
Originally Posted by
wowiesy
With due respect your honor, as emphasized above, Section 2 practically bars anyone from disclosing it... although listed are exemptions to the rule... while Section 3, specifically bars bank employees from divulging information, except in cases listed in Section 2...
Your honor, this representation is of the position, that there is no distinction between private individual source or public official source, in so far as the leak is concerned. The fact that the account numbers (without admitting that such account numbers exist, nor that such account numbers are indeed owned by the respondent) have been known to the prosecutors prior to this proceeding, may be construed as prima facie evidence, that this information was acquired through illegal means. Having established that this was acquired through illegal means your honor, we move that said request for subpoena not be granted, and if it is already granted, that it be quashed, and assuming that Presiding Officer denies motion to quash, that all evidence and information derived from these accounts be deemed inadmissible for being illegal in nature.
The annex may not be offered as evidence, but the information purpotedly being asked of which is alluded to by the annex, is grossly illegally acquired and should therefore be treated as such...
hehe.. trip lang po... medyo iba ang gising ko ngayong umaga... =)