Facts: BSB Group Inc., is presided by Ricardo Bangayan. The company employed as cashier Sally Bangayan. Allegedly, Sally deposited in her personal account in the security bank the checks paid by the companys customers. However, in the complaint affidavit filed to the prisecutor, as well as in the information, it merely mentioned that the cashier took away a cash money from the company with intent to gain. It did not mention about the two checks allegedly deposited and encashed to the bank. In convicting her for qualified theft. The RTC considerd as admissible the testimony of the bank officer who testified that indeed during those period, there were two checks encashed and deposited in the personal account of Sally. The accused raised the defense of non admissibility of the testimony of the bank since it is violative of RA 1405 which prohibits the inquiry of bank deposits being highly confidential. CA reversed and ruled that these are inadmissible. Petitioner argued that the cash involved is the subject matter of litigation hence inquiry and testimony of the bank are admissible.
Issue: won the bank deposits in the record of the bank as well as its testimony are admissible.
Held: No. What indeed constitutes the subject matter in litigation in relation to Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 has been pointedly and amply addressed in Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, in which the Court noted that the inquiry into bank deposits allowable under R.A. No. 1405 must be premised on the fact that the money deposited in the account is itself the subject of the action. Given this perspective, we deduce that the subject matter of the action in the case at bar is to be determined from the indictment that charges respondent with the offense, and not from the evidence sought by the prosecution to be admitted into the records. In the criminal Information filed with the trial court, respondent, unqualifiedly and in plain language, is charged with qualified theft by abusing petitioners trust and confidence and stealing cash in the amount of P1,534,135.50. The said Information makes no factual allegation that in some material way involves the checks subject of the testimonial and documentary evidence sought to be suppressed. Neither do the allegations in said Information make mention of the supposed bank account in which the funds represented by the checks have allegedly been kept.
In other words, it can hardly be inferred from the indictment itself that the Security Bank account is the ostensible subject of the prosecutions inquiry. Without needlessly expanding the scope of what is plainly alleged in the Information, the subject matter of the action in this case is the money amounting to P1,534,135.50 alleged to have been stolen by respondent, and not the money equivalent of the checks which are sought to be admitted in evidence. Thus, it is that, which the prosecution is bound to prove with its evidence, and no other.
It comes clear that the admission of testimonial and documentary evidence relative to respondents Security Bank account serves no other purpose than to establish the existence of such account, its nature and the amount kept in it. It constitutes an attempt by the prosecution at an impermissible inquiry into a bank deposit account the privacy and confidentiality of which is protected by law. On this score alone, the objection posed by respondent in her motion to suppress should have indeed put an end to the controversy at the very first instance it was raised before the trial court.