Intengan v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Citibank filed a complaint for violation of Section 31 in relation to Section 144 of the Corporation Code against two of its officers, Dante L. Santos and Marilou Genuino, for allegedly diverting bank clients' funds to their own companies (Torrance Development Corporation and Global Pacific Corporation) for personal gain. An affidavit by Vic Lim, a Citibank vice-president, detailed the scheme and attached bank records of petitioners Carmen Ll. Intengan, Rosario Ll. Neri, and Rita P. Brawner, which involved U.S. dollar deposits. Procedural History: The Provincial Prosecutor initially recommended dismissal but later directed the filing of informations for violation of Republic Act No. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law). The Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed this, ordering the withdrawal of the informations. The Court of Appeals sustained the DOJ's resolution, ruling that the disclosure of petitioners' deposits was necessary and fell under the exceptions to R.A. No. 1405. Petitioners sought reversal from the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners argued that the disclosure of their bank records was illegal and violated R.A. No. 1405, as their deposits were not the subject of litigation and no court order was obtained. They sought the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision and a directive for the DOJ to file charges against the private respondents for violating R.A. No. 1405.
Issue(s)
Whether the disclosure of petitioners' U.S. dollar deposits was illegal under Republic Act No. 1405 and Republic Act No. 6426. Whether the disclosure fell under the exceptions provided in Republic Act No. 6426, and whether the disclosure, even if necessary for a legal case, was still a prohibited act. Whether the offense had prescribed, considering the applicable prescriptive period for violations of special acts.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court ruled that the applicable law was Republic Act No. 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposit Act), not Republic Act No. 1405. The Court found that the disclosure of U.S. dollar deposits was made without the written permission of the depositors, which is the sole exception under R.A. No. 6426. However, the Court also found that the offense had prescribed after eight years from the discovery of the violation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicable law and legality of disclosure: The Court clarified that the confidentiality of U.S. dollar deposits is governed by Republic Act No. 6426, the "Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines," not R.A. No. 1405. Section 8 of R.A. No. 6426 states that all foreign currency deposits are absolutely confidential, except upon the depositor's written permission. Lim and Reyes disclosed details of the petitioners' dollar deposits without permission, violating R.A. No. 6426. Such violations are malum prohibitum, criminal regardless of intent. The acts complained of occurred before the enactment of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001. On whether the disclosure, even if necessary for a legal case, was still a prohibited act: Even if the disclosure was deemed necessary for Citibank's case against Santos and Genuino, it was still a prohibited act under R.A. No. 6426. On prescription of the offense: The Court applied Act No. 3326, as amended, which governs the prescription of violations penalized by special acts. A violation of R.A. No. 6426 carries a penalty of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years, the offense prescribes in eight years. The disclosures were made in September 1993, and the petitioners learned of them between October 1993 and January 1994. Based on these dates, the eight-year prescriptive period had already elapsed, barring prosecution.
Main Doctrine
The confidentiality of foreign currency deposits is governed by Republic Act No. 6426, not Republic Act No. 1405. Disclosure of foreign currency deposits is permissible only upon the written permission of the depositor, and violations of this Act prescribe in eight years from discovery.