BSP may conduct annual testing solely limited to the

I. ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT (RA determination of the existence and true identity of the
9160, as amended)*** owners of such accounts.

A. Covered institutions and their (b) Record Keeping. — All records of all transactions
obligations* – Secs 3 (a) covered persons, 9, of covered institutions shall be maintained and safely
14 (e ), (f) and (g)  di ko alam san yan! stored for five (5) years from the dates of transactions.
With respect to closed accounts, the records on
customer identification, account files and business
SEC. 3. Definitions. — For purposes of this Act, the correspondence, shall be preserved and safely stored
following terms are hereby defined as follows: for at least five (5) years from the dates when they
were closed.
(a) “Covered institution” refers to:
(c) Reporting of Covered Transactions. — Covered
institutions shall report to the AMLC all covered
(1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, and
transactions within five (5) working days from
all other institutions and their subsidiaries and
occurrence thereof, unless the Supervising Authority
affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); concerned prescribes a longer period not exceeding ten
(10) working days.
(2) insurance companies and all other institutions
When reporting covered transactions to the AMLC,
supervised or regulated by the Insurance Commission;
covered institutions and their officers, employees,
and
representatives, agents, advisors, consultants or
associates shall not be deemed to have violated
(3) (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act No.
investment houses and other similar entities managing 6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791 and other
securities or rendering services as investment agent, similar laws, but are prohibited from communicating,
advisor, or consultant, (ii) mutual funds, closed-end directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means,
investment companies, common trust funds, pre-need to any person the fact that a covered transaction report
companies and other similar entities, (iii) foreign was made, the contents thereof, or any other
exchange corporations, money changers, money information in relation thereto. In case of violation
payment, remittance, and transfer companies and other thereof, the concerned officer, employee,
similar entities, and (iv) other entities administering or representative, agent, advisor, consultant or associate
otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or of the covered institution, shall be criminally liable.
financial derivatives based thereon, valuable objects, However, no administrative, criminal or civil
cash substitutes and other similar monetary proceedings, shall lie against any person for having
instruments or property supervised or regulated by made a covered transaction report in the regular
Securities and Exchange Commission. performance of his duties and in good faith, whether
or not such reporting results in any criminal
SEC. 9. Prevention of Money Laundering; Customer prosecution under this Act or any other Philippine law.
Identification Requirements and Record Keeping. —
(a) Customer Identification. — Covered institutions When reporting covered transactions to the AMLC,
shall establish and record the true identity of its clients covered institutions and their officers, employees,
based on official documents. They shall maintain a representatives, agents, advisors, consultants or
system of verifying the true identity of their clients associates are prohibited from communicating,
and, in case of corporate clients, require a system of directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means,
verifying their legal existence and organizational to any person, entity, the media, the fact that a covered
structure, as well as the authority and identification of transaction report was made, the contents thereof, or
all persons purporting to act on their behalf. any other information in relation thereto. Neither may
such reporting be published or aired in any manner or
The provisions of existing laws to the contrary form by the mass media, electronic mail, or other
notwithstanding, anonymous accounts, accounts under similar devices. In case of violation thereof, the
fictitious names, and all other similar accounts shall be concerned officer, employee, representative, agent,
absolutely prohibited. Peso and foreign currency non- advisor, consultant or associate of the covered
checking numbered accounts shall be allowed. The institution, or media shall be held criminally liable.
SEC. 10. Authority to Freeze. — Upon determination and for segregation or exclusion of the monetary
that probable cause exists that any deposit or similar instrument or property corresponding thereto. The
account is in any way related to an unlawful activity, verified petition shall be filed with the court which
the AMLC may issue a freeze order, which shall be rendered the judgment of conviction and order of
effective immediately, on the account for a period not forfeiture, within fifteen (15) days from the date of the
exceeding fifteen (15) days. Notice to the depositor order of forfeiture, in default of which the said order
that his account has been frozen shall be issued shall become final and executory. This provision shall
simultaneously with the issuance of the freeze order. apply in both civil and criminal forfeiture.
The depositor shall have seventy-two (72) hours upon
receipt of the notice to explain why the freeze order (c) Payment in Lieu of Forfeiture. — Where the court
should be lifted. The AMLC has seventy-two (72) has issued an order of forfeiture of the monetary
hours to dispose of the depositor’s explanation. If it instrument or property subject of a money laundering
fails to act within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt offense defined under Section 4, and said order cannot
of the depositor’s explanation, the freeze order shall be enforced because any particular monetary
automatically be dissolved. The fifteen (15)-day freeze instrument or property cannot, with due diligence, be
order of the AMLC may be extended upon order of the located, or it has been substantially altered, destroyed,
court, provided that the fifteen (15)-day period shall be diminished in value or otherwise rendered worthless
tolled pending the court’s decision to extend the by any act or omission, directly or indirectly,
period. attributable to the offender, or it has been concealed,
removed, converted or otherwise transferred to
No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or prevent the same from being found or to avoid
writ of injunction against any freeze order issued by forfeiture thereof, or it is located outside the
the AMLC except the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Philippines or has been placed or brought outside the
Court. jurisdiction of the court, or it has been commingled
with other monetary instruments or property belonging
SEC. 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. — to either the offender himself or a third person or
Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. entity, thereby rendering the same difficult to identify
1405, as amended; Republic Act No. 6426, as or be segregated for purposes of forfeiture, the court
amended; Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the may, instead of enforcing the order of forfeiture of the
AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular monetary instrument or property or part thereof or
deposit or investment with any banking institution or interest therein, accordingly order the convicted
non-bank financial institution upon order of any offender to pay an amount equal to the value of said
competent court in cases of violation of this Act when monetary instrument or property. This provision shall
it has been established that there is probable cause that apply in both civil and criminal forfeiture.
the deposits or investments involved are in any way
related to a money laundering offense: Provided, That
this provision shall not apply to deposits and Land Bank v Artemio San Juan Jr. GR
investments made prior to the effectivity of this Act. 186279 Apr 2, 2013

SEC. 12. Forfeiture Provisions. A certain Esmayatin Bonsalagan approached the

respondent in his office at LBP-Binangonan Branch to
(a) Civil Forfeiture. — When there is a covered encash a check for Twenty-Six Billion pesos.
transaction report made, and the court has, in a petition
filed for the purpose ordered seizure of any monetary Respondent then summoned to his office Acsa
instrument or property, in whole or in part, directly or Ramirez, the Cashier/Operations Supervisor, and Leila
indirectly, related to said report, the Revised Rules of Amparo, the Teller/Designated New Accounts Clerk,
Court on civil forfeiture shall apply. and informed them of Bonsalagan’s desire to partially
withdraw funds on the check. He also told them that
the P26-Billion check had already been confirmed by
(b) Claim on Forfeiture Assets. — Where the court has
China Bank. Ramirez expressed her reservation to the
issued an order of forfeiture of the monetary
client’s request because, as a matter of bank procedure
instrument or property in a criminal prosecution for
and policy, the check must first be cleared before funds
any money laundering offense defined under Section
could be withdrawn.
4 of this Act, the offender or any other person claiming
an interest therein may apply, by verified petition, for
a declaration that the same legitimately belongs to him
To accommodate the client, the respondent suggested Office. Strangely, the respondent, with apparent
that Bonsalagan open a current/checking account with insensitivity to the circumstances of the situation,
the branch where the China Bank check would first be wanted to wait until the next working day to report the
deposited. Ramirez, who assisted in opening the check. Such relaxed response cannot but be a
checking account, required Bonsalagan to present at confirmation of his disregard of and lack of concern
least two 2 IDs but the latter could only present one for the bank’s interests, which he was duty-bound to
ID. The respondent assured Ramirez that it was alright protect.
to proceed with the opening of the checking account
because Bonsalagan had previously presented the We likewise discern from the respondent’s actuations
proper IDs, being a signatory to an existing account that he was not only grossly negligent in the
with the branch. The respondent also approved and performance of his duties, but was also instrumental in
authenticated Bonsalagan’s specimen signature cards. perpetuating a fraud against the bank. The respondent
Bonsalagan was consequently issued a check booklet. cannot deny that he solicited Bonsalagan’s account,
Against the respondent’s advice, Ramirez immediately allegedly to improve the bank’s deposit portfolio. The
called the Area Head Office to report the China Bank day before Bonsalagan arrived at the LBP-Binangonan
check. Branch, the respondent already advised Ramirez of
Bonsalagan’s arrival and the presentation of the P26-
Billion check. And on the day the client arrived at the
After an investigation, the LBP discovered that the bank, the respondent vouched for Bonsalagan’s
P26-Billion check was spurious and unfunded, and identity and for the supposed confirmation by China
that the check’s account number did not belong to CQ Bank of the P26-Billion check.
Ventures Corporation, but to a certain Jing Limbo
and/or Arien Romero. This discovery prompted the A bank manager has the duty to ensure that bank
LBP to issue a Formal Charge against the respondent rules are strictly complied with, not only to ensure
with the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel efficient bank operation, but also to serve the bank’s
(OGCC) where it accused the respondent of gross best interest. His responsibility over the functions of
neglect of duty for the following acts or omissions the employees of the branch cannot simply be
detrimental to the bank’s interest: (a) in ordering that overlooked as their acts normally pass through his
a current account be opened without properly supervision and approval. He should serve as the last
verifying the depositor’s identity in accordance with safeguard against any pretense employed to carry out
the bank’s policy; (b) in not confirming the an illicit claim over the bank’s money.
genuineness of the China Bank check and the
legitimacy and sufficiency of its funds; and (c) in
issuing a check booklet to Bonsalagan without waiting Subido et al v CA GR 216914 Dec 6, 2016
for the China Bank check to be cleared. The
respondent was preventively suspended  GUILTY. Facts
Challenged in this petition for certiorari and
SC: prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the
constitutionality of Section 11 of R.A No. 9160, the
Respondent failed to exert prompt efforts in Anti-Money Laundering Act, as amended, specifically
confirming the genuineness and source of the Anti-Money Laundering Council's authority to file
Bonsalagan’s P26-Billion check. with the Court of Appeals (CA) in this case, an ex-
parte application for inquiry into certain bank deposits
Due to the nature of his Bank Manager position, it was and investments, including related accounts based on
inevitable for the respondent to encounter and process, probable cause.
on a daily basis, checks of enormous amounts, ranging
from thousands to millions of pesos. However, we find In 2015, a year before the 2016 presidential elections,
the enormity of the amount of Bonsalagan’s check, reports abounded on the supposed disproportionate
i.e., P26 Billion, to be exceptional and far from the wealth of then Vice President Jejomar Binay and the
usual bank transactions. This kind of unusual, even rest of his family, some of whom were likewise elected
suspicious, transaction warranted a more guarded and public officers. The Office of the Ombudsman and the
prompt response from the respondent. Senate conducted investigations and inquiries
thereon.
We recall that it was through Ramirez’s initiative, and
not the respondent’s, that the unusually enormous From various news reports announcing the inquiry into
check was immediately reported to the LBP Area Head then Vice President Binay's bank accounts, including
accounts of members of his family, petitioner Subido substantive due process, there being no physical
Pagente Certeza Mendoza & Binay Law Firm seizure of property involved at that stage.
(SPCMB) was most concerned with the article In fact, .Eugenio delineates a bank inquiry order under
published in the Manila Times on 25 February 2015 Section 11 from a freeze order under Section 10 on
entitled "Inspect Binay Bank Accounts" which read, in both remedies' effect on the direct objects, i.e. the bank
pertinent part: deposits and investments:

xxx The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) On the other hand, a bank inquiry order under Section
asked the Court of Appeals (CA) to allow the 11 does not necessitate any form of physical seizure of
[C]ouncil to peek into the bank accounts of the Binays, property of the account holder. What the bank inquiry
their corporations, and a law office where a family order authorizes is the examination of the particular
member was once a partner. deposits or investments in banking institutions or non-
bank financial institutions. The monetary instruments
xx xx or property deposited with such banks or financial
Also the bank accounts of the law office linked to the institutions are not seized in a physical sense, but are
family, the Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza & Binay examined on particular details such as the account
Law Firm, where the Vice President's daughter Abigail holder's record of deposits and transactions. Unlike the
was a former partner. assets subject of the freeze order, the records to be
inspected under a bank inquiry order cannot be
physically seized or hidden by the account holder. Said
By 8 March 2015, the Manila Times published another records are in the possession of the bank and therefore
article entitled, "CA orders probe of Binay 's assets" cannot be destroyed at the instance of the account
reporting that the appellate court had issued a holder alone as that would require the extraordinary
Resolution granting the ex-parte application of the cooperation and devotion of the bank.
AMLC to examine the bank accounts of SPCMB.
Forestalled in the CA thus alleging that it had no At the stage in which the petition was filed before us,
ordinary, plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to the inquiry into certain bank deposits and investments
protect its rights and interests in the purported ongoing by the AMLC still does not contemplate any form of
unconstitutional examination of its bank accounts by physical seizure of the targeted corporeal property.
public respondent Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC), SPCMB undertook direct resort to this Court
via this petition for certiorari and prohibition on the 2. No. The AMLC functions solely as an investigative
following grounds that the he Anti-Money Laundering body in the instances mentioned in Rule 5.b.26
Act is unconstitutional insofar as it allows the Thereafter, the next step is for the AMLC to file a
examination of a bank account without any notice to Complaint with either the DOJ or the Ombudsman
the affected party: (1) It violates the person's right to pursuant to Rule 6b. Even in the case of Estrada v.
due process; and (2) It violates the person's right to Office of the Ombudsman, where the conflict arose at
privacy. the preliminary investigation stage by the
Ombudsman, we ruled that the Ombudsman's denial of
Senator Estrada's Request to be furnished copies of the
Issues: counter-affidavits of his co-respondents did not violate
1. Whether Section 11 of R.A No. Estrada's constitutional right to due process where the
9160 violates substantial due process. sole issue is the existence of probable cause for the
2. Whether Section 11 of R.A No. purpose of determining whether an information should
9160 violates procedural due process. be filed and does not prevent Estrada from requesting
a copy of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents
3. Whether Section 11 of R.A No.
during the pre-trial or even during trial.
9160 is violative of the constitutional right to
privacy enshrined in Section 2, Article III of
Plainly, the AMLC's investigation of money
the Constitution.
laundering offenses and its determination of possible
money laundering offenses, specifically its inquiry
Rulings into certain bank accounts allowed by court order,
1. No. We do not subscribe to SPCMB' s position. does not transform it into an investigative body
Succinctly, Section 11 of the AMLA providing for ex- exercising quasi-judicial powers. Hence, Section 11 of
parte application and inquiry by the AMLC into the AMLA, authorizing a bank inquiry court order,
certain bank deposits and investments does not violate
cannot be said to violate SPCMB's constitutional right by the AMLC, and determination by the CA,
to due process. of probable cause emphasizes the limits of
such governmental action. We will revert to
3. No. We now come to a determination of whether these safeguards under Section 11 as we
Section 11 is violative of the constitutional right to specifically discuss the CA' s denial of
privacy enshrined in Section 2, Article III of the SPCMB' s letter request for information
Constitution. SPCMB is adamant that the CA's denial concerning the purported issuance of a bank
of its request to be furnished copies of AMLC's ex- inquiry order involving its accounts.
parte application for a bank inquiry order and all
subsequent pleadings, documents and orders filed and All told, we affirm the constitutionality of Section 11
issued in relation thereto, constitutes grave abuse of of the AMLA allowing the ex-parte application by the
discretion where the purported blanket authority under AMLC for authority to inquire into, and examine,
Section 11: ( 1) partakes of a general warrant intended certain bank deposits and investments.
to aid a mere fishing expedition; (2) violates the
attorney-client privilege; (3) is not preceded by WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Section 11
predicate crime charging SPCMB of a money of Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, is
laundering offense; and ( 4) is a form of political declared VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL.
harassment [of SPCMB' s] clientele.

We thus subjected Section 11 of the AMLA to

heightened scrutiny and found nothing arbitrary in the
B. Covered and suspicious
allowance and authorization to AMLC to undertake an
transactions – Sec 3 (b)
inquiry into certain bank accounts or deposits. Instead,
(b) “Covered transaction” is a single, series, or
we found that it provides safeguards before a bank
combination of transactions involving a total amount
inquiry order is issued, ensuring adherence to the in excess of Four million Philippine pesos
general state policy of preserving the absolutely (Php4,000,000.00) or an equivalent amount in foreign
confidential nature of Philippine bank accounts:
currency based on the prevailing exchange rate within
1. The AMLC is required to establish
five (5) consecutive banking days except those
probable cause as basis for its ex-parte
between a covered institution and a person who, at the
application for bank inquiry order;
time of the transaction was a properly identified client
2. The CA, independent of the and the amount is commensurate with the business or
AMLC's demonstration of probable cause, financial capacity of the client; or those with an
itself makes a finding of probable cause that underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose, origin or
the deposits or investments are related to an economic justification.
unlawful activity under Section 3(i) or a
money laundering offense under Section 4 of It likewise refers to a single, series or combination or
the AMLA; pattern of unusually large and complex transactions in
3. A bank inquiry court order ex-parte excess of Four million Philippine pesos
for related accounts is preceded by a bank (Php4,000,000.00) especially cash deposits and
inquiry court order ex-parte for the principal investments having no credible purpose or origin,
account which court order ex-parte for related underlying trade obligation or contract.
accounts is separately based on probable
cause that such related account is materially
linked to the principal account inquired into; C. Safe harbor provision – Sec 9 (c)
and
4. The authority to inquire into or
examine the main or principal account and (c) Reporting of Covered Transactions. — Covered
the related accounts shall comply with the institutions shall report to the AMLC all covered
requirements of Article III, Sections 2 and 3 transactions within five (5) working days from
of the Constitution. The foregoing occurrence thereof, unless the Supervising Authority
demonstrates that the inquiry and concerned prescribes a longer period not exceeding ten
examination into the bank account are not (10) working days.
undertaken whimsically and solely based on
the investigative discretion of the AMLC. In When reporting covered transactions to the AMLC,
particular, the requirement of demonstration covered institutions and their officers, employees,
representatives, agents, advisors, consultants or (3) Section 3 paragraphs B, C, E, G, H and I of
associates shall not be deemed to have violated Republic Act No. 3019, as amended; otherwise known
Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act No. as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791 and other
similar laws, but are prohibited from communicating, (4) Plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended;
directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means,
to any person the fact that a covered transaction report
(5) Robbery and extortion under Articles 294, 295,
was made, the contents thereof, or any other 296, 299, 300, 301 and 302 of the Revised Penal Code,
information in relation thereto. In case of violation as amended;
thereof, the concerned officer, employee,
representative, agent, advisor, consultant or associate
of the covered institution, shall be criminally liable. (6) Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal gambling
However, no administrative, criminal or civil under Presidential Decree No. 1602;
proceedings, shall lie against any person for having
made a covered transaction report in the regular (7) Piracy on the high seas under the Revised Penal
performance of his duties and in good faith, whether Code, as amended and Presidential Decree No. 532;
or not such reporting results in any criminal
prosecution under this Act or any other Philippine law. (8) Qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended;
When reporting covered transactions to the AMLC,
covered institutions and their officers, employees, (9) Swindling under Article 315 of the Revised Penal
representatives, agents, advisors, consultants or Code, as amended;
associates are prohibited from communicating,
directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, (10) Smuggling under Republic Act Nos. 455 and
to any person, entity, the media, the fact that a covered 1937;
transaction report was made, the contents thereof, or
any other information in relation thereto. Neither may
(11) Violations under Republic Act No. 8792,
such reporting be published or aired in any manner or
otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of
form by the mass media, electronic mail, or other
2000;
similar devices. In case of violation thereof, the
concerned officer, employee, representative, agent,
advisor, consultant or associate of the covered (12) Hijacking and other violations under Republic
institution, or media shall be held criminally liable. Act No. 6235; destructive arson and murder, as
defined under the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
including those perpetrated by terrorists against non-
combatant persons and similar targets;
D. When is money laundering
(13) Fraudulent practices and other violations under
committed (including predicate crimes) –
Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the
Secs 3 (i) unlawful activity*, 4 (money
Securities Regulation Code of 2000;
laundering offense), 6

(14) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature that are

punishable under the penal laws of other countries.
Sec. 3 (i) “Unlawful activity”  refers to any act or
omission or series or combination thereof involving or
having relation to the following: SEC. 4. Money Laundering Offense. — Money
laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an
unlawful activity are transacted, thereby making them
(1) Kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of Act
appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is
No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal
committed by the following:
Code, as amended;

(a) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument

or property represents, involves, or relates to, the
(2) Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of Article Two of
proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known
attempts to transact said monetary instrument or
as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972;
property.
(b) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument checks in their respective bank accounts. Rather, the
or property involves the proceeds of any unlawful face value of all the checks were credited to a single
activity, performs or fails to perform any act as a result account with Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation
of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering (RCBC), owned by Manu.
referred to in paragraph (a) above.
PDIC conducted an investigation upon clearing of the
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument checks. The investigation found that based on
or property is required under this Act to be disclosed available bank documents, the spouses Gidwani and
and filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council the 86 individuals maintained a total of 471 deposit
(AMLC), fails to do so. accounts aggregating P118,187,500 with the different
Legacy Banks, and that 142 of these accounts, with the
total amount of P20,966,439.09, were in the names of
SEC. 6. Prosecution of Money Laundering.
helpers and rank-and-􏰀le employees of the Gidwani
spouses. Thus, they allegedly did not have the
(a) Any person may be charged with and convicted of financial capacity to deposit the amounts recorded
both the offense of money laundering and the unlawful under their names, let alone make the deposits in
activity as herein defined. various Legacy Banks located nationwide. PDIC
likewise noted that advance interests on several of the
(b) Any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity deposits were paid to the Gidwani spouses even
shall be given precedence over the prosecution of any though they are not the named owners of the accounts.
offense or violation under this Act without prejudice Hence, PDIC contends that complainants are not
to the freezing and other remedies provided. entitled to the value of the checks since they were not
the true owners, and Spouses Gidwani were the true
beneficial owners. This prompted PDIC to file a
PDIC v Manu Gidwani GR 234616 Jun 20, criminal complaint before the DOJ Task Force for
2018 estafa through falsification punished by the RPC and
for money laundering as defined in Section 4 (a) of
Doctrine: AMLA against the Gidwani spouses and the 86 other
Section 4. Money Laundering Offense. — Money individuals.
laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an
unlawful activity are transacted, thereby making them DOJ Task Force dismissed the criminal complaint for
appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is lack of probable cause. Upon appeal to the Secretary
committed by the following: of Justice, the decision was reversed. CA reversed
a. Any person knowing that any monetary DOJ Sec. Hence, this petition.
instrument or property represents, involves,
or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful Issue: W/N there is probable cause to charge
activity, transacts or attempts to transact said respondents with money laundering.
monetary instrument or property.
Held: Yes. Decision of CA was reversed and reinstated
Emergency Recit the decision of DOJ Sec. There exists probable cause
to charge respondents with estafa and money
Pursuant to several resolutions of the Monetary Board laundering. Under RA 9160, the law provides that:
of the BSP, the subject rural banks which are owned
and controlled by the Legacy Group of Companies Section 4. Money Laundering Offense. — Money
were ordered closed. The Philippine Deposit Insurance laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an
Corporation (PDIC) thereafter placed the subject unlawful activity are transacted, thereby making them
banks under receivership. Respondent Manu and 86 appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is
other complainants who represented themselves to committed by the following:
own 471 deposit accounts with the Legacy Group, and
also subsequently filed claims with the PDIC. The a. Any person knowing that any monetary
claims were processed and granted. 683 Landbank instrument or property represents, involves,
cross checks were issued in favor of the 86 individuals, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful
excluding Spouses Gidwani amounting to activity, transacts or attempts to transact said
P98,733,690.21. The checks stated “Payable to monetary instrument or property.
Payee’s Account Only”. Despite these explicit
instructions, the individuals did not deposit the crossed
In this case, the PDIC reportedly discovered that there respondent Judge Antonio Eugenio, Jr., and docketed
was only one beneficial owner of the 471 bank as SP Case No. 06-114200.
accounts with the Legacy Banks of the 86 individual
depositors — respondent Manu. To illustrate, PDIC On 12 January 2006, the Manila RTC issued an Order
reportedly discovered that 142 of these 471 accounts, (Manila RTC bank inquiry order) granting the Ex
with the total amount of P20,966,439.09, were in the Parte Application expressing therein "[that] the
names of helpers and rank-and-file employees of the allegations in said application to be impressed with
Gidwani spouses who do not have the financial merit, and in conformity with Section 11 of R.A. No.
capacity to deposit the amounts recorded under their 9160, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-
names. That these individuals reported either Money Laundering Act (AMLA) of 2001 and Rules
respondent Manu's office or business address as their 11.1 and 11.2 of the Revised Implementing Rules and
own further arouses serious suspicion on the true Regulations."22 Authority was thus granted to the
ownership of the funds deposited. It gives the AMLC to inquire into the bank accounts listed
impression that they had been used by respondent as therein.
dummies, and their purported ownership mere
subterfuge, in order to increase the amount of his
Lilia Cheng imputed grave abuse of discretion on the
protected deposit. Despite allegations of respondents
part of the Makati and Manila RTCs in granting
that there is an existing agreement of fund
AMLC’s ex parte applications for a bank inquiry
management scheme between respondent Manu and
order, arguing:
the individual depositors, it is best left to be threshed 1. that the ex parte applications violated her
out during trial proper. Suffice it to state for now that constitutional right to due process
the Court herein finds probable cause to charge
2. that the bank inquiry order under the AMLA
respondent for estafa and money laundering.
can only be granted in connection with
violations of the AMLA
3. that the AMLA can not apply to bank
E. Authority to inquire into bank accounts opened and transactions entered
deposits –Sec 11 into prior to the effectivity of the AMLA or
to bank accounts located outside the
SEC. 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. — Philippines.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No.
1405, as amended; Republic Act No. 6426, as CA hearing Lilia Cheng’s petition had granted a writ
amended; Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the of preliminary injunction in her favor.
AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular
deposit or investment with any banking institution or ISSUE:
non-bank financial institution upon order of any WON a bank inquiry order in this case may be issued
competent court in cases of violation of this Act when ex parte - no
it has been established that there is probable cause that
the deposits or investments involved are in any way
related to a money laundering offense: Provided, That HELD:
this provision shall not apply to deposits and
investments made prior to the effectivity of this Act. Even if the bank inquiry order may be availed of
without need of a pre-existing case under the AMLA,
Republic v Eugenio Jr. (prior to it does not follow that such order may be availed of ex
amendment); parte. There are several reasons why the AMLA does
not generally sanction ex parte applications and
FACTS: issuances of the bank inquiry order.

The Republic, through the AMLC, filed an

application21 before the Manila RTC to inquire into SEC. 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank
and/or examine thirteen (13) accounts and two (2) Deposits. ― Notwithstanding the provisions
related web of accounts alleged as having been used to of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended,
facilitate corruption in the NAIA 3 Project. Among Republic Act No. 6426, as amended,
said accounts were the DBS Bank account of Alvarez Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the
and the Metrobank accounts of Cheng Yong. The case AMLC may inquire into or examine any
was raffled to Manila RTC, Branch 24, presided by particular deposit or investment with any
 banking institution or non bank financial necessity… [t]hus, by its very nature, the application
institution upon order of any competent court for an order or inquiry must necessarily, be ex parte."
in cases of violation of this Act, when it has This argument is insufficient justification in light of
been established that there is probable the clear disinclination of Congress to allow the
cause that the deposits or investments are issuance ex parte of bank inquiry orders under Section
related to an unlawful activity as defined 11, in contrast to the legislature’s clear inclination to
in Section 3(i) hereof or a money allow the ex parte grant of freeze orders under Section
laundering offense under Section 4 hereof, 10.
except that no court order shall be
required in cases involving unlawful Without doubt, a requirement that the application for a
activities defined in Sections 3(i)1, (2) and bank inquiry order be done with notice to the account
(12). holder will alert the latter that there is a plan to inspect
his bank account on the belief that the funds therein
To ensure compliance with this Act, the are involved in an unlawful activity or money
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) may laundering offense.80 Still, the account holder so
inquire into or examine any deposit of alerted will in fact be unable to do anything to conceal
investment with any banking institution or or cleanse his bank account records of suspicious or
non bank financial institution when the anomalous transactions, at least not without the whole-
examination is made in the course of a hearted cooperation of the bank, which inherently has
periodic or special examination, in no vested interest to aid the account holder in such
accordance with the rules of examination of manner.
the BSP.70 (Emphasis supplied)
Prior to the enactment of the AMLA, the fact that bank
Of course, Section 11 also allows the AMLC to inquire accounts or deposits were involved in activities later
into bank accounts without having to obtain a judicial on enumerated in Section 3 of the law did not, by itself,
order in cases where there is probable cause that the remove such accounts from the shelter of absolute
deposits or investments are related to kidnapping for confidentiality.
ransom,71certain violations of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,72 hijacking and other Prior to the AMLA, in order that bank accounts could
violations under R.A. No. 6235, destructive arson and be examined, there was need to secure either the
murder. Since such special circumstances do not apply written permission of the depositor or a court order
in this case, there is no need for us to pass comment on authorizing such examination, assuming that they
this proviso. Suffice it to say, the proviso contemplates were involved in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty
a situation distinct from that which presently confronts of public officials, or in a case where the money
us, and for purposes of the succeeding discussion, our deposited or invested was itself the subject matter of
reference to Section 11 of the AMLA excludes said the litigation.
provison.
The passage of the AMLA stripped another layer off
In the instances where a court order is required for the the rule on absolute confidentiality that provided a
issuance of the bank inquiry order, nothing in Section measure of lawful protection to the account holder. For
11 specifically authorizes that such court order may be that reason, the application of the bank inquiry order
issued ex parte. It might be argued that this silence as a means of inquiring into records of transactions
does not preclude the ex parte issuance of the bank entered into prior to the passage of the AMLA would
inquiry order since the same is not prohibited under be constitutionally infirm, offensive as it is to the ex
Section 11. Yet this argument falls when the post facto clause.
immediately preceding provision, Section 10, is
examined.
Still, we must note that the position submitted by Lilia
Cheng is much broader than what we are willing to
Intrestingly, petitioner’s memorandum does not affirm. She argues that the proscription against ex post
attempt to demonstrate before the Court that the bank facto laws goes as far as to prohibit any inquiry into
inquiry order under Section 11 may be issued ex parte, deposits or investments included in bank accounts
although the petition itself did devote some space for opened prior to the effectivity of the AMLA even if
that argument. The petition argues that the bank the suspect transactions were entered into when the
inquiry order is "a special and peculiar remedy, drastic law had already taken effect. The Court recognizes that
in its name, and made necessary because of a public if this argument were to be affirmed, it would create a
horrible loophole in the AMLA that would in turn was filed ex parte before the RTC. RTC found
supply the means to fearlessly engage in money probable cause and issued the order prayed for. It
laundering in the Philippines; all that the criminal has allowed the AMLC to inquire into and examine the six
to do is to make sure that the money laundering bank deposits or investments and the related web of
activity is facilitated through a bank account opened accounts. Based on the investigation, 70 accounts were
prior to 2001. Lilia Cheng admits that "actual money involved in the scam. The Republic filed for an
launderers could utilize the ex post facto provision of application allowing an inquiry into the total of 76
the Constitution as a shield" but that the remedy lay bank deposits and investments of respondents, but it
with Congress to amend the law. We can hardly was denied by the TC. TC found no probable cause to
presume that Congress intended to enact a self- believe that the deposits and investments of
defeating law in the first place, and the courts are respondents were related to an unlawful activity. The
inhibited from such a construction by the cardinal rule Republic relied merely on 2 pieces of evidence: Senate
that "a law should be interpreted with a view to Committee Report No. 54 and the court testimony of
upholding rather than destroying it." witness Espina, AMLC Secretariat. The issue in this
case is WON the TC committed grave abuse of
Besides, nowhere in the legislative record cited by discretion in ruling that there exists no probable cause
Lilia Cheng does it appear that there was an to allow an inquiry into the total of 76 deposits and
unequivocal intent to exempt from the bank inquiry investments of respondents.
order all bank accounts opened prior to the passage of
the AMLA. (see doctrine)

There was no reason to conclude that the RTC

Republic v Bolante et al GR 186717 Apr 17,
determined the existence of probable cause, or lack
2017
thereof, in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. The
DOCTRINE: In the issuance of a bank inquiry order, application for the issuance of a bank inquiry order
the power to determine the existence of probable cause was supported only by 2 pieces of evidence (senate
report and testimony). No grave error can be ascribed
is lodged in the TC. It is necessary for the AMLC to
to the RTC for rejecting and refusing to give probative
be able to show specific facts and circumstances that
value to Senate Report. It only provided the AMLC
provide a link between an unlawful activity or a money
with the description of the alleged unlawful activity
laundering offense, on the one hand, and the account
or monetary instrument or property sought to be (the fertilizer fund scam). It was in the excerpt of the
examined on the other hand. Senate Committee Report that led the AMLC to
connect the fertilizer fund scam to the suspicious
transaction reports earlier submitted to it by PNB.
EMERGENCY RECIT:
However, the RTC found during trial that respondent
Bolante had ceased to be a member of the board of
The PNB submitted to the Anti-Money Laundering
Council (AMLC) a series of suspicious transaction trustees of LIVECOR for 14 months before the latter
reports involving the accounts of LIVECOR, Molugan even made the initial transaction, which was the
subject of the suspicious transaction reports.
Foundation, and AGS. The Senate furnished the
Furthermore, the RTC took note that according to the
AMLC a copy of its Committee Report No. 54, which
Audit Report submitted by the Commission on Audit,
narrated that former Undersecretary of Agriculture
no part of the P728 million fertilizer fund was ever
Bolante requested the Department of Budget and
Management to release to the Department of released to LIVECOR. We note that in the RTC Order
dated 17 November 2006 in AMLC SP Case No. 06-
Agriculture the amount of ₱728 million for the
003, the AMLC was already allowed ex parte to
purchase of farm inputs and liquid fertilizers. But
inquire into and examine the six bank deposits or
based on the Audit Report prepared by the COA, the
investments and the related web of accounts of
use of the funds was characterized by massive
irregularities, overpricing, and violations. The AMLC LIVECOR, Molugan, AGS, Bombeo and Panganiban.
issued Resolution No.75 finding probable cause to In fine, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in denying the application.
believe that the accounts of LIVECOR, Molugan and
AGS were related to what became known as the
while Republic v. Eugenio, Jr.( 2008), still provides
"fertilizer fund scam. Thus, the AMLC authorized the
guidance in the resolution of issues relating to the
filing of a petition for the issuance of an order allowing
an inquiry into the six accounts of LIVECOR, freeze and bank inquiry orders, the Decision in that
Molugan, AGS, Bombeo and Panganiban. The petition case no longer applies insofar as it requires that notice
be given to the account holders before a bank inquiry
order may be issued. Upon the enactment of R.A. order to allow an exception to the general rule on bank
10167 on 18 June 2012, Section 11 of R.A. 9160 was secrecy, the amendment introduced by R.A. No.
further amended to allow the AMLC to file an ex parte 10167 does away with the notice to the account
application for an order allowing an inquiry into bank holder at the time when the bank inquiry order is
deposits and investments applied for. The elimination of the requirement of
notice, by itself, is not a removal of any lawful
Estrada v SB GR 217682 Jul 17, 2018 protection to the account holder because the AMLC is
only exercising its investigative powers at this stage.
AMLC, determining that Estrada's accounts were Indeed, R.A. No. 10167, in recognition of the ex post
probably related to the charge of plunder and the facto clause of the Constitution, explicitly provides
violation of R.A. No. 3019 charged against him and that "the penal provisions shall not apply to acts done
others, authorized its secretariat to file in the CA an ex prior to the effectivity of the AMLA on October 17,
parte application for bank inquiry pursuant to R.A. 2001."
No. 9160, as amended (The Anti-Money Laundering
Act).  GRANTED Furthermore, the AMLC's inquiry and examination
into bank accounts are not undertaken whimsically
In the process of inquiring into Estrada's accounts, the based on its investigative discretion. The AMLC and
AMLC discovered that Estrada had transferred the CA are respectively required to ascertain the
substantial sums of money to the accounts of his wife, existence of probable cause before any bank inquiry
co-petitioner Ma. Presentacion Vitug Ejercito order is issued. Section 11 of R.A. 9160, even with the
(Ejercito), on the dates relevant to the Pork Barrel allowance of an ex parte application therefor, cannot
Scam. Considering that the transfers lacked apparent be categorized as authorizing the issuance of a general
legal or economic justifications, the AMLC concluded warrant. This is because a search warrant or warrant of
that the accounts were linked to a predicate crime of arrest contemplates a direct object but the bank inquiry
plunder. Hence, the AMLC filed in the CA a order does not involve the seizure of persons or
supplemental ex parte application for the bank inquiry property.25
to be conducted on Ejercito's accounts, among others
 GRANTED. Lastly, the holder of a bank account subject of a bank
inquiry order issued ex parte is not without recourse.
The results of the AMLC's bank inquiry into Estrada's He has the opportunity to question the issuance of the
accounts were contained in the so-called Inquiry bank inquiry order after a freeze order is issued against
Report on the Bank Transactions Related to the the account. He can then assail not only the finding of
Alleged Involvement of Senator Jose "Jinggoy" P. probable cause for the issuance of the freeze order, but
Ejercito Estrada in the PDAF Scam (Inquiry Report). also the finding of probable cause for the issuance of
The AMLC furnished the Office of the Ombudsman a the bank inquiry order.
copy of the Inquiry Report. During Estrada's bail
hearings in the Sandiganbayan, the Prosecution
presented Atty. Orlando C. Negradas, Jr., an AMLC F. Freezing and forfeiture- Secs 10
financial investigator, who testified on the Inquiry and 12; Civil Forfeiture Rules AM 05-11-04-
Report.9 SC Nov 2005;
See SC Asset Preservation Rules
Estrada filed the motion to suppress.  DENIED
MR  denied Republic v First Pacific Network Inc. GR
156646 Nov 19, 2014 (Notice)
ISSUE:
WON notice must first be furnished before a bank AMLC’s prayer that the freeze order be extended until
inquiry can be had  NO, AMLA = amended already proper legal actions allowed in RA 9160 shall have
by RA 10167. been taken against respondent cannot be
accommodated considering that both Congress and
WON an ex parte application for the bank inquiry this court have declared that a freeze order cannot be
does not violate the proscription against ex post issued or extended for an indeifinite period of time.
facto laws  YES, it does not.
Ligot et al v Republic GR 176944 Mar 6,
HELD:
2013
The petitioners' reliance on Republic v. Eugenio, Jr. is
SUMMARY: The freeze order over the Ligots’
misplaced. Unlike the passage of R.A. No. 9160 in
properties (which were declared by the Ombudsman to Law Enforcement Officers issued a resolution holding
be unexplained wealth) has been in effect since 2005, that probable cause exists that Lt. Gen. Ligot violated
while the civil forfeiture case – per the Republic’s Section 8, in relation to Section 11, of RA No. 6713,
manifestation – was filed only in 2011 and the as well as Article 183 (False testimony in other cases
forfeiture case under RA No. 1379 – per the and perjury in solemn affirmation) of the Revised
petitioners’ manifestation – was filed only in 2012. Penal Code.
This means that the Ligots have not been able to access
the properties subject of the freeze order for six years 7. On May 25, 2005, the AMLC issued Resolution No.
or so simply on the basis of the existence of probable 52, Series of 2005, directing the Executive Director of
cause to issue a freeze order, which was intended the AMLC Secretariat to file an application for a freeze
mainly as an interim preemptive remedy. order against the properties of Lt. Gen. Ligot and the
members of his family with the CA. Subsequently, on
DOCTRINE: The effectivity of a freeze order may be June 27, 2005, the Republic filed an Urgent Ex-Parte
extended by the CA for a period not exceeding six Application with the appellate court for the issuance of
months. Before or upon the lapse of this period, a Freeze Order against the properties of the Ligots and
ideally, the Republic should have already filed a case Yambao.
for civil forfeiture against the property owner with the
proper courts and accordingly secure an asset 8. July 2005- CA ruled that probable cause existed that
preservation order or it should have filed the necessary an unlawful activity and/or money laundering offense
information. Otherwise, the property owner should had been committed by Lt. Gen. Ligot and his family,
already be able to fully enjoy his property without any including Yambao, and that the properties sought to be
legal process affecting it. frozen are related to the unlawful activity or money
laundering offense. Accordingly, the CA issued a
FACTS: freeze order against the Ligots’ and Yambao’s various
1. 2005, the Republic, represented by the Anti-Money bank accounts, web accounts and vehicles, valid for a
Laundering Council (AMLC), filed an Urgent Ex- period of 20 days from the date of issuance.
Parte Application for the issuance of a freeze order
with the CA against certain monetary instruments and 9. September 2005 – CA extended the freeze order
properties of the petitioners, pursuant to Section 104 over the Ligots’ various bank accounts and personal
of RA 9160, (Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001). properties "until after all the appropriate proceedings
and/or investigations being conducted are terminated."
2. Lt. Gen. Ligot declared in his SALN that as of 2003, 10. The Ligots have not been able to access the
he had assets in the total amount of almost 4m. In properties subject of the freeze order for six years or
contrast, his declared assets in his 1982 SALN so simply on the basis of the existence of probable
amounted to only 105k. cause to issue a freeze order, which was intended
mainly as an interim preemptive remedy.
3. Ombudsman’s investigation revealed that Lt. Gen.
Ligot and his family had other properties and bank ISSUE (related to the subject matter):
accounts, not declared in his SALN, amounting to at Whether or not a freeze order may be issued for an
least 54m. These were declared to be illegally obtained indefinite period
and unexplained wealth, pursuant to the provisions of
RA No. 1379 (An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of RULING:
the State Any Property Found to Have Been The Court fixed the maximum allowable extension on
Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or the freeze order’s effectivity at six months. In doing
Employee and Providing for the Proceedings so, the Court sought to balance the State’s interest in
Therefor). Furthermore, the Ombudsman concluded going after suspected money launderers with an
that Yambao (Mrs. Ligot’s brother) acted as a dummy individual’s constitutionally-protected right not to be
and/or nominee of the Ligot spouses, and all the deprived of his property without due process of law, as
properties registered in Yambao’s name actually well as to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
belong to the Ligot family. Yambao did not have a
substantial salary during his employment yet the We GRANT the petition and LIFT the freeze order
records show that he has real properties and vehicles issued by the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No.
registered in his name amounting to almost 9m, which 90238. This lifting is without prejudice to, and shall
he acquired from 1993 onwards. not affect, the preservation orders that the lower courts
have ordered on the same properties in the cases
4. April 2005 - Ombudsman for the Military and Other pending before them. Pursuant to Section 56 of A.M.
No. 05-11-04-SC, the Court of Appeals is hereby the necessary motion before the expiration of the six-
ordered to remand the case and to transmit the records month period and explain the reason or reasons for its
to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 22, failure to file an appropriate case and justify the period
where the civil forfeiture proceeding is pending, for of extension sought. The freeze order should remain
consolidation therewith as may be appropriate. effective prior to the resolution by the CA, which is
hereby directed to resolve this kind of motion for
RATIO: extension with reasonable dispatch.
1. Nothing in the law grants the owner of the "frozen"
property any substantive right to demand that the
freeze order be lifted, except by implication, i.e., if he Republic v Manalo et al GR 192303 Jun 4,
can show that no probable cause exists or if the 20-day 2014
period has already lapsed without any extension being
requested from and granted by the CA. Notably, the Republic, represented in this case by the Anti–Money
Senate deliberations on RA No. 9160 even suggest the Laundering Council (AMLC), filed a complaint for
intent on the part of our legislators to make the freeze civil forfeiture, entitled “Republic v. R.A.B. Realty,
order effective until the termination of the case, when Inc., et al.,” before the Manila RTC. Subsequently, it
necessary. filed a second complaint for civil forfeiture, entitled
2. The silence of the law, does not in any way affect “Republic v. Ariola, Jr., et al.,” also before the same
the Court’s own power under the Constitution to RTC.
"promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights xxx and procedure In the said civil forfeiture cases, the Republic sought
in all courts." the forfeiture in its favor of certain deposits and
government securities maintained in several bank
 Court created A.M. No. 05-11-04- accounts by the defendants therein, which were related
SC which limits the effectivity of an to the unlawful activity of fraudulently accepting
extended freeze order to six months investments from the public, in violation of the SEC
– to otherwise leave the grant of the and AMLA.
extension to the sole discretion of
the CA, which may extend a freeze Respondents filed separate Motions for Leave to
order indefinitely or to an Intervene and Admit Attached Answer–in
unreasonable amount of time – Intervention, in the civil forfeiture cases, respectively,
carries serious implications on an alleging, inter alia, that they have a valid interest in
individual’s substantive right to due the bank accounts subject thereof.
process.
 This right demands that no person In this relation, they asserted that in a separate petition
be denied his right to property or be for involuntary insolvency proceedings filed before
subjected to any governmental the RTC of Makati City, they were appointed as
action that amounts to a denial. The assignees of the properties of Spouses Saturnino and
right to due process, under these Rosario Baladjay (Sps. Baladjay) (as well as their
terms, requires a limitation or at conduit companies) who were impleaded as
least an inquiry on whether defendants in the aforementioned civil forfeiture
sufficient justification for the cases.
governmental action.
ISSUE:
3. As a rule, the effectivity of a freeze order may be WON CA erred when it denied respondents’ separate
extended by the CA for a period not exceeding six motions for intervention in the civil forfeiture cases
months. Before or upon the lapse of this period,
ideally, the Republic should have already filed a case At this point, the Court duly notes that during the
for civil forfeiture against the property owner with the pendency of the instant petition, the Manila RTC
proper courts and accordingly secure an asset rendered a Decision which ordered the assets subject
preservation order or it should have filed the necessary of the said cases forfeited in favor of the government.
information. Otherwise, the property owner should In view thereof, the Republic prayed that it be excused
already be able to fully enjoy his property without any from filing the required reply, which the Court granted
legal process affecting it. However, should it become in a Resolution.
completely necessary for the Republic to further
extend the duration of the freeze order, it should file
HELD: MOOT NA DAW! (yan lang yung ruling address. RP continued to manifest to RTC to
talaga!) resolve motion to serve summons by publication.
5. OSG for the RP received a copy of Glasgows
In this case, the Manila RTC’s rendition of the Motion to Dismiss (by way of special appearance)
Decision dated September 23, 2010 in Civil Case No. alleging that the court had no jurisdiction over its
03–107325, as well as the Decision dated February 11, person because summons has yet to be served;
2011 and the Amended Decision dated May 9, 2011 in complaint has no cause of action; and RP failed to
Civil Case No. 03–107308, by virtue of which the prosecute.
assets subject of the said cases were all forfeited in 6. RP opposed the MTD contending that the suit was
favor of the government, are supervening quasi in rem and acquiring jurisdiction was not a
events which have effectively rendered the essential prerequisite
issue in this case moot and academic, that is, whether 7. RTC dismissed the case
or not respondents should have been allowed by the
Manila RTC to intervene on the ground that they. have Held: NO.
a legal interest in the forfeited assets. As the 1. Complaint was filed at the proper venue. Glasgow
proceedings in the civil forfeiture cases from which the never questions the validity of the venue. RTC
issue of intervention is merely an incident have already should not have ruled upon its propriety. RTC was
been duly concluded, no substantial relief can be the proper venue and the order has yet attained
granted to the Republic by resolving the instant finality.
petition.
2. Complaint was sufficient in form and substance.
The complaint for civil forfeiture of assets filed by
Republic v Glasgow Credit and Collection AMLC alleged that the account owned by
Services 542 SCRA 95 (2008) Glasgow under CSBI has been subject of
Suspicious Transaction Reports. SC finds thats
Doctrine: In applying for civil forfeiture, petitioner the decision of the RTC is incorrect, because the
must allege the act prohibited under AMLA. focus in determining the presence of cause of
action is the sufficiency of the material allegations
Issue: Whether the complaint for civil forfeiture was and not the veracity.
correctly dismissed on grounds of improper venue,
insufficiency in form and substance and failure to The SC notes that the contents of the petition
prosecute. for civil forfeiture are, among others, acts or
commissions prohibited by AMLA. This was
Facts: complied by the RP. RA 9160, as amended, and its
1. On July 18, 2003, the Republic filed a complaint implementing rules and regulations lay down two
in the RTC Manila for civil forfeiture of conditions when applying for civil forfeiture: (1) when
assets with TRO with a writ of injunction against there is a suspicious transaction report or a covered
the bank deposits in account number CA-005-10- transaction report deemed suspicious after
000121-5 maintained by Glasgow in CSBI investigation by the AMLC and; (2) the court has, in
pursuant to RA 9160 or the Anti-Money a petition filed for the purpose, ordered the seizure of
Laundering Act of 2001. any monetary instrument or property, in whole or in
2. RTC of Manila granted the TRO and then the writ part, directly or indirectly, related to said report.
of injunction. Summons to Glasgow was unserved
as it could no longer be found at its last known 3. The is no failure to prosecute because Glasgow’s
address. RP requested to alias summons and whereabouts could not be ascertained was not
publication. But, only alias summons was only beyond the Republics control, it was also
directed. attributable to Glasgow which left its principal
3. After 4 months, RTC achieved the case for failure office address without informing the Securities
to serve the alias summons. RP filed a motion to and Exchange Commission or any official
reinstates the case and resolve the motion to serve regulatory body (like the Bureau of Internal
summons by publication. RTC only directed RP Revenue or the Department of Trade and
to issue alias summons Industry) of its new address. In ascertaining delay
4. RP received a copy of the sheriffs return stating to prosecute, there must be a wanton failure to
that the alias summons was returned unserved as observe the mandatory requirement of the rules on
Glasgow was no longer holding office at the given the part of the plaintiff, The SC sees no partner or
address since July 2002 and left no forwarding
scheme on the part of the RP to delay the
disposition.