(A.

AMLA) Philippines Deposit Insurance Vs Manu Gidwani

Doctrine: Estafa or swindling is defined under the Revised Penal Code as having four elements: 1.) fraudulent
act is present; 2.) Such fraudulent act is committed on or before the commission of fraud;3.) the aggrieved party
depends on such fraudulent act; and 4.) which resulted to damages suffered by the aggrieved party.

Facts: Manu Gidwani and his wife are accused of having 471 deposit accounts with the Legacy Banks that are
listed under 86 different names. According to the PDIC investigation, 142 of these accounts were named after
the spouses' employees and helpers who, in all likelihood, lacked the financial means to deposit the funds listed
under their names and emphasize that, though they do not own the account, the advance interest of the
various deposits were paid to the Gidwani spouses. Although they are the only recipients, the couples gave the
impression that 86 different people contributed to the deposited insurance. The DOJ dismissed the complaint
due to a lack of probable cause, and the application for reconsideration was also denied. However, SOJ Caparas
later reversed this decision and approved the motion for PDIC reconsideration. After that, the respondent filed
a complaint for gross abuse of discretion against S0J Caparas before the CA, where the court overturned SOJ
Caparas' decision and further iterated how the PDIC's claim was inadequate to qualify as estafa or
money-laundering. PDIC requested reconsideration, but was turned down.

Issue: Whether or not the CA is unerring in its decision to dismiss the money laundering and estafa via
falsification cases due to a lack of probable cause

Ruling:

No. The court later cited R.A. No. 3591, as amended, which mandates that deposits in banks for the benefit of
the depositor, whether made in his name or that of others, shall be consolidated and that the insured deposit
amount owed to a bona fide depositor should not exceed P250,000. The respondent evaded this requirement by
conspiring with 86 people, according to the court. The court disputes with the CA that PDIC lacks adequate
evidence that Manu (respondent) is the owner of the account in question or provided the financing for it. The
PDIC found that 471 accounts had sole beneficiaries, and that 142 of those were in the names of spouses'
helpers and employees who lacked the financial means to deposit the amounts listed on the records, raising
suspicions about who really owned the money that had been deposited. Thus, the court confirmed DO Caparas'
decision to charge defendant Manu Gidwani with money laundering and estafa by deception.
(B. AMLA) Republic vs. Cabrini Green and Ross

Doctrine: The Court of Appeals may issue a freeze order as provided under Section 10 of RA 9160, as amended
by RA 9194, upon the application ex parte of AMLC and when it has been determined that there is probable
cause to believe that any money or property is connected to an illegal activity as defined in Section 3(1). the
Court of Appeals may issue freeze order which shall be effective immediately, and which shall be for a period of
20 days and can be extended by the court.

Facts: AMLC issued a freeze order against the respondent's various accounts after learning of the connection
between the respondent's illegal actions and its bank account., which is effective for a period not exceeding 15
days which is extendable "upon order of the court. Assuming that the CA has the right to do so, AMLC
requested an extension of the freezing order's effectiveness from the CA within the allotted 15 days. The CA
denied the petition and ruled that RA 9160 did not give the court the authority to extend a freeze order issued
by the AMLC.

Issue: Whether or not the CA has the authority to extend the effectivity of the freeze order imposed by the
AMIC

Ruling: Yes. It is clear that the CA has the authority to impose frozen orders and sole jurisdiction to extend
them in response to an AMLC application. The petitioner was therefore returned to the Court of Appeals by the
court. as The court cited section 10 of RA 9160 as amended by RA 9194, which states that the that the CA have
the power to issue a freeze order that have immediate effectivity for a period of 20 days, unless extended by the
court and section 12 of RA 9194 which expressly provides that Court of Appeals have the authority to extend
freeze order issued by the AMLC. Thus the petitioner was therefore returned to the Court of Appeals by the
court.
(C. AMLA) Ligot vs. Republic

Doctrine: Section 10 of RA No. 9160, as amended by RA No. 9194, states that in order to issue a freezing order,
there must first be an ex parte application from the AMLC and a determination by the CA that there is
probable cause.

Facts: Gen. Ligot together with his wife and four children was revealed to have other properties and bank
account which the Ombudsman who held the investigation to be named after each of them individually. The
Ombudsman further declared that the assets were obtained unlawfully and came from unaccounted riches
taking into account Lt. General’s AFP pay served as his primary source of income; the Ombudsman came to the
conclusion that Yambao functioned as a dummy and/or nominee of the spouses and that all the properties
under Yamboa's name are held by the Ligot. He also looked into the brother of Mrs. Ligot, Yambao, who
claimed three addresses of the Ligots as his. Once the court determined that Lt. Gen. Ligot and his family had
engaged in illegal activity and/or money laundering, it issued a freeze order against Ligot's and Yambao's bank
accounts. Thereafter, The Republic, represented by AMLC, filed an urgent Ex-Parte Application for the issuance
of a freeze order against the petitioner's properties and financial instruments before CA, which was granted.
Until the conclusion of the investigation and/or the necessary processes, Republic's urgent motion for an
extension of the freeze order's effectiveness was granted. Ligots requested the lifting of the prolonged freezing
order, but his request was denied. He then requested a review, which was also denied.

Issue: Whether or not the CA committed a serious abuse of discretion by extending the freezing order against
him and his family given that the money laundering accusation has not yet been proven.

Ruling: Yes. The court discussed how the CA imposed the freeze order as an extraordinary and interim measure
to prevent the property's disposal. The Republic violated the freeze order by failing to file a civil forfeiture
lawsuit in court for six years, but the court emphasizes that the freeze order only has a temporary impact and
can be extended for up to six months. The court cited section 10 of RA No. 9160, as amended by. RA No. 9194
which states that, freezing of monetary instrument or property can be made by the CA upon the application ex
parte of AMLC and following the determination of the existence of probable cause that any of the monetary
instrument or property is, in any way, related to an illegal activity, which can be effective immediately for the
period of 20 days, which can be extended upon the motion of the court. Thus, the court mandated that the
freeze order issued by the CA be lifted.
(D.) AMLA
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by THE ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING COUNCIL (AMIC), petitioner, vs. HON. ANTONIO M. EUGENIO, JR., AS PRESIDING
JUDGE OF RTC, MANILA, BRANCH 34, PANTALEON ALVAREZ and LILIA CHENG, respondents.
G.R. No. 174629
February 14, 2008
SECOND DIVISION, TINGA, J.:

DOCTRINE: Even in the absence of a prior case, a Bank Inquiry Order may be obtained under the AMLA;
however, this does not imply that an order may be obtained ex parte.

FACTS: The NAIA 3 contract awards to PIATCO and the CIS of AMLC were the subject of an investigation by
the Ombudsman. The OSG emphasized that the Republic represented itself in defense in two international
arbitration proceedings over the subject and requested assistance from the AMLC in acquiring evidence to
reveal the corruption in the NAIA 3 Project. Pantaleon Alvarez, the Chairman of the PBAC Technical
Committee on the NAIA 3 Project, was among the individuals engaged in the aforementioned award whose
financial activities were investigated by the CIS. He has been accused of violating Section 3 () of the RA Now.
The 3019 document, which was submitted by the Ombudsman, included within the document is a statement
revealing S accounts with six different banks.By issuing Resolution No. 75, series of 2005, the Council granted
the Executive Director of the AMIC authority to execute and validate an application or inquire about Alvarez's
investments along with those of Wilfredo Trinidad, Alfredo Liongson, Cheng Yong, and any other parties
involved in the web of accounts. The AMIC then submitted a request to the RTC of Makati Branch, seeking
permission to do so. The RTC granted the request due to a "probable cause", in suspicion of violating Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act which is a topic of criminal prosecution before the Sandiganbayan. In order to
investigate or examine the 13 accounts and two related webs of accounts allegedly used for corruption in the
NAIA 3 Project, AMIC filed a request with the RTC in Manila on behalf of the Republic. The RTC in Manila
then issued an order granting the Ex Parte Application with merit in accordance with Section 11 of R.A. No.
9160, as well as Rules 11.1 and 11.2 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations. Alvarez appeared before
the RTC in Manila with the assistance of counsel, and he filed an Urgent Motion to Stay Enforcement of Order,
arguing that R.A. No. 9160 did not include the ability to authorize the AMLC to request permission to conduct
an ex parte investigation into bank accounts.

ISSUE: Whether or not Section 11 of the AMLA expressly permits the issue of the Bank Inquiry Order on an ex
parte basis.

RULING: NO. According to the court, the current IRR of the AMLA, an ex parte procedure was not considered
with the application of the bank inquiry order. As provided by R.A No. 9194, in which it is stated that the
regulations explicitly provide that ex parte applications for freezing orders may be made in accordance with
Section 10, but no such permission is given in the case of inquiry orders in accordance with Section 11.
Furthermore,
The court ruled that while Section 11 generally does not permit the issuance of an ex parte bank inquiry order,
it does permit the AMLC to investigate bank accounts without first obtaining a court order when there is
probable cause to believe that the deposits or investments are connected to criminal activity such as destructive
arson, hijacking, kidnapping for ransom, murder, or certain violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002. No. 6235, but that silence does not prove that a bank investigation order was issued ex parte, and it
does not forbid it; instead, it falls under Section 10 Which permits an ex-parte application and may issue a
freeze order for the provisional relief that is not present in Section 11; the AMLC possessed this authority,
although a bank inquiry order always required a court order.
(E. AMLA)
REPUBLIC VS. JOCELYN I. BOLANTE
CR No. 186717

DOCTRINE: The authority to decide whether there is enough evidence to justify the issuance of a bank inquiry
order lies with the trial court. To obtain such an order, the AMIC must present specific evidence that connects
an unlawful activity or money laundering offense with the account, monetary instrument, or property in
question.

AMIC received many suspicious transaction reports from the PNB regarding the 15-month transfer of P172.6
million from LIVECOR to Molugan. Even though there was no justifiable cause for the transactions, LIVECOR
also sent P40 million to AGS, while Molugan deposited P38 million to AGS on the same day, which was
immediately returned. These accounts were connected to the "fertilizer fund scam," as described in Senate
Committee Report No. 54, according to an investigation by the AMLC. According to this allegation, Jocelyn I.
Bolante, a former undersecretary of agriculture who was also the acting chairman of LIVECOR under President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, asked P728 million to buy farm inputs under the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani
Program. The RIC granted the AMIC's ex parte petition, allowing them to investigate and examine the six bank
deposits and related accounts, leading to the discovery of a total of 70 bank accounts involved in the scam.
However, in compliance with the ruling in Republic v. Eugenio, the Republic sought an order allowing an
inquiry into the bank accounts after giving notice to the account holders. The CA issued freeze orders, but the
RIC found no probable cause due to insufficient evidence with regard to the Senate Committee Report, which
only conducts inquiries to aid legislation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC made a mistake in ruling that there was no justification for allowing inquiry
over the deposits and investments of the respondents?

RULING: No. If there is sufficient justification to issue a bank investigation order, the trial court has the
authority to do so. In Republic v. Eugenio, when "determination" refers to the judgment of the court, this was
established. The court must deliberate and be persuaded of the facts before accepting the AML's assertion of
probable cause. When compared to the respondents' presentation, the Senate Committee Report No. 34's
description of the suspected illegal activities was insufficient proof. Therefore, in rejecting the application, the
RTC did not abuse its authority.
(F. AMLA)
SUBIDO VS COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. 216914
DOCTRINE: Ex-parte application and inquiry by the AML does not violate due process and privacy rights, as it
follows the requirements for issuance of a bank inquiry order under Section 11 of the AMLA.

FACTS: Reports regarding former vice president Jejomar Binay's alleged excessive wealth and that of his family
members who were also public officials surfaced prior to the 2016 presidential elections. The Senate and the
Office of the Ombudsman both undertook inquiries. When a news report stated the AMIC's appeal to the
Court of Appeals to look into the Binay family's financial accounts, petitioner SPCMB, a law firm associated
with the Binay family, grew alarmed. A copy of the ex-parte application was requested, but they were turned
down. Later, the CA approved the application, which led SPCMB to file a case with the Supreme Court to have
their rights and interests protected.

ISSUE: Whether the AMIC's investigation of particular bank savings and investments through an ex-parte
application is unconstitutional?

RULING: No. Ex-parte applications and investigations by the AMLC into specific bank deposits and
investments do not infringe on due process and privacy rights guaranteed by the constitution. The CA must
make sure that there is probable reason for associated accounts, and the AMLC is required to provide probable
cause for its ex-parte application. The authority is required to abide by the Constitution's guidelines. A specific
exemption to the basic rule of complete confidentiality of bank deposits is outlined in Section 11 of the AMLA.
The trial courts have jurisdiction over money laundering cases, whereas the AMLC lacks investigation
authority. Given that Section 11 of the AMLA differs from a search warrant, it has been determined to be
constitutional.