer be haled before the
courts for violation of Republic Act No. 6426. Private respondent Vic Lim made the
disclosure in September of 1993 in his affidavit submitted before the Provincial Fiscal.
In her complaint-affidavit, Intengan stated that she learned of the revelation of the
details of her foreign currency bank account on October 14, 1993. On the other hand,
Neri asserts that she discovered the disclosure on October 24, 1993. As to Brawner, the
material date is January 5, 1994. Based on any of these dates, prescription has set in.

11. The filing of the complaint or information in the case at bar for alleged violation of
Republic Act No. 1405 did not have the effect of tolling the prescriptive period. For it is
the filing of the complaint or information corresponding to the correct offense which
produces that effect.

12. The confidentiality of foreign currency deposits mandated by Republic Act No.
6426, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1246, came into effect as far back as
1977. Hence, ignorance thereof cannot be pretended. On one hand, the existence of
laws is a matter of mandatory judicial notice; on the other, ignorantia legis non
excusat.Even during the pendency of this appeal, nothing prevented the petitioners
from filing a complaint charging the correct offense against private respondents. This
was not done, as everyone involved was content to submit the case on the basis of an
alleged violation of Republic Act No. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law), however, incorrectly
invoked.