Republic vs. Eugenio, Jr.

, 545 SCRA 384

Facts:

The AMLC conducted inquiry to the bank accounts of Pantaleon Alvarez and Cheong
Yeong upon granting the issuance ex parte of the bank inquiry order by RTC. The latter
are allegedly involved in violation of Anti Graft Law also known as Act no. 3019 by
awarding the contract to PIATCO despite its lack of financial capacity for NAIA 3
project. Lilia Cheng, the wife of Cheong Yeong, and Pantaleon Alvarez, filed Certiorari
(Rule 65) and Prohibition against the RTC, CA and the AMLC to further inquiry of their
bank accounts.

Issue: WON the issuance of ex party of the bank inquiry order is correct?

Ruling:
Yes

AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with
any banking institution or non bank financial institution provided that it has been
established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to
an unlawful activity. Section 11 of AMLA also allows the AMLC to inquire
Into the bank accounts without having to obtain a judicial order in cases where there
is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to unlawful activities as
defined in Section 3(i) of the law, or money laundering offense under Section 4
thereof like kidnapping for ransom, certain violations of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Acts of 2002, hijacking and other violations under RA 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.
In the case at bar, Pantaleon and Cheong are allegedly involved in violation of
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Act 3019) by awarding the contract to PIATCO
despite lack of financial capacity to construct NAIA 3.
Therefore, the act of AMLC in inquiring the bank accounts of the latter are lawful.
Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices vs. CA, 813 SCRA 1, Dec. 6, 2016

Facts:

The Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices (SPCMB) filed certiorari
and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, contesting the constitutionality of
Section 11 of RA 9160, AMLA as amended, specifically the AMLC authority to file with the
CA an ex parte application for inquiry into certain bank deposits and investments,
including related accounts based on probable cause. Binay was allegedly violating the Anti
Graft and Corruption Act and AMLC asked the CA to allow them to inquire bank accounts
of Binay’s family including his law office partners. SPCMB alleged that AMLA is
unconstitutional insofar as it allows the examination of a bank account without any notice
to the affected party and violates their right to due process and privacy.

Issue: WON Section 11 of AMLA is constitutional?

Ruling: Yes.
The ex party inquiry of the bank accounts does not constitute violation of due
process because there is no physical seizure of the property and the account holder can
contest such probable cause if given the opportunity to be apprised of the pending
application to inquire into his account; hence a notice requirement would not be an
empty spectacle.
Republic vs. Glasgow Credit, 542 SCRA 95
Facts:
Republic filed a complaint before the RTC Manila for civil forfeiture of assets with
prayer of TRO and Preliminary Injunction against the bank deposits of the respondent
for violation of Anti-Money Laudering Law. Service of summons were not served to the
respondent because the latter could no longer be found on his last known address and
the case was archived. Republic filed motion to reinstate the case and service of
summons by publication but the RTC only reinstate the case and allowed personal
service of summons. OSG received a copy of Glasgow’s motion to dismiss by way of
special appearance and alleged that the court has no jurisdiction for failure to serve
summons personally; the complaint is premature and no cause of action; and there was
failure to prosecute. RTC dismissed the complaint and hence this petition.

Issue: WON RTC is correct in dismissing the petition?

Issue:
No.
The Supreme Court has held that in Republic vs. Sandiganbyan, 406 SCRA 190,
forfeiture proceedings are actions in rem. As an action in rem, it is a proceeding against
the thing itself instead of against the person and jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction of the court, provided that the
court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Therefore, service may be made through
publication.
 The Republic filed the petition in the correct venue. Section 3, Title II (Civil Forfeiture
in the Regional Trial Court) of the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture provides
that a petition for civil forfeiture shall be filed in any regional trial court of the judicial
region where the monetary instrument, property or proceeds representing, involving, or
relating to an unlawful activity or to a money laundering offense are located.
In the case at bar, Pasig City, where the account sought to be forfeited in this case is
situated, is within the National Capital Judicial Region. Therefore the complaint for civil
forfeiture of the account may be filed in any RTC of the National Capital Judicial Region. RTC
Manila is one of the RTC’s of the NCJR.
Ligot, et al vs. Republic, 692 SCRA 509

Facts:
Ombudsman filed a complaint against Lt. Gen. Ligot for violation of Article 183 of the
RPC (Perjury), Section 8 of RA 6713, Statements and Disclosure, and RA 3019 (Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act). Republic represented by AMLC filed an urgent ex-parte
application for the issuance of a freeze order with the CA against certain monetary
instruments and properties of the petitioners. CA found probable cause and and granted
the same on July 5, 2005 with a validity period of 20 days from issuance. On July 26, 2005,
Republic file an extension and the CA granted the same and extending the freeze order
until after all the appropriate proceedings and/or investigations have been terminated.
On Sept. 8, 2005, Ligots filed a motion to lift the extended freeze order and arguing that
there was no evidence to support the extension of the freeze order and deprived their
property without due process. Subsequently, on Jan. 4, 2006, CA denied the motion. On
Dec. 15, 2005, a new Rule in Civil Forfeiture (AM 05-11-04 SC) took effect which stated
that Freeze Order could be extended for maximum period of six months.

Issue: WON the CA committed grave abuse of discretion?

Ruling:
Yes.
The Rule in Civil Forfeiture Cases came into effect on Dec. 5, 2005. Section 59
provides that it shall apply to all pending civil forfeiture cases or petitions for freeze order
at the time of its effectivity.
In the case at bar, Ligots filed a motion to left the extended freeze order on Sept.
28, 2005 and the CA only acted upon the same on Jan. 4, 2006 when it issued a
resolution denying it. Since the Ligot’s motion for reconsideration was still pending
resolution at the time the Rule in Civil Forfeiture Cases came into effect on Dec. 15,
2005, the Rule unquestionably applies to the present case.

N.B.
Freeze Order Application Requisites
1. The application ex parte by the AMLC
2. The determination of probable cause of CA

Probable cause required for the issuance of freeze order refers to “such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet, prudent or cautious man to
believe that an unlawful activity and/or a money laundering offense is about to be, is
being or has been committed and that the account or any monetary instrument or
property subject thereof sought to be frozen is in any way related to said unlawful
activity and/or money laundering offense.