Uploads PDF 196 CV 97221 06262015

Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
FIRST (1ST) DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CV NO. 97221

Represented by the ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING COUNCIL (AMLC), Members:
Plaintiff-Appellee, REYES, A.B., JR., PJ, Chairperson,
GONZALES-SISON, M., and
- versus - CRUZ, R.A., JJ.
ARTEMIO SAN JUAN, JR., Promulgated:

ACKERMAN & CO., INC., UNION
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, JUNE 26, 2015
UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS
BANK, BANKWISE, INC. AND
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS,
Defendants,
ARTEMIO SAN JUAN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.
x------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
Cruz, R.A., J.:
THE CASE
This is an appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court seeking

to reverse and set aside the Decision dated March 24, 2011 1 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila City, Branch 24 in Civil Case
No. 03-107313. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
“ xxx xxx xxx

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
plaintiff and against defendant Artemio San Juan, Jr.
The following bank accounts and investments are hereby

ordered forfeited in favor of the State:
Bank Accounts
C.A-G.R. CV NO. 97221 Page 2 of 22
DECISION
Account Holder Account Number Bank Amount

Artemio S. San (12130-000143-6) Union Bank of the P 61,967.03
Juan, Jr. 12058-0003560-4 Phils.
Juan, Jr. 10058-001631-0 Phils.
Artemio S. San CP 8-03553726 United Coconut P 417,703.56
Juan, Jr. Planters Bank
Artemio S. San 2051-A United Coconut P 59,476.56
Juan, Jr. ITF Arthur Planters Bank
David San Juan
Artemio S. San 2051-B United Coconut P 509,444.91
David San Juan
Artemio S. San 11004-02645-9 Bankwise, Inc. P 1,519,007.14
Juan, Jr.
Artemio S. San 11004-02644-1 Bankwise, Inc. P 429,93.14 (sic)
Juan Jr.
Juan Jr.
Artemio S. San 3253-2380-37 Bank of the P 1,038,099.47
Juan Jr. Philippine Islands
Investments
Registered Owner Securities No. of Shares

Artemio S. San Juan, Jr. ABS-CBN Holding Corp. 10,000
and/or Luz M. Zaldivia (ABSP)
Artemio S. San Juan, Jr. Bank of the Philippine 10,000
and/or Luz M. Zaldivia Islands (BPI)
Artemio S. San Juan, Jr. Metro Pacific Corporation 400,000
and/or Luz M. Zaldivia (MPC)
Artemio S. San Juan, Jr. San Miguel Corporation 5,000
and/or Luz M. Zaldivia (SMCB)
Artemio S. San Juan, Jr. PLDT (TEL) 2,000
and/or Luz M. Zaldivia
Unlad Placement Funds with Land Bank of the Philippines in the

amounts of P52,468.46 and P103,822.30 or in the aggregate
amounts (sic) of P156,290 (sic).
For lack of merit, the counterclaim interposed by

defendant Artemio San Juan, Jr., is ordered dismissed.
Being mere nominal defendants, the Complaint and its

supplement are likewise dismissed against defendants
DECISION
Ackermmann (sic) & Co., Inc., Union Bank of the Philippines,

United Coconut Planters Bank, Bankwise, Inc., Bank of the
Philippine Islands and Land Bank of the Philippines.
With costs against defendant San Juan, Jr.
SO ORDERED.
xxx xxx xxx “
THE ANTECEDENTS
On July 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic),

through the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), as plaintiff,
filed a complaint for civil forfeiture of assets with urgent plea for the
issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction against Artemio San Juan, Jr. (San Juan),
Ackerman & Co., Inc. (Ackerman), Union Bank of the Philippines
(UBP), United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), Bankwise, Inc.
(Bankwise) and Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), as
defendants, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,
Branch 33, docketed as Civil Case No. 03-107313.
In its Complaint,2 Plaintiff Republic alleged the following

material facts, viz:
“ xxx xxx xxx

5. Plaintiff seeks to forfeit in favor of the Government
certain deposits found in the bank accounts of the defendant
San Juan, described as follows:

Juan, Jr. 12058-0003560-4 Phils.
Juan, Jr. 10058-001631-0 Phils.
David San Juan
David San Juan
DECISION

Juan, Jr.
Juan Jr.
Juan Jr.
Plaintiff, likewise, seeks to forfeit the following securities

and/or shares of stocks registered in the name of defendant
San Juan:

CAUSE OF ACTION
6. Defendant San Juan appears to be the owner of the

above-mentioned bank deposits and shares of stocks. As
events have proved, aforestated bank deposits and shares of
stocks had (sic) been linked to the so-called “Land Bank tax
scam” and are, therefore, related to the unlawful activity of
Estafa, punishable under Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code, committed by defendant San Juan. The bank deposits
and shares of stocks have been subjects of Suspicious
Transaction Reports, xxx xxx
7. After appropriate investigation, the AMLC issued

Resolution Nos. 111 (August 9, 2002), 112 (August 12, 2002),
114 (August 13, 2002), 125 (August 28, 2002) and 126 (August
29, 2002), directing the issuance of freeze orders against bank
accounts of defendant San Juan. xxx xxx
8. Pursuant to said AMLC Resolutions, Freeze Orders Nos.

0014, 0015, 0017, 0022 and 0023 were issued on different
dates, addressed to the concerned banks, xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx

DECISION
10. As freeze orders issued by plaintiff have limited

effectivity of only fifteen (15) days in accordance with R.A.
9160 (before its amendment) – unless a petition for extension
is filed in court, in which event, the “period shall be tolled
pending the court's decision to extend” – plaintiff AMLC filed
(sic) corresponding petition for extension of freeze orders with
the Honorable Court of Appeals.
11. On April 15, 2003, the Honorable Court of Appeals

rendered a Decision in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 72403, declaring the
existence of probable cause to warrant an extension of plaintiff
AMLC's freeze orders xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the

freeze orders in AMLC Cases Nos. FO-0014, FO-0015, FO-
0017, FO-0022 and FO-0023 are EXTENDED for a period of
ninety (90) days counted from April 22, 2003 without further
extension.”
xxx xxx xxx
12. The Honorable Court of Appeals' decision, supra, has by

now attained finality, there being no motion for reconsideration
filed by any party.
13. Because defendant's bank deposits and shares of

stocks are related to an unlawful activity and money laundering
offense as aforestated, and being the subject of covered
transaction reports and eventual freeze orders, the same
should properly be forfeited in favor of the government in
accordance with Section 12, R.A. 9160, as amended.
xxx xxx xxx
15. The effectivity of the freeze orders on subject accounts

and deposits is due to expire “ninety (90) days counted from
April 22, 2003” or until July 21, 2003.
16. Unless restrained by a temporary restraining order and

eventually, by a writ of preliminary injunction, there is an
imminent certainty that subject bank accounts and deposits –
with the ease provided by advanced banking technology – will
be removed, transferred, concealed or withdrawn to place them
beyond the reach of the law thereby rendering any favorable
judgment in the present case ineffectual and the efforts of the
Government to implement the law futile.
xxx xxx xxx “
DECISION
On July 21, 2003, the RTC issued a 72-hour Temporary

Restraining Order (Order).3 In its Order dated July 24, 2003, 4 the
RTC extended the TRO for another seventeen (17) days from July
25, 2003 and set the hearing on the application for the issuance of
a writ of preliminary injunction on August 5, 2003.
After hearing, the RTC issued an Order dated August 8,

5
2003 granting the application for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction. On an even date, a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction was issued.6
Defendants UCPB,7 UBP,8 Ackerman,9 and Bankwise.10 filed

their respective Answers.
Defendant San Juan filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the

Order dated August 8, 2003 and a Motion to Dismiss Complaint. 11
On September 15, 2003, the RTC issued an Order 12 denying the
motion for reconsideration. The Motion to Dismiss Complaint also
suffered the same fate in the RTC Order dated October 3, 2003. 13
Defendant San Juan filed an Answer Ad Cautelam,14 on

November 17, 2003, denying the material allegations and, by way
of affirmative and special defenses, averred that the AMLC has no
probable cause to freeze the bank accounts and shares of stocks
registered in his name; plaintiff has no cause of action to ask for
the forfeiture of the bank accounts and shares of stocks because
they are not proceeds of estafa or any unlawful activity; the bank
accounts and shares of stocks registered in his name are not
entirely owned by him and were acquired through legitimate
means; and that mere non-reporting of the covered transactions
pertaining to the alleged fictitious accounts is not a ground for
forfeiture of the subject bank accounts and shares of stocks.
On April 4, 2004, Plaintiff Republic filed a Motion for Leave to

File Supplemental Complaint15 and Motion to Admit Attached
Supplemental Complaint16 seeking to forfeit in favor of the
government the Unlad Fund Placements of Defendant San Juan
with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) in the amounts of
P52,468.46, Philippine Currency, and P103,822.31, Philippine
Currency, or a total amount of P156,290.77, Philippine Currency.
Defendant San Juan opposed the motion arguing that the Unlad
Fund Placements were made even before the effectivity of the Anti-
Money Laundering Act of 2001, are below the threshhold amount
DECISION
and are not related to any unlawful activity. 17
On July 12, 2004, Plaintiff Republic moved to withdraw the

Motion to Admit Supplemental Complaint because the AMLC
issued Resolution No. 392 dated July 9, 2004 directing the
exclusion of the Unlad Fund Placements of the Defendant San
Juan.18 In its Order dated July 22, 2004,19 the RTC granted the
motion and considered the same withdrawn.
On September 27, 2005, Plaintiff Republic filed another

Motion for Leave of Court to File Supplemental Complaint 20
alleging that after the filing of the complaint, the Office of the
Ombudsman, after appropriate investigation, rendered a
Resolution dated April 2, 2004 finding probable cause to charge
Defendant San Juan with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No.
3019, as amended, in relation to his participation in the Land Bank
tax scam; and that the bank accounts and shares of stock subject
of the present forfeiture proceedings are related to the unlawful
activities of estafa and violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019,
as amended, committed by Defendant San Juan. Hence, the same
should be forfeited in favor of the government in accordance with
Section 12, R.A. No. 9160, as amended. Appended to the motion is
a copy of the Supplemental Complaint. 21
Defendant San Juan filed an Answer to Supplemental

Complaint22 repleading and adopting his Answer Ad Cautelam.
Plaintiff Republic filed a Motion to Admit the Attached Reply. 23 On
March 2, 2006, the RTC issued an Order 24 admitting Plaintiff
Republic's Reply.
The parties filed their respective pre-trial briefs. 25 A pre-trial

conference was thereafter conducted.26
On April 28, 2008, Defendant San Juan filed a Motion for

Leave to File/Admit the Attached Demurrer to Evidence 27 arguing
that the plaintiff did not offer any evidence to specifically prove that
the subject bank accounts and shares of stocks are proceeds of
estafa and/or graft and corruption under Section 3 of R.A. No.
3019.
Plaintiff Republic, in its Comment, 28 argued that no prior

charge, pendency or conviction is necessary for the
commencement of a petition for civil forfeiture.
DECISION
On June 2, 2008, the RTC issued an Order 29 denying

Defendant San Juan's demurrer to evidence. Defendant San Juan
moved for the reconsideration of the RTC Order dated June 2,
2008,30 but the same was denied by the RTC in its Order dated
August 22, 2008.31
On March 24, 2011, the RTC of Manila, Branch 24 32

rendered a Decision33 in favor of Plaintiff Republic. It ruled in this
wise:
“ xxx xxx xxx

A judicious examination of the evidence adduced by the
plaintiff, both testimonial and documentary, would readily show
that it has more that (sic) established its cause of action by
preponderance of evidence.
The Sworn Statements of Assets and Liabilities of

defendant San Juan covering the years 2000, 2001 and 2002
are by themselves eloquent proof that he could not have
acquired the money and properties sought to be forfeited
through legitimate means.
For the three-year period, San Juan had aggregate

networth of P406,739.30, P660,000.00 and P1,568,511.00,
respectively. Thus, not a (sic) even a mathematical wizard can
justify defendant's deposits and acquisitions.
Banking records cannot lie. For the three year period,

defendants (sic) made the following investments and deposits:
Year Networth/SALN Bank

Deposits/Investments
2000 P407,739.30 P0.00
2001 P660,000.00 P3,200,000.00
2002 P1,565,511/00 (sic) P12,777,171.39
And the times these deposits were made dovetailed with

his term as Bank Executive Officer and acting Head of Land
Bank – Binangonan Branch when the Land Bank – Tax
Diversion scandal came into being.
Given the weight and sufficiency of the plaintiff's

documentary and testimonial evidence, defendant San Juan's
futile attempts at escaping liability pale in comparison. We can
only say that defendant is clutching at straws. But even the
DECISION
straws, more imagined than real, do not exist and cannot save
him.
As correctly pointed out by plaintiff:
(i) the Mercantile Securities Corporation Customer

Ledger Book took place from October 1, 2007 to October
31, 2007, and from April 2008 to April 30, 2008, while the
transactions involved in the present case occurred dluring
(sic) the years 2001-2002; and
(ii) Engineer Bienvenido Cruz and Carolina San Juan

and Jean Palisoc are not registered as co-owners of the
moneys deposited with the subject banks.
As to the defense that he derived much of his wealth

from treasure hunting, we need not belabor on its absurdity.
Such a defense is an unmitigated farce unworthy of any
intelligent comment.
xxx xxx xxx “
Hence, the RTC decreed:
“ xxx xxx xxx

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of
the plaintiff and against defendant Artemio San Juan, Jr.
The following bank accounts and investments are hereby

ordered forfeited in favor of the State:
Bank Accounts

Juan, Jr. 12058-0003560-4 Phils.
Juan, Jr. 10058-001631-0 Phils.
David San Juan
David San Juan
Juan, Jr.
DECISION
Juan Jr.
Juan Jr.
Investments

Unlad Placement Funds with Land Bank of the Philippines in the

amounts of P52,468.46 and P103,822.30 34 or in the aggregate
amounts (sic) of P156,290 (sic).
For lack of merit, the counterclaim interposed by

defendant Artemio San Juan, Jr, is ordered dismissed.
Being mere nominal defendants, the Complaint and its

supplement are likewise dismissed against defendants
Ackermmann (sic) & Co., Inc., Union Bank of the Philippines,
United Coconut Planters Bank, Bankwise, Inc., Bank of the
Philippine Islands and Land Bank of the Philippines.
With costs against defendant San Juan, Jr.
SO ORDERED.35
xxx xxx xxx “
Aggrieved, Defendant San Juan filed a Notice of Appeal, 36

which the RTC gave due course in the Order dated April 28,
2011.37
DECISION
THE ASSIGNED ERRORS
Defendant San Juan, now the appellant before Us, raises the
following assignment of errors:
I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING

THE FORFEITURE OF THE SUBJECT SHARES OF
STOCKS AND BANK ACCOUNTS BASED ONLY ON
THE STATEMENTS OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND
NETWORTH (SALNs) OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
WHICH ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THIS CASE,
AND THERE IS ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND A
DEFINITIVE FINDING OF THE COURT THAT THEY
WERE INDEED PROCEEDS OF ESTAFA OR GRAFT
AND CORRUPTION UNDER SECTION 3, R.A. NO.
3019, AS AMENDED.
II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING

PROBATIVE WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
SHOWING THAT HE IS NOT THE SOLE OWNER OF
THE SUBJECT SHARES OF STOCKS AND BANK
ACCOUNTS AND THAT THESE WERE ACQUIRED
THROUGH LEGITIMATE MEANS.
Defendant-appellant San Juan posits that Plaintiff-appellee

Republic did not offer any evidence to prove that the subject bank
accounts and shares of stocks registered in his name were indeed
proceeds of estafa and/or graft and corruption under Section 3,
R.A. No. 3019, as amended. In fact, while he was charged for
violation of Section 3 (e), R.A. No. 3019, as amended, before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 68
docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 04-699 to 04-702, he was
however acquitted of same in the Decision dated March 1, 2010.
He also points out that the RTC of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 68,
in its Decision dated January 20, 2009, acquitted him in Criminal
Case Nos. 02-408 to 02-422 for violation of Section 4 (c) in
relation to Section 14 (a) of R.A. No. 9160. He further points out
that the action for civil forfeiture must fail because it was only
based on a suspicious transaction report and not on a covered
DECISION
transaction report as provided in Section 12 (a) of R.A. No. 9160. 38

Accordingly, the action for civil forfeiture is dismissible. 39
For the Plaintiff-appellee Republic, the Office of the Solicitor

General (OSG), argued that the subject bank accounts and shares
of stocks can be properly seized in favor of the government
because they are related to an unlawful activity particularly
Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. Furthermore, a perusal of defendant-
appellant's SALNs from 2000 to 2002 shows that his total net
worth for the said period is only P2,635,250.30, Philippine
Currency, however, the total amount of his bank deposits including
the investments, i.e. subject shares of stocks, for the same period
amounted to P15,977,171.39, Philippine Currency. Since
defendant-appellant failed to prove that he has other legitimate
income aside from his salary as manager of the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP), Binangonan Branch, the subject bank accounts
and shares of stocks are clearly out of proportion to his salary. As
such, it can be rightfully inferred that the subject bank deposits
and investments are related to the unlawful activity of estafa, more
particularly the “Land Bank Tax Scam.”
Finally, a civil forfeiture case can be independently and

separately prosecuted and resolved regardless of the pendency or
outcome of a criminal prosecution for an unlawful activity under
R.A. No. 9160, as amended.40 Hence, the RTC did not err in
ordering the forfeiture of the subject bank accounts and shares of
the stocks in favor of the government.
OUR RULING
An action for civil forfeiture

filed under R.A. No. 9160, as
amended by R.A. No. 9194,
can proceed independently
and separately of the pendency
or outcome of the criminal case
It is defendant-appellant's position that his acquittal of the

charges for (1) violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, as
DECISION
amended, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 04-699 to 04-702, in

the Decision dated March 1, 2010 of the RTC of Binangonan,
Rizal, Branch 68, and (2) violation of Section 4 (c) in relation to
Section 14 (a) of R.A. No. 9160, docketed as Criminal Case Nos.
02-408 to 02-422, in the Decision dated January 20, 2009 of the
RTC of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 68, are sufficient grounds for
the dismissal of the action for civil forfeiture.
This argument is weak.
An action for civil forfeiture of assets under R.A. No. 9160,

as amended, is governed by A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC, 41 which took
effect on December 15, 2005. This law was made to apply to all
pending civil forfeiture cases or petitions for freeze order. 42
Sections 27 and 28 thereof state, that:
“ xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 27. No Prior Charge, Pendency or
Conviction Necessary. – No prior criminal charge, pendency of
or conviction for an unlawful activity or money laundering is
necessary for the commencement or the resolution of a petition
for civil forfeiture.
SECTION 28. Precedence of Proceeding. – Any

criminal case relating to an unlawful activity shall be given
precedence over the prosecution of any offense or violation
under Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, without prejudice to
the filing of a separate petition for civil forfeiture or the issuance
of an asset preservation order or a freeze order. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 6 (b) of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, also provides

that any proceeding relating to an unlawful activity shall be given
precedence over the prosecution of any offense or violation
without prejudice to the freezing and other remedies provided.
In relation thereto, Rule 6.1 (b) of the Revised Implementing

Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9160, as amended by R.A. No.
9194, provides:
“ xxx xxx xxx

RULE 6
Prosecution of Money Laundering
DECISION
Rule 6.1. Prosecution of Money Laundering

xxx xxx xxx
(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.
(Underscoring Ours)
xxx xxx xxx “
It is a staid rule that statutes regulating the procedure of the

courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are
retroactive in that sense and to that extent. 43 Being procedural in
nature, We resolve to apply A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC. Based on the
foregoing provisions, it is clear that the absence, pendency or
outcome of a criminal prosecution for the unlawful activity or for
money laundering is not necessary for the commencement or
resolution of an action for civil forfeiture. Therefore, the petition for
civil forfeiture, as one of the remedies provided under R.A. No.
9160, as amended, may be separately and independently
prosecuted and resolved. As held in the case of Republic v.
Glasgow Credit and Collection Services, Inc., 44 a criminal
conviction for an unlawful activity is not a pre-requisite for the
institution of a civil forefeiture proceeding. Stated otherwise, a
finding of guilt for an unlawful activity is not an essential element
of civil forfeiture.
The RTC did not err in ordering

the forfeiture of the subject
bank accounts and shares of
stocks registered in the name of
Defendant-appellant San Juan
in favor of the government,
however, the Unlad Placement
Funds with the LBP in the
aggregate amount of P156,290.77,
Philippine Currency, should be
excluded and cannot be forfeited
DECISION
Defendant-appellant also posits that there is no evidence

showing that the subject bank accounts and shares of stocks were
proceeds of estafa and/or graft and corruption under Section 3 (e),
R.A. No. 3019. Also, the subject shares of stocks were acquired
through legitimate means and are jointly owned by him and Luz
Zaldivia, hence, cannot be the subject of an action for forfeiture.
He further maintains that the RTC erred in admitting and relying
on his Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Networth
(SALNs) as the bases for the forfeiture because there is no
allegation in the complaint filed before the RTC that the subject
bank accounts and shares of stocks should be forfeited under
R.A. No. 1379.45
Section 31 of A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC enumerates the factors

to consider in determining where lies preponderance of evidence,
viz:
“ xxx xxx xxx

Section 31. Factors to determine Where lies
Preponderance of Evidence. --In rendering judgment, the court
may consider the following factors to determine where lies the
preponderance of evidence:
(a) That the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds are

represented, involved, or related to an unlawful activity or a
money laundering offense:
(1) If the value or amount involved is not

commensurate with the business, financial or earning
capacity of the person;
(2) If any transaction indicates a clear deviation from

the profile or previous transaction of the person;
(3) If a person opens, maintains or controls an account

with a covered institution not in his own name or
registered business name unless authorized under
existing law;
(4) If a person has structured transactions in order to

avoid being the subject of reporting requirements under
Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, or
(5) If any transaction exists that has no apparent

underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic
justification; or
DECISION
(b) That the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds, the

sources of which originated from or are materially linked to
monetary instruments, properties, or proceeds used in the
commission of an unlawful activity or money laundering
offense, are related to the said unlawful activity or money
laundering offense.
xxx xxx xxx “
We, like the RTC, find that there is preponderance of

evidence in favor of the Plaintiff-appellee Republic. On record is
an Initial Report on Money Laundering Activity at Binangonan
Branch dated July 29, 2002 46 finding that the Defendant-appellant
San Juan allegedly violated Sections 4 and 14 of R.A. No. 9160.
Also attached to the complaint for forfeiture are copies of
Suspicious Transaction Reports47 received by the Anti-Money
Laundering Council Secretariat (AMLCS) from Defendants
Ackerman, BPI, UBP, Bankwise and UCPB. After appropriate
investigation, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) issued
Resolution No. 111 dated August 9, 2002, 48 Resolution No. 112
dated August 12, 2002,49 Resolution No. 114 dated August 13,
2002,50 Resolution No. 125 dated August 28, 2002 51 and
Resolution No. 126 dated August 29, 200252 directing the issuance
of freeze orders against the subject bank accounts and shares of
stocks in the name of Defendant-appellant San Juan. Pursuant to
the said resolutions, AMLC issued Freeze Order (FO) Nos. 0014, 53
0015,54 0017,55 002256 and 0023.57
Per NBI Investigation Report dated October 24, 2003, 58

Defendant-appellant San Juan was one of persons allegedly
involved in the multi-million tax scam, thus, it was recommended
that he should be charged for violations of Section 4 (a) and 14 (a)
of R.A. No. 9160, as amended. Then, on April 2, 2004, the Office
of the Ombudsman issued a Resolution 59 in OMB-C-C-03-0588-J
finding probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No.
3019 and recommended the filing of Informations 60 against
defendant-appellant. An inquiry into or examination of his bank
accounts was conducted by Myrna Tee, a bank officer of the Anti-
Money Laundering Council (AMLC). The Investigation Report
dated May 22, 200661 reads, in part:
“ xxx xxx xxx

Evaluation
Based on bank records, the bank accounts of Mr.

Artemio San Juan with BPI, Bankwise, UCPB and Union Bank
DECISION
were noted to have been opened from November 2001 to June

2002 almost on the same periods that the tax diversion was
perpetrated particularly in LBP, Binangonan, Branch, to wit:
Covered Institution 2001 2002

Bank of the Philippine 1,000,000.00 0.00
Islands
Bankwise, Inc. 0.00 10,177,171.39
United Coconut Planters 1,700,000.00 500,000.00
Bank
Union Bank of the 500,000.00 100,000.00
Philippines
Ackerman & Co., Inc. 0.00 2,000,000.00
Total 3,200,000.00 12,777,171.39
The AMLCS also received an STR from Ackerman & Co.,

Inc. on 02 August 2002. Subject of the report were Luz S.
Zaldivia and Artemio S. San Juan, Jr. as the registered owners
of the following securities:

Artemio S. San Juan, Jr. Metro Pacific 400,000
and/or Luz M. Zaldivia Corporation (MPC)
Mr. Artemio San Juan, Jr. on 04 July 2002 deposited P2

Million in the form of Banco de Oro Manager's Check to his
account with Ackerman & Co., Inc. for which he was issued
Official Receipt No. 85253. The 2 Million (sic) deposit was used
to purchase the above securities leaving a balance of almost
P238,228.94 to his account with Ackerman. As of May 22,
2006, the balance of said deposit is P500,708.81 inclusive of
the dividends earned from 2002 up to 2006, per statement of
account obtained from Ackerman & Co., Inc.
Verification of the Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities

and Networth (SALN) filed by Mr. Artemio San Juan, Jr., with
the Office of the Ombudsman disclosed that he declared the
DECISION
following amounts of networth, i.e. for the year 2000,

P406,739.30; for the year 2001, P660,000.00; and for the year
2002, P1,568,511.00. In Accounting, Networth is the excess of
Assets minus the Liabilities of the a person/entity as of a given
period.
Using the indirect method of networth analysis, that is,

by computing the changes of the networth from the start of the
year to year end, it shows that the increases in Mr. San Juan's
networth for 2001 was only P153,260.00 and for 2002 it was
P908,511.00. Such increases in networth can be attributed to
his salary and other lawful income.
Conclusion:
It appears that Mr. San Juan, Jr., did not declare his
bank deposits and securities investments with the afore-stated
banks and investment security in his SALN for 2002.
Comparing the bank deposits/investments as against the
declared networth for the periods 2000 to 2002 of Mr. San Juan
Jr., (with graphical presentation), it obviously shows that his
property and/or money acquired is out of proportion to his
salary and other lawful income, to wit:
Year Networth/SALN Bank

Deposits/Investments
2000 P 406,739.30 0.00
2001 660,000.00 P 3,200,000.00
2002 1,568,511.00 12,777,171.39
Since there is no showing that Mr. Artemio San Juan, Jr.

during his incumbency as Acting Head of LBP Binangonan,
Branch, has no (sic) other source of income aside from his
salary, the acquisition of bank deposits and securities
amounting to more than 15 Million in a span of less than two
years (2000 to 2002) could be linked to the so-called “Land
Bank Tax Scam” and are, therefore, related to the unlawful
activity of Estafa, and violation of Republic Act No. 3019, also
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices act (sic), as
amended.
xxx xxx xxx “
Moreover, the Certification dated June 6, 2006 62 by the

Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) stated that Defendant-
appellant San Juan, a former Executive Officer of the LBP,
received the following salary or annual gross compensation/other
benefits: CY 2000 – P538,780.00, Philippine Currency; CY 2000-
P569,380.00, Philippine Currency, and CY 2002 – P582,940.00,
DECISION
Philippine Currency. And, while defendant-appellant claimed that

he is engaged in the buying and selling of minerals and precious
stones or treasure hunting, We find the same to be bare and self-
serving because there is dearth of evidence pertaining to said
transaction or his other sources of lawful income. It appears that
the defendant-appellant have bigger deposits and investments
which is beyond his lawful income. In short, the value or amount
involved is not commensurate with the financial capacity of
defendant-appellant. Therefore, the RTC did not err in ruling that
the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds, particularly, the
subject bank accounts and shares of stocks, are involved or
related to an unlawful activity or a money laundering offense and
must be forfeited in favor of the government.
However, the Unlad Placement Funds of defendant-

appellant with the LBP in the amounts of P52,468.46 and
P103,822.31, Philippine Currency, or in the aggregate amount of
P156,290.77, Philippine Currency, should be excluded from the
action for forfeiture. As borne by the records, the AMLC issued
Resolution No. 392 dated July 9, 200463 directing the exclusion of
the said Unlad Placement Funds from the assets sought to be
forfeited in favor of the government. Pertinent portion of
Resolution No. 392 reads as follows:
“ xxx xxx xxx

The fact that San Juan's Unlad Fund placements were
made in March and May 2001 was not made clear to the AMLC
Secretariat at the time LBP submitted the Suspicious
Transactions Report in the subject Unlad Fund Placement.
What was reported was the roll-over of December 2001.
The most important consideration is the fact that what

San Juan is being charged with is a money laundering offense,
which became a crime only on October 17, 2001, seven (7)
months after San Juan made his initial placement and five (5)
months after his second placement. It is submitted that we
cannot forfeit said funds because money laundering was not
yet a crime at the time they were invested in Unlad fund, even
if there was a roll-over of the same funds.
WHEREFORE, the Council resolves, as it is hereby

resolved, to:
(1) Exclude the Unlad Fund Placement of Artemio San Juan

Jr., from the assets that it seeks to forfeit in favor of the
Government; and (Underscoring Ours)
DECISION
(2) Authorize the Executive Director and the Chief Legal

Counsel to cause the withdrawal of the Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Complaint and Motion to Admit the Attached
Supplemental Complaint, which is pending with Branch 33 of
the Regional Trial Court, Manila, in Civil Case No. 03-107313.
xxx xxx xxx “
And, as early as July 22, 2004, the RTC issued an Order 64

granting the withdrawal of Plaintiff-appellee Republic's Motion for
Leave to file Supplemental Complaint and Motion to Admit
Supplemental Complaint. Accordingly, the Unlad Placement Fund
with the LBP of the defendant-appellant should be excluded and
cannot be forfeited in favor of the government.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is PARTLY

GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated March 24, 2011 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila City, Branch 24 in Civil Case
No. 03-107313 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that, the
Unlad Placement Funds of Defendant-appellant Artemio San Juan,
Jr., with the Land Bank of the Philippines in the amounts of
P52,468.46 and P103,822.31, Philippine Currency, or in the
aggregate amount of P156,290.77, Philippine Currency, cannot be
forfeited in favor of the government.
SO ORDERED.
RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANDRES B. REYES, JR. MARLENE GONZALES-SISON

Presiding Justice Associate Justice
DECISION
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court.
ANDRES B. REYES, JR.

Presiding Justice
Chairperson, First Division
1 Penned by Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr.; Records, pp. Volume II, pp. 623-635.
2 Records, Volume I, pp. 14-31.
3 Ibid., pp. 7-9.
4 Id., pp. 99-100.
5 Id., pp. 384-385.
6 Id., pp. 386-389.
7 Id., pp. 392-395.
8 Id., pp. 408-414.
9 Id., pp. 396-398.
10 Id., pp. 482-488.
11 Id., pp. 400-407.
12 Id., p. 448.
13 Id., p. 451
14 Id., pp. 452-456.
15 Id., pp. 496-499.
16 Id., pp. 499-509.
17 Opposition, Id., pp. 558-561.
18 Manifestation and Motion; Id., pp. 583-585.
19 Id., p. 598.
20 Id., pp. 685-687.
21 Id., pp. 689-692.
22 Id., pp. 764-767.
23 Id., pp. 774-780.
24 Id., p. 781.
25 Plaintiff Republic's Pre-trial Brief, Id., pp. 789-793.; Defendant San Juan's Pre-trial
Brief, Id., pp. 795-797; Defendant UCPB's Pre-trial Brief, Id., pp. 653-655; Defendant
UBP's Pre-trial Brief, Id., pp. 666-669; Defendant Bankwise' Pre-trial Brief, Id., pp.
744-746.
26 Id., p. 798. See Pre-trial Order dated April 18, 2006, Id., pp. 799-806.
27 Records, Volume II, pp. 379-382.
28 Ibid., pp. 411-415.
29 Id., p. 416.
30 Id., pp. 426-428.
31 Id., p. 454.
32 Per Order dated November 16, 2004; Records, Volume I, p. 603.
33 Supra, Note 1.
34 Should be P 103,822.31, Philippine Currency.
35 Supra, Note 1.
36 Records, Volume II, p. 637.
37 Ibid., p. 641.
DECISION
38 Section 12 (a) of R.A. No. 9160 provides:

“ xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 12. Forfeiture Provisions. –
(a) Civil Forfeiture. – When there is a covered transaction report made, and
the court has, in a petition filed for the purpose ordered seizure of any monetary
insturment or property, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, related to said report,
the Revised Rules of Court on civil forfeiture shall apply.
xxx xxx xxx “
39 Defendant-Appellant's Brief, Rollo, pp. 32-56. Defendant-Appellant's Memorandum,
Ibid., pp. 142-156.
40 Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief, Id., pp. 77-101; Plaintiff-Appellee's Memorandum, Id., pp.
115-138.
41 Otherwise known as Rules of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Assset
Preservation, and Freezing of Monetary Instrument, Property, or Proceeds
Representing, Involving, or Relating to An Unlawful Activity or Money Laundering
Offense Under Republic Act No. 9160, As Amended.
42 Section 59 of A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC.
43 Systems Factors Corporation vs. NLRC, et.al., G.R. No. 143789, November 27, 2000.
citing Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, 26 SCRA 229, Tinio vs. Mina, 26 SCRA 512.
44 G.R. No. 170281, January 18, 2008.
45 Otherwise known as “An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State any Property
Found to Have been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and
Providing for the Proceedings Therefor.”
46 Marked as Exhibit “A”; Records, Volume II, pp. 20-22.
47 Marked as Annexes “A” to “A-5”;Records, Volume I, pp. 32-55.
48 Marked as Exhibit “G”, Records, Volume II, pp. 41-42.
49 Marked as Exhibit “H”; Ibid., pp. 43-44.
50 Marked as Exhibit “I”; Id., pp. 45-46.
51 Marked as Exhibit “J”; Id., pp. 47-48.
52 Marked as Exhibit “K”; Id., pp. 49-50.
53 Marked as Exhibit “L”; Id., pp. 51-52.
54 Marked as Exhibit “L-1”; Id., pp. 54-55.
55 Marked as Exhibit “L-2”, Id., pp. 56-57.
58 Marked as Exhibit “U-2”;Id., pp. 98-128.
59 Marked as Exhibit “V”, Ibid., pp. 161-182.
60 Marked as Exhibits “W”, “X”, “Y” and “Z”, Id., pp. 183-198.
61 Marked as Exhibit “AA”, Id., pp. 199-204.
62 Marked as Exhibit “YY”, Id., p. 339.
63 Records, Volume I, pp. 596-597.
64 Supra, Note 19.

Uploads PDF 196 CV 97221 06262015

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Uploads PDF 196 CV 97221 06262015

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Republic of the Philippines

FIRST (1ST) DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CV NO. 97221

ARTEMIO SAN JUAN, JR., Promulgated:

ARTEMIO SAN JUAN, JR.,

Cruz, R.A., J.:

This is an appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court seeking

“ xxx xxx xxx

The following bank accounts and investments are hereby

Account Holder Account Number Bank Amount

Registered Owner Securities No. of Shares

Unlad Placement Funds with Land Bank of the Philippines in the

For lack of merit, the counterclaim interposed by

Being mere nominal defendants, the Complaint and its

Ackermmann (sic) & Co., Inc., Union Bank of the Philippines,

With costs against defendant San Juan, Jr.

On July 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic),

In its Complaint,2 Plaintiff Republic alleged the following

“ xxx xxx xxx

Account Holder Account Number Bank Amount

Artemio S. San 11004-02645-9 Bankwise, Inc. P 1,519,007.14

Plaintiff, likewise, seeks to forfeit the following securities

Registered Owner Securities No. of Shares

6. Defendant San Juan appears to be the owner of the

7. After appropriate investigation, the AMLC issued

8. Pursuant to said AMLC Resolutions, Freeze Orders Nos.

xxx xxx xxx

10. As freeze orders issued by plaintiff have limited

11. On April 15, 2003, the Honorable Court of Appeals

The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the

12. The Honorable Court of Appeals' decision, supra, has by

13. Because defendant's bank deposits and shares of

xxx xxx xxx

15. The effectivity of the freeze orders on subject accounts

16. Unless restrained by a temporary restraining order and

On July 21, 2003, the RTC issued a 72-hour Temporary

After hearing, the RTC issued an Order dated August 8,

Defendants UCPB,7 UBP,8 Ackerman,9 and Bankwise.10 filed

Defendant San Juan filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the

Defendant San Juan filed an Answer Ad Cautelam,14 on

On April 4, 2004, Plaintiff Republic filed a Motion for Leave to

and are not related to any unlawful activity. 17

On July 12, 2004, Plaintiff Republic moved to withdraw the

On September 27, 2005, Plaintiff Republic filed another

Defendant San Juan filed an Answer to Supplemental

The parties filed their respective pre-trial briefs. 25 A pre-trial

On April 28, 2008, Defendant San Juan filed a Motion for

Plaintiff Republic, in its Comment, 28 argued that no prior

On June 2, 2008, the RTC issued an Order 29 denying

On March 24, 2011, the RTC of Manila, Branch 24 32

“ xxx xxx xxx

The Sworn Statements of Assets and Liabilities of

For the three-year period, San Juan had aggregate

Banking records cannot lie. For the three year period,

Year Networth/SALN Bank

And the times these deposits were made dovetailed with

Given the weight and sufficiency of the plaintiff's

As correctly pointed out by plaintiff:

(i) the Mercantile Securities Corporation Customer

(ii) Engineer Bienvenido Cruz and Carolina San Juan

As to the defense that he derived much of his wealth

Hence, the RTC decreed: