This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-04-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The nature, too, of the transaction on which the indictment rests, affords Estrada a reasonable expectation of privacy, as the alleged criminal act related to the opening of a trust account - a transaction that R.A. No. 1405 considers absolutely confidential in nature.[34] We previously rejected, in Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan,[35] the People's nitpicking argument on the alleged dichotomy between bank deposits and trust transactions, when we said:The contention that trust accounts are not covered by the term "deposits," as used in R.A. 1405, by the mere fact that they do not entail a creditor-debtor relationship between the trustor and the bank, does not lie. An examination of the law shows that the term "deposits" used therein is to be understood broadly and not limited only to accounts which give rise to a creditor-debtor relationship between the depositor and the bank. | |||||
|
2009-01-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Where a judicial interpretation declares a law unconstitutional or abandons a doctrinal interpretation of such law, the Court, recognizing that acts may have been performed under the impression of the constitutionality of the law or the validity of its interpretation, has consistently held that such operative fact cannot be undone by the mere subsequent declaration of the nullity of the law or its interpretation; thus, the declaration can only have a prospective application.[19] But where no law is invalidated nor doctrine abandoned, a judicial interpretation of the law should be deemed incorporated at the moment of its legislation.[20] | |||||