Thursday, February 22, 2007 SC junks with finality Estrada son's plea to stop probe
THE Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday denied with finality the bid of San Juan Mayor Jose Victor "JV" Ejercito seeking to stop the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with its investigation of his bank accounts to determine whether these have been used as repository of money allegedly plundered by his father, deposed President Joseph Estrada.
In a resolution, the SC en banc affirmed its Nov. 30, 2006 ruling that gave the anti-graft court the go-signal to scrutinize Ejercito's savings deposits and trust accounts at the Export and Industry Bank (EIB) formerly Urban Bank.
"The court resolves to deny with finality the motion for reconsideration as the basic issues raised therein have been passed upon by this court and no substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision," the SC ruled.
Three magistrates, namely, Associate Justices Consuelo Ynares Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez and Cancio Garcia maintained their dissension. Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Adolfo Azcuna and Minita Chico-Nazario did not take part in the voting.
In its Nov. 30, 2006 decision penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the SC dismissed the suit filed by Ejercito in 2003 questioning the Sandiganbayan's order to subpoena bank documents pertaining to his savings deposits and trust accounts at the EIB.
The high court rejected Ejercito's contention that his bank accounts are covered by Republic Act 1405, or the bank secrecy law, and do not fall under recognized exceptions.
"The law (RA 1405) is broad enough to cover trust accounts' and the protection afforded by the law is not absolute," the decision stated.
Among the recognized exceptions to the secrecy of deposits, the court said, are that "the examination of bank accounts is upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials," and when "the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of litigation."
The SC further said "plunder being analogous to bribery, the exception to RA 1405 applicable in cases of bribery must also apply to cases of plunder."
Court records showed that Ejercito filed his petition in 2003 after the Sandiganbayan Special Division trying the plunder case issued three resolutions turning down his motions to quash a subpoena order on EIB.
Among the accounts subpoenaed were deposits, which he said, belonged to him and were acquired through legal means thus are covered by the country's banking laws on secrecy of deposits.
Ejercito further claimed that he was never furnished copies with the request for subpoena from the prosecution panel. He said he included the bank statements on the accounts in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) in 2001.
Prosecutors in the Estrada plunder trial were particularly after bank transactions dealing with two accounts: Trust Account No. 858 and Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9 in 1999 and 2000.
Details covering four checks per account were sought by prosecutors. For the trust account the biggest sum involved was an Urban Bank Corporation Manager's Check dated Nov. 23, 1999 in the amount of P54.16 million while the biggest of the four checks for the savings account was a manager's check dated Jan. 18, 2000 in the amount if P70 million.
In his motion to quash, Ejercito said his bank accounts are covered by the bank secrecy law and do not fall under any of the exceptions stated in the law.
He further claimed that the identification of documents in the subpoenas, including details on dates and amounts, could only have been made possible by an illegal disclosure of the details by the bank and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) in its capacity as receiver of the now defunct Urban Bank.
Since the disclosure of the bank accounts is illegal, he said, the prosecution may not be allowed to make use of the information.
Ejercito further said the act of the prosecution to look into his bank accounts, when it is not part of the evidence, was just a mere fishing expedition and only proved that their case against his father is weak.
But government lawyers claimed that "contrary to the allegations of Ejercito, the prosecutor legally and properly obtained the information upon which the request for subpoena was based."
"The inquiry into property held by, or in the name of a public official and/or any other person, is sustained by the language of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft law), overriding legislative and public policy to prevent persons from evading investigation and prosecution," said state lawyers.
The Ejercito accounts would strengthen the theory of the prosecution that Jose Velarde is indeed accused Estrada, lawyers said.
"The filial connection, explain with more reason and logic, the fact that more than P182.7 million flowed from petitioner JV Ejercito, assuming it to be really and totally his, to his father, accused Joseph Estrada," they further said. (ECV/Sunnex)
