PREMIO ESPECIAL ODS 1. Objetivo

G.R. No. 170281, January 18, 2008, CORONA, J.

A criminal conviction for an unlawful activity is not a prerequisite for the institution of a civil forfeiture proceeding. Stated otherwise, a finding of guilt for an unlawful activity is not an essential element of civil forfeiture.

Facts:

Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint for civil forfeiture of assets with the RTC of Manila against the bank deposits maintained by GLASGOW in CSBI pursuant to RA 9160 or the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001. Meanwhile, summons to GLASGOW was returned “unserved” as it could no longer be found at its last known address.Trial court archived the case for failure of the Republic to serve alias summons. GLASGOW’s motion to dismiss by way of special appearance alleging that the complaint was premature and stated no cause of action.

Issue:

Whether a criminal conviction is necessary for the institution of a civil forfeiture proceeding.

Ruling:

NO.Section 6 of RA 9160, as amended, provides: SEC. 6. Prosecution of Money Laundering.

(a) Any person may be charged with and convicted of both the offense of money laundering and the unlawful activity as herein defined.

(b) Any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity shall be given precedence over the prosecution of any offense or violation under this Act without prejudice to the freezing and other remedies provided.

Rule 6.1 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9160, as amended, states:

(a) Any person may be charged with and convicted of both the offense of money laundering and the unlawful activity as defined under Rule 3(i) of the AMLA.

(b) Any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity shall be given precedence over the prosecution of any offense or violation under the AMLA without prejudice to the application ex-parte by the AMLC to the Court of Appeals for a freeze order with respect to the monetary instrument or property involved therein and resort to other remedies provided under the AMLA, the Rules of Court and other pertinent laws and rules. (emphasis supplied)

Finally, Section 27 of the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture provides:

Sec. 27. No prior charge, pendency or conviction necessary. No prior criminal charge, pendency of or conviction for an unlawful activity or money laundering offense is necessary for the commencement or the resolution of a petition for civil forfeiture. (emphasis supplied)

Thus, regardless of the absence, pendency or outcome of a criminal prosecution for the unlawful activity or for money laundering, an action for civil forfeiture may be separately and independently prosecuted and resolved.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL (AMLC),v. HON. ANTONIO M. EUGENIO, JR., AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC,

MANILA, BRANCH 34, PANTALEON ALVAREZ and LILIA CHENG G.R. No. 174629, February 14, 2008, TINGA, J.

AMLC may inquire into a bank account upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of the AMLA after having been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to unlawful activities such as those acts under Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Facts:

AMLC filed an application to inquire into or examine the deposits or investments of Alvarez, Trinidad, Liongson and Cheng Yong before the RTC of MakatiMakati RTC rendered an Order granting the AMLC the authority to inquire and examine the subject bank accounts of Alvarez, Trinidad, Liongson and Cheng Yong, The trial court being satisfied that there existed probable cause to believe that the deposits in various bank accounts which are related to the offense of violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. AMLC promulgated Resolution No. 121 Series of 2005, which authorized the executive director of the AMLC to inquire into and examine the accounts named in the letter, including one maintained by Alvarez with DBS Bank and two other accounts in the name of Cheng Yong with Metrobank.

Issue:

Whether the bank accounts of Alvarez, Trinidad, Liongson and Cheng Yong can be examined.

Ruling:

YES.Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy Act itself prescribes exceptions whereby these bank accounts may be examined by any person, government official, bureau or official; namely when: (1) upon written permission of the depositor; (2) in cases of impeachment; (3) the examination of bank accounts is upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials; and (4) the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. Section 8 of R.A. Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, has been recognized by this Court as constituting an additional exception to the rule of absolute confidentiality, and there have been other similar recognitions as well. The AMLA also provides exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Act. Under Section 11, the AMLC may inquire

into a bank account upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of the AMLA, it having been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to unlawful activities such as deposits or investments are related to kidnapping for ransom,certain violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,hijacking and other violations under R.A. No. 6235, destructive arson and murder, then there is no need for the AMLC to obtain a court order before it could inquire into such accounts.

Freezing of Monetary Instruments or Property

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by the ANTI-MONEYLAUNDERING COUNCIL,v. CABRINI GREEN & ROSS, INC.,MICHAEL J. FINDLAY and JANEGELBERG,

G.R. No. 154522, May 5, 2006, CORONA, J.

Court of Appeals which has the authority to issue a freeze order as well as to extend its effectivity.

Facts:

In the exercise of its power under Section 10 of RA 9160, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) issued freeze orders against various bank accounts of Cabrini Green and Ross Inc. The frozen bank accounts were previously found prima facie to be related to the unlawful activities of respondents. However, the CA disagreed with the AMLC and dismissed the petitions on the ground that it was not vested by RA 9160 with the power to extend a freeze order issued by the AMLC.

Issue:

Whether AMLC has the jurisdiction to extend freeze order. Ruling:

NO.During the pendency of these petitions, Congress enactedAnti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 and gave the CA jurisdiction to extend the effectivity of a freeze order. The amendment by RA 9194 of RA 9160 erased any doubt on the jurisdiction of the CA over the extension of freeze orders. As the law now stands, it is solely the CA which has the authority to issue a freeze order as well as to extend its effectivity. It also has the exclusive jurisdiction to extend existing freeze orders previously issued by the AMLC vis--vis accounts and deposits related to money-laundering activities.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________

RET. LT. GEN. JACINTO C. LIGOT, ERLINDA Y. LIGOT, PAULO Y. LIGOT, RIZA Y. LIGOT, and MIGUEL Y. LIGOT, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the ANTI-

MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL