Republic V Bolante

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 186717. April 17, 2017.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the ANTI-

MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, petitioner, vs. JOCELYN I.
BOLANTE, OWEN VINCENT D. BOLANTE, MA. CAROL D.
BOLANTE, ALEJO LAMERA, CARMEN LAMERA, EDNA
CONSTANTINO, ARIEL C. PANGANIBAN, KATHERINE G.
BOMBEO, SAMUEL S. BOMBEO, MOLUGAN FOUNDATION,
SAMUEL G. BOMBEO, JR., and NATIONAL LIVELIHOOD
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (Formerly Livelihood
Corporation), respondents.
[G.R. No. 190357. April 17, 2017.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the ANTI-

MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, petitioner, vs. HON. WINLOVE
M. DUMAYAS, Presiding Judge of Branch 59, Regional Trial
Court in Makati City, JOCELYN I. BOLANTE, ARIEL C.
PANGANIBAN, DONNIE RAY G. PANGANIBAN, EARL WALTER
G. PANGANIBAN, DARRYL G. PANGANIBAN, GAVINA G.
PANGANIBAN, JAYPEE G. PANGANIBAN, SAMUEL S.
BOMBEO, KATHERINE G. BOMBEO, SAMUEL G. BOMBEO, JR.,
NATIONAL LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(FORMERLY LIVELIHOOD CORPORATION), MOLUGAN
FOUNDATION, ASSEMBLY OF GRACIOUS SAMARITANS
FOUNDATION, INC., ONE ACCORD CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY
ENDEAVOR FOR SALVATION & SUCCESS THROUGH POVERTY
ALLEVIATION, INC., SOCIETY'S MULTI-PURPOSE
FOUNDATION, INC., ALLIANCE FOR THE CONSERVATION OF
ENVIRONMENT OF PANGASINAN, INC., AND STA. LUCIA
EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BULACAN, INC., respondents.
DECISION
SERENO, C.J : p
G.R. No. 186717 is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court, with an urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The petition seeks to
nullify the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution 1 in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024.
The CA Resolution denied petitioner's application to extend the freeze order
issued on 4 February 2009 2 over the bank deposits and investments of
respondents. HTcADC
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

G.R. No. 190357 is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court challenging the Resolution 3 and the Order 4 issued by the Regional
Trial Court of Makati, Branch 59 (RTC), in AMLC Case No. 07-001. The RTC
Resolution denied petitioner's application for an order allowing an inquiry
into the bank deposits and investments of respondents. The RTC Order
denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
FACTS
In April 2005, the Philippine National Bank (PNB) submitted to the Anti-
Money Laundering Council (AMLC) a series of suspicious transaction reports
involving the accounts of Livelihood Corporation (LIVECOR), Molugan
Foundation (Molugan), and Assembly of Gracious Samaritans, Inc. (AGS). 5
According to the reports, LIVECOR transferred to Molugan a total amount of
P172.6 million in a span of 15 months from 2004 to 2005. 6 On 30 April 2004,
LIVECOR transferred P40 million to AGS, which received another P38 million
from Molugan on the same day. 7 Curiously, AGS returned the P38 million to
Molugan also on the same day. 8
The transactions were reported "suspicious" because they had no
underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification; nor
were they commensurate to the business or financial capacity of Molugan
and AGS, which were both lowly capitalized at P50,000 each. 9 In the case of
Molugan, Samuel S. Bombeo, who holds the position of president, secretary
and treasurer, is the lone signatory to the account. 10 In the case of AGS,
Samuel S. Bombeo shares this responsibility with Ariel Panganiban. 11
On 7 March 2006, the Senate furnished the AMLC a copy of its
Committee Report No. 54 12 prepared by the Committee on Agriculture and
Food and the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations. 13
Committee Report No. 54 14 narrated that former Undersecretary of
Agriculture Jocelyn I. Bolante (Bolante) requested the Department of Budget
and Management to release to the Department of Agriculture the amount of
P728 million for the purchase of farm inputs under the Ginintuang
Masaganang Ani Program. This amount was used to purchase liquid
fertilizers from Freshan Philippines, Inc., which were then distributed to local
government units and congressional districts beginning January 2004. Based
on the Audit Report prepared by the Commission on Audit (COA), 15 the use
of the funds was characterized by massive irregularities, overpricing,
violations of the procurement law and wanton wastage of scarce
government resources.
Committee Report No. 54 also stated that at the time that he served as
Undersecretary of Agriculture, Bolante was also appointed by President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as acting Chairman of LIVECOR. CAIHTE
The AMLC issued Resolution No. 75 16 finding probable cause to believe

that the accounts of LIVECOR, Molugan and AGS — the subjects of the
suspicious transaction reports submitted by PNB — were related to what
became known as the "fertilizer fund scam." The pertinent portion of
Resolution No. 75 provides:
Under the foregoing circumstances, there is probable cause to
believe that the accounts of the foundations and its officers are
related to the fertilizer fund scam. The release of the amount of P728
million for the purchase of farm inputs to the Department of
Agriculture was made by Undersecretary Bolante. Undersecretary
Bolante was the Acting Chairman of LIVECOR. LIVECOR transferred
huge amounts of money to Molugan and AGS, while the latter
foundations transferred money to each other. Mr. [Samuel S.]
Bombeo was the President, Secretary, and Treasurer of Molugan. He,
therefore, played a key role in these transactions. On the other hand,
Mr. [Ariel] Panganiban was the signatory to the account of AGS.
Without his participation, these transactions could not have been
possible.
The acts involved in the "fertilizer scam" may constitute
violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, x x x as well as
violation of Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder). 17
Thus, the AMLC authorized the filing of a petition for the issuance of an
order allowing an inquiry into the six accounts 18 of LIVECOR, Molugan, AGS,
Samuel S. Bombeo and Ariel Panganiban. The AMLC also required all covered
institutions to submit reports of covered transactions and/or suspicious
transactions of these entities and individuals, including all the related web of
accounts.
The petition was filed ex parte before the RTC and docketed as AMLC
SP Case No. 06-003. On 17 November 2006, the trial court found probable
cause and issued the Order prayed for. 19 It allowed the AMLC to inquire into
and examine the six bank deposits or investments and the related web of
accounts.
Meanwhile, based on the investigation of the Compliance and
Investigation Group of the AMLC Secretariat, a total of 70 bank accounts or
investments were found to be part of the related web of accounts involved in
the fertilizer fund scam. 20
Accordingly, the AMLC issued Resolution No. 90 21 finding probable
cause to believe that these 70 accounts were related to the fertilizer fund
scam. It said that the scam may constitute violations of Section 3 (e) 22 of
Republic Act No. (R.A.) 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and R.A.
7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder). The AMLC
therefore authorized the filing of a petition for the issuance of an order
allowing an inquiry into these 70 accounts. 23
On 14 February 2008, this Court promulgated Republic v. Eugenio . 24
We ruled that when the legislature crafted Section 11 25 of R.A. 9160 (Anti-
Money Laundering Act of 2001), as amended, it did not intend to authorize
ex parte proceedings for the issuance of a bank inquiry order by the CA.
Thus, a bank inquiry order cannot be issued unless notice is given to the
account holders. 26 That notice would allow them the opportunity to contest
the issuance of the order. aScITE
In view of this development, the AMLC issued Resolution No. 40. 27 It

authorized the filing of a petition for the issuance of a freeze order against
the 70 accounts found to be related to the fertilizer fund scam.
Hence, the Republic filed an Ex Parte Petition 28 docketed as CA-G.R.
AMLC No. 00014 before the CA, seeking the issuance of a freeze order
against the 70 accounts.
The CA issued a freeze order effective for 20 days.29 The freeze order
required the covered institutions of the 70 accounts to desist from and not
allow any transaction involving the identified monetary instruments. It also
asked the covered institutions to submit a detailed written return to the CA
within 24 hours from receipt of the freeze order.
The CA conducted a summary hearing of the application, 30 after which
the parties were ordered to submit their memoranda, manifestations and
comments/oppositions. 31 The freeze order was later extended for a period
of 30 days until 19 August 2008. 32
Finding that there existed probable cause that the funds transferred to
and juggled by LIVECOR, Molugan, and AGS formed part of the P728 million
fertilizer fund, the CA extended the effectivity of the freeze order for another
four months, or until 20 December 2008. 33 The extension covered only 31
accounts, 34 which showed an existing balance based on the returns of the
covered institutions.
In the meantime, the Republic filed an Ex Parte Application 35 docketed
as AMLC Case No. 07-001 before the RTC. Drawing on the authority provided
by the AMLC through Resolution No. 90, the ex parte application sought the
issuance of an order allowing an inquiry into the 70 accounts.
The RTC found probable cause and issued the Order prayed for. 36 It
allowed the AMLC to inquire into and examine the 70 bank deposits or
investments and the related web of accounts.
On 20 October 2008, this Court denied with finality the motion for
reconsideration filed by the Republic in Eugenio. 37 The Court reiterated that
Section 11 38 of R.A. 9160, as then worded, did not allow a bank inquiry
order to be issued ex parte; and that the concerns of the Republic about the
consequences of this ruling could be more properly lodged in the legislature.
DETACa
Thus, in order to comply with the ruling in Eugenio, the Republic filed
an Amended and Supplemental Application 39 in AMLC Case No. 07-001
before the RTC. The Republic sought, after notice to the account holders, the
issuance of an order allowing an inquiry into the original 70 accounts plus
the six bank accounts that were the subject of AMLC SP Case No. 06-003. A
summary hearing thereon ensued.
On the belief that the finality of Eugenio constituted a supervening
event that might justify the filing of another petition for a freeze order, the
AMLC issued Resolution No. 5. 40 The resolution authorized the filing of a
new petition for the issuance of a freeze order against 24 41 of the 31
accounts previously frozen by the CA.
Hence, the Republic filed an Urgent Ex Parte Petition 42 docketed as
CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 before the CA seeking the issuance of a freeze
order against the 24 accounts.
In the Resolution dated 4 February 2009, 43 the CA issued a freeze
order effective for 20 days. The freeze order required the covered
institutions of the 24 accounts to desist from and not allow any transaction
involving the identified monetary instruments. It also asked the covered
institutions to submit a detailed written return to the CA within 24 hours
from receipt of the freeze order.
A summary hearing was conducted by the CA for the purpose of
determining whether to modify, lift or extend the freeze order. 44 Thereafter,
the parties were required to submit memoranda.
THE CHALLENGED RESOLUTIONS
The assailed CA Resolution dated 27 February 2009 45 denied the
application to extend the freeze order issued on 4 February 2009.
The CA found that the Republic had committed forum shopping. 46
Specifically, the appellate court found that the parties in CA-G.R. AMLC No.
00024 were the same as those in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014. The petition in
CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 sought the issuance of a freeze order against the
same accounts covered by CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014. Finally, the rights
asserted and reliefs prayed for in both petitions were substantially founded
on the same facts, thereby raising identical causes of action and issues. HEITAD
The CA found no merit in the assertion of the Republic that the ruling in
Eugenio was a supervening event that prevented the latter from concluding
its financial investigation into the accounts covered by the freeze order in
CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014. 47 The CA noted that Eugenio was promulgated on
14 February 2008, or almost five months before the Republic filed CA-G.R.
AMLC No. 00014 before the CA and AMLC Case No. 07-001 before the RTC.
According to the appellate court, since the Republic was faced with the
imminent finality of Eugenio, it should have taken steps to expedite the
conduct of the inquiry and the examination of the bank deposits or
investments and the related web of accounts.
At any rate, the CA found that the petition in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024
was effectively a prayer for the further extension of the 5-month, 20-day
freeze order already issued in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014. 48 The extension
sought is proscribed under Section 53 of Administrative Circular No. 05-11-
04-SC. 49 According to this provision, the effectivity of a freeze order may be
extended for good cause shown for a period not exceeding six months.
Aggrieved, the Republic filed the instant petition for review on
certiorari with an urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction docketed as G.R. No. 186717.
On 25 March 2009, this Court issued a Status Quo Ante Order 50
enjoining the implementation of the assailed CA Resolution.
At the time of the submission of respondents' Comment51 and
petitioner's Consolidated Reply 52 in G.R. No. 186717, the RTC issued the
challenged Resolution dated 3 July 2009 53 in AMLC Case No. 07-001. The
trial court denied the Republic's application for an order allowing an inquiry
into the total of 76 bank deposits and investments of respondents.
The RTC found no probable cause to believe that the deposits and
investments of respondents were related to an unlawful activity. 54 It pointed
out that the Republic, in support of the latter's application, relied merely on
two pieces of evidence: Senate Committee Report No. 54 and the court
testimony of witness Thelma Espina of the AMLC Secretariat. According to
the RTC, Senate Committee Report No. 54 cannot be taken "hook, line and
sinker," 55 because the Senate only conducts inquiries in aid of legislation.
Citing Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations, 56 the trial court pronounced that the Senate cannot assume
the power reposed in prosecutorial bodies and the courts — the power to
determine who are liable for a crime or an illegal activity. 57 On the other
hand, the trial court noted that the testimony of the witness merely relied on
Senate Committee Report No. 54. The latter "admitted that the AMLC did not
bother to confirm the veracity of the statements contained therein." 58 aDSIHc
The RTC instead gave credence to the Audit Report prepared by COA.
While outlining the irregularities that attended the use of the fertilizer fund,
COA also showed that none of the funds were channeled or released to
LIVECOR, Molugan or AGS. 59 The trial court also took note of the evidence
presented by Bolante that he had ceased to be a member of the board of
trustees of LIVECOR on 1 February 2003, or more than 14 months before the
transfers were made by LIVECOR to Molugan as indicated in the suspicious
transaction reports submitted by PNB. 60 Furthermore, the RTC found that
the transfers made by LIVECOR to Molugan and AGS came from the P60
million Priority Development Assistance Fund of Senator Joker Arroyo. 61
The Republic moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied by
the RTC in the challenged Order dated 13 November 2009. 62
Hence, the Republic filed the instant petition for certiorari docketed as
G.R. No. 190357.
The Court resolved to consolidate G.R. No. 190357 with G.R. No.
186717, considering that the issues raised in the petitions were closely
intertwined and related. 63 On 6 December 2010, these petitions were given
due course, and all parties were required to submit memoranda. 64
Amid reports that the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) had
filed plunder cases against those involved in the fertilizer fund scam, the
Court issued the Resolution dated 16 November 2011. 65 We required the
AMLC and the Ombudsman to move in the premises and jointly manifest
whether the accounts, subject of the instant petitions, were in any way
related to the plunder cases already filed.
In their compliance dated 14 March 2012, 66 the AMLC and the
Ombudsman manifested that the plunder case filed in connection with the
fertilizer fund scam included Bolante, but not the other persons and entities
whose bank accounts are now the subject of the instant petitions. That
plunder case was docketed as SB-11-CRM-0260 before the Second Division
of the Sandiganbayan. ATICcS

ISSUES
The following are the issues for our resolution:
1. Whether the Republic committed forum shopping in filing CA-G.R.
AMLC No. 00024 before the CA
2. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling
that there exists no probable cause to allow an inquiry into the
total of 76 deposits and investments of respondents
OUR RULING
I.
The Republic committed forum shopping.
As we ruled in Chua v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. , 67 forum
shopping is committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the
same cause of action and with the same prayer, where the previous case has
not yet been resolved (the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing
multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer,
where the previous case has finally been resolved (the ground for dismissal
i s res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action, but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the
ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).
In the instant petitions, the Republic focused its energies on discussing
why it did not commit forum shopping on the ground of litis pendentia. In its
Memorandum, it argued:
While it is true that a previous freeze order was issued in CA-
G.R. AMLC No. 00014 covering some of the accounts subject of CA-
G.R. AMLC No. 00024 , CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 had already attained
finality when the second petition was filed, neither petitioner nor any
of the respondents interposed an appeal therefrom, pursuant to
Section 57 of the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, etc.
The principle of litis pendentia presupposes the pendency of at least
one case when a second case is filed. Such situation does not exist in
the present controversy since CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 was no longer
pending but has attained finality when the second petition was filed.
68 ETHIDa
In a clear illustration of the phrase, out of the frying pan and into the
fire, the Republic vigorously resisted the application of forum shopping on
the ground of litis pendentia, only to unwittingly admit that it had possibly
committed forum shopping on the ground of res judicata.
We are not even sure where the Republic got the notion that the CA
found "that the filing of the second petition for freeze order constitutes
forum shopping on the ground of litis pendentia. " 69 In its assailed
Resolution, the appellate court aptly cited Quinsay v. CA, 70 stating that
"forum shopping concurs not only when a final judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in another, but also where the elements of litis
pendentia are present." 71 It then went on to enumerate the aforecited
elements of litis pendentia, namely: (1) identity of parties, or those that
represent the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted
and relief sought, with the relief founded on the same facts; and (3) identity
of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in one
proceeding will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
judicata in the other. The CA only discussed how these elements were
present in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 and CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 in relation
to each other. Nowhere did the CA make any categorical pronouncement
that the Republic had committed forum shopping on the ground of litis
pendentia.
With this clarification, we discuss how all the elements of litis
pendentia are present in the two petitions for the issuance of a freeze order.
First, there is identity of parties. In both petitions, the Republic is the
petitioner seeking the issuance of a freeze order against the bank deposits
and investments. The 24 accounts sought to be frozen in CA-G.R. AMLC No.
00024 were part of the 31 accounts previously frozen in CA-G.R. AMLC No.
00014, 72 and the holders of these accounts were once again named as
respondents.
Second, there is an identity of rights asserted and relief sought based
on the same facts. The AMLC filed both petitions in pursuance of its function
to investigate suspicious transactions, money laundering activities, and
other violations of R.A. 9160 as amended. 73 The law also granted the AMLC
the authority to make an ex parte application before the CA for the freezing
of any monetary instrument or property alleged to be the proceeds of any
unlawful activity, as defined in Section 3 (i) thereof. 74
TIADCc
Both petitions sought the issuance of a freeze order against bank

deposits and investments believed to be related to the fertilizer fund scam.
Notably, while the petition in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 narrated the facts
surrounding the issuance of AMLC Resolution Nos. 75 and 40, 75 the petition
in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 used as its foundation the previous grant of the
freeze order in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 and the extensions of its effectivity.
76 Nevertheless, both petitions highlighted the role of Senate Committee
Report No. 54 in providing AMLC with the alleged link between the fertilizer
fund scam and the bank deposits and investments sought to be frozen. 77
Third, the judgment in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 barred the proceedings
in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 by res judicata.
Res judicata is defined as a matter adjudged, a thing judicially acted
upon or decided, or a thing or matter settled by judgment. 78 It operates as a
bar to subsequent proceedings by prior judgment when the following
requisites concur: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a
court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a
judgment or an order on the merits; and (4) there is — between the first and
the second actions — identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
action. 79
Clearly, the resolution in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 extending the
effectivity of the freeze order until 20 December 2008 attained finality upon
the failure of the parties to assail it within 15 days from notice. The
Resolution was rendered by the CA, which had jurisdiction over applications
for the issuance of a freeze order under Section 10 80 of R.A. 9160 as
amended. It was a judgment on the merits by the appellate court, which
made a determination of the rights and obligations of the parties with
respect to the causes of action and the subject matter. 81 The determination
was based on the pleadings and evidence presented by the parties during
the summary hearing and their respective memoranda. Finally, there was —
between CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 and CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 — identity of
parties, subject matter and causes of action.cSEDTC
The Republic's commission of forum shopping is further illustrated by

its awareness that the effectivity of the freeze order in CA-G.R. AMLC No.
00014 had already been extended to 5 months and 20 days. Under Section
5 3 82 of A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC, 83 the original 20-day effectivity period of a
freeze order may only be extended by the CA for good cause for a period not
exceeding six months. Because of this predicament, the Republic sought to
avoid seeking a further extension that is clearly prohibited by the rules by
allowing the extended freeze order in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 to lapse on
20 December 2008. Instead, it filed the petition in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024
alluding to the exact same facts and arguments but citing a special factual
circumstance that allegedly distinguished it from CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014.
The Republic argued that CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 was filed at the
advent of Eugenio. The ruling was a supervening event that prevented the
Republic from concluding its exhaustive financial investigation within the
auspices of the bank inquiry order granted by the RTC in AMLC Case No. 07-
001 and the freeze order granted by the CA in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014. 84
We find no merit in this argument. The promulgation of Eugenio was
not a supervening event under the circumstances. "Supervening events
refer to facts which transpire after judgment has become final and executory
or to new circumstances which developed after the judgment has acquired
finality, including matters which the parties were not aware of prior to or
during the trial as they were not yet in existence at that time." 85
As aptly pointed out by the appellate court, Eugenio was promulgated
five months before the filing of the petition in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014.
Indeed the Decision therein only attained finality upon the denial of the
motion for reconsideration on 20 October 2008, or before the filing of the
petition in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 0002. The ruling, however, cannot be regarded
as a matter that the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial of
CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014.
In fact, it was because of Eugenio that CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 was
filed in the first place.
We have not painstakingly narrated all the relevant facts of these
cases for nothing. It should be noted that before the ruling in Eugenio, the
AMLC commenced its investigations into the fertilizer fund scam by filing
petitions for bank inquiry orders. Thus, it issued Resolutions No. 75 and 90,
both authorizing the filing of petitions for the issuance of orders allowing an
inquiry into the pertinent bank deposits and investments. AIDSTE

According to the Court in Eugenio, "a requirement that the application
for a bank inquiry order be done with notice to the account holder will alert
the latter that there is a plan to inspect his bank account on the belief that
the funds therein are involved in an unlawful activity or money laundering
offense." 86 Alarmed by the implications of this ruling, the AMLC changed
tack and decided to pursue the only other remedy within its power to obtain
ex parte at the time. Hence, it issued Resolution No. 40 authorizing the filing
of CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 for the issuance of a freeze order to preserve the
70 bank deposits and investments and prevent the account holders from
withdrawing them. The pertinent portion of AMLC Resolution No. 40
provides:
In the Resolution No. 90, dated October 26, 2007, the Council
found probable cause that the accounts of the subject individuals and
entities are related to the fertilizer fund scam and resolved to
authorize the filing of a petition for the issuance of a freeze order
allowing inquiry into the following accounts:
xxx xxx xxx
However, in Republic vs. Eugenio (G.R. No. 174629, February
14, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that proceedings in applications
for issuance of an order allowing inquiry should be conducted after
due notice to the respondents/account holders.
In the light of the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court, the
Council resolved to:
1. Authorize the AMLC Secretariat to file with the Court of
Appeals, through the Office of the Solicitor General, a petition for
freeze order against the following bank accounts and all related web
of accounts wherever these may be found: 87
Notably, it was only after the freeze order had been issued that AMLC
Case No. 07-001 was filed before the RTC to obtain a bank inquiry order
covering the same 70 accounts.
Presently, while Eugenio still provides much needed guidance in the
resolution of issues relating to the freeze and bank inquiry orders, the
Decision in that 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. 10167 on 18 June 2012, Section 11 of R.A. 9160
was further amended to allow the AMLC to file an ex parte application for an
order allowing an inquiry into bank deposits and investments. Section 11 of
R.A. 9160 now reads: SDAaTC
Section 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. —

Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as
amended, Republic Act No. 6426, as amended, Republic Act No.
8791, and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or examine any
particular deposit or investment, including related accounts, with any
banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order of any
competent court based on an ex parte application in cases of
violations of this Act, when it has been established that there is
probable cause that the deposits or investments, including related
accounts involved, are related to an unlawful activity as defined in
Section 3 (i) hereof or a money laundering offense under Section 4
hereof; except that no court order shall be required in cases involving
activities defined in Section 3 (i) (1), (2), and (12) hereof, and felonies
or offenses of a nature similar to those mentioned in Section 3 (i) (1),
(2), and (12), which are Punishable under the penal laws of other
countries, and terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism as
defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 9372.
The Court of Appeals shall act on the application to inquire into
or examine any depositor or investment with any banking institution
or non-bank financial institution within twenty-four (24) hours from
filing of the application.
To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas may, in the course of a periodic or special examination,
check the compliance of a Covered institution with the requirements
of the AMLA and its implementing rules and regulations.
For purposes of this section, 'related accounts' shall refer to
accounts, the funds and sources of which originated from and/or are
materially linked to the monetary instrument(s) or property(ies)
subject of the freeze order(s).
A court order ex parte must first be obtained before the AMLC
can inquire into these related Accounts: Provided, That the procedure
for the ex parte application of the ex parte court order for the
principal account shall be the same with that of the related accounts.
AaCTcI
The authority to inquire into or examine the main account and

the related accounts shall comply with the requirements of Article III,
Sections 2 and 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which are hereby
incorporated by reference. (Emphasis supplied)
The constitutionality of Section 11 of R.A. 9160, as presently worded,
was upheld by the Court En Banc in the recently promulgated Subido
Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices v. CA . 88 The Court therein
ruled that the AMLC's ex parte application for a bank inquiry, which is
allowed under Section 11 of R.A. 9160, does not violate substantive due
process. There is no such violation, because the physical seizure of the
targeted corporeal property is not contemplated in any form by the law. 89
The AMLC may indeed be authorized to apply ex parte for an inquiry into
bank accounts, but only in pursuance of its investigative functions akin to
those of the National Bureau of Investigation. 90 As the AMLC does not
exercise quasi-judicial functions, its inquiry by court order into bank deposits
or investments cannot be said to violate any person's constitutional right to
procedural due process. 91
As regards the purported violation of the right to privacy, the Court
recalled the pronouncement in Eugenio that the source of the right to
privacy governing bank deposits is statutory, not constitutional. 92 The
legislature may validly carve out exceptions to the rule on the secrecy of
bank deposits, and one such legislation is Section 11 of R.A. 9160. 93
The Court in Subido emphasized that the holder of a bank account that
is the subject of a bank inquiry order issued ex parte has the opportunity to
question the issuance of such an order after a freeze order has been issued
against the account. 94 The account holder can then question not only the
finding of probable cause for the issuance of the freeze order, but also the
finding of probable cause for the issuance of the bank inquiry order. 95 acEHCD
II.
The RTC's finding that there was no
probable cause for the issuance of a
bank inquiry order was not tainted
with grave abuse of discretion.
Rule 10.2 of the Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic
Act No. 9160, as Amended by Republic Act No. 9194, defined probable cause
as "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." As we observed in Subido, 96 this definition refers to
probable cause for the issuance of a freeze order against an account or any
monetary instrument or property subject thereof. Nevertheless, we shall
likewise be guided by the pronouncement in Ligot v. Republic 97 that
"probable cause refers to the sufficiency of the relation between an unlawful
activity and the property or monetary instrument."
In the issuance of a bank inquiry order, the power to determine the
existence of probable cause is lodged in the trial court. As we ruled in
Eugenio:
Section 11 itself requires that it be established that "there is probable
cause that the deposits or investments are related to unlawful
activities," and it obviously is the court which stands as arbiter
whether there is indeed such probable cause. The process of
inquiring into the existence of probable cause would involve the
function of determination reposed on the trial court. Determination
clearly implies a function of adjudication on the part of the trial court,
and not a mechanical application of a standard pre-determination by
some other body. The word "determination" implies deliberation and
is, in normal legal contemplation, equivalent to "the decision of a
court of justice."
The court receiving the application for inquiry order cannot
simply take the AMLC's word that probable cause exists that the
deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity. It will have
to exercise its own determinative function in order to be convinced of
such fact. 98
For the trial court to issue a bank inquiry order, it is necessary for the
AMLC to be able to show specific facts and circumstances that provide a link
between an unlawful activity or a money laundering offense, on the one
hand, and the account or monetary instrument or property sought to be
examined on the other hand. In this case, the RTC found the evidence
presented by the AMLC wanting. For its part, the latter insists that the RTC's
determination was tainted with grave abuse of discretion for ignoring the
glaring existence of probable cause that the subject bank deposits and
investments were related to an unlawful activity. EcTCAD
Grave abuse of discretion is present where power is exercised in an

arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal
hostility, that is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law. 99 For certiorari to lie, it must be shown that there was
a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power — the very antithesis
of the judicial prerogative. 100
We find no reason to conclude that the RTC determined the existence
of probable cause, or lack thereof, in an arbitrary and whimsical manner.
To repeat, the application for the issuance of a bank inquiry order was
supported by only two pieces of evidence: Senate Committee Report No. 54
and the testimony of witness Thelma Espina.
We have had occasion to rule that reports of the Senate stand on the
same level as other pieces of evidence submitted by the parties, and that
the facts and arguments presented therein should undergo the same level of
judicial scrutiny and analysis. 101 As courts have the discretion to accept or
reject them, 102 no grave error can be ascribed to the RTC for rejecting and
refusing to give probative value to Senate Committee Report No. 54.
At any rate, Senate Committee Report No. 54 only provided the AMLC
with a description of the alleged unlawful activity, which is the fertilizer fund
scam. It also named the alleged mastermind of the scam, who was
respondent Bolante. The entire case of the AMLC, however, hinged on the
following excerpt of Senate Committee Report No. 54:
But Undersecretary Bolante's power over the agriculture department
was widely known. And it encompasses more than what the
Administrative Code provided.
In fact, at the time that he was Undersecretary, Jocelyn
Bolante was concurrently appointed by the President in other
powerful positions: as Acting Chairman of the National Irrigation
Administration, as Acting Chairman of the Livelihood
Corporation x x x. 103 (Emphasis supplied)
It was this excerpt that led the AMLC to connect the fertilizer fund
scam to the suspicious transaction reports earlier submitted to it by PNB.
However, the RTC found during trial that respondent Bolante had
ceased to be a member of the board of trustees of LIVECOR for 14 months
before the latter even made the initial transaction, which was the subject of
the suspicious transaction reports. Furthermore, the RTC took note that
according to the Audit Report submitted by the Commission on Audit, no part
of the P728 million fertilizer fund was ever released to LIVECOR. SDHTEC
We note that in the RTC Order dated 17 November 2006 in AMLC SP

Case No. 06-003, the AMLC was already allowed ex parte to inquire into and
examine the six bank deposits or investments and the related web of
accounts of LIVECOR, Molugan, AGS, Samuel S. Bombeo and Ariel
Panganiban. With the resources available to the AMLC, coupled with a bank
inquiry order granted 15 months before Eugenio was even promulgated, the
AMLC should have been able to obtain more evidence establishing a more
substantive link tying Bolante and the fertilizer fund scam to LIVECOR. It did
not help that the AMLC failed to include in its application for a bank inquiry
order in AMLC SP Case No. 06-003 LIVECOR's PNB account as indicated in
the suspicious transaction reports. This PNB account was included only in the
application for a bank inquiry order in AMLC Case No. 07-001.
As it stands, the evidence relied upon by the AMLC in 2006 was still the
same evidence it used to apply for a bank inquiry order in 2008. Regrettably,
this evidence proved to be insufficient when weighed against that presented
by the respondents, who were given notice and the opportunity to contest
the issuance of the bank inquiry order pursuant to Eugenio. In fine, the RTC
did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the application.
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 186717 is DENIED. The Court of
Appeals Resolution dated 27 February 2009 in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 is
AFFIRMED.
The petition in G.R. No. 190357 is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated 3
July 2009 and Order dated 13 November 2009 issued by the Regional Trial
Court of Makati, Branch 59, in AMLC Case No. 07-001 are AFFIRMED.
The Status Quo Ante Order issued by this Court on 25 March 2009 is
hereby LIFTED.
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-de Castro, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe and Caguioa, JJ.,
concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 58-68. The Resolution dated 27 February 2009
issued by the CA First Division was penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E.
Villon, with Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice
Noel G. Tijam concurring.
2. Id. at 472-483.
3. Rollo (G.R. No. 190357), pp. 42-49. The Resolution dated 3 July 2009 was penned
by Presiding Judge Winlove M. Dumayas.
4. Id. at 50; dated 13 November 2009.
5. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), p. 97.

6. Id.
7. Id. at 98.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 97.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Entitled "TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY ON THE ALLEGED MISMANAGEMENT AND

USE OF THE FERTILIZER FUND OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S
GININTUANG MASAGANANG ANI PROGRAM TO THE DETRIMENT OF FILIPINO
FARMERS WITH THE END IN VIEW OF CHARTING EFFECTIVE POLICIES AND
PROGRAM FOR THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR."
13. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), p. 98.
14. Id. at 104-147.

15. Id. at 760-791; entitled Report on the Audit of the P728 million GMA Farm Input
Fund.
16. Id. at 97-102; dated 18 September 2006.

17. Id. at 100.
18. Id. at 101. The accounts are as follows:
Covered Account Name Account Number

Institution
LBP LIVECOR 0672102014
PNB Molugan 2738301148
PNB Molugan 2738102331
PNB AGS 2738301164
PNB Samuel S. Bombeo 2737006738
BPI Ariel Panganiban 601614338
19. Id. at 103.
20. Id. at 151-156.
21. Id. at 151-159; dated 26 October 2007.

22. Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions
of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall
constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to
be unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
23. Id. at 156-159. The accounts are as follows:
Covered Institution Account Name Account Number

AIG Philam Savings Ariel C. 5179-8819-4757-9006
Bank, Inc. Panganiban
AIG Philam Savings Katherine G. 5179-8819-1260-4003

AIG Philam Savings Katherine G. 5179-8819-1260-4003
Bank, Inc. Bombeo
Banco de Oro Samuel S. 10160445094
Bombeo
Banco de Oro Samuel S. 12160008687
Bombeo
Banco de Oro Ariel C. 10160465761
Panganiban
Citibank Katherine 8243051259
Bombeo
East West Bank Molugan 04-02-04043-2
East West Bank Molugan 4302005295
East West Bank Samuel S. 04-02-01842-9
Bombeo
East West Bank AGS 04-02-04042-4
East West Bank AGS 36-02-00572-1
East West Bank One Accord 36-02-00574-6
Christian
Community
Endeavor for
Salvation and
Success through
Poverty
Alleviation
East West Bank Society's Multi- 36-02-00226-7
Purpose
Foundation, Inc.
East West Bank Alliance for the 1502053661
Conservation of
the Environment
of Pangasinan,
Inc.
East West Bank Sta. Lucia 1502053562
Educational
Association of
Bulacan, Inc.
Equitable PCI Bank Samuel Gomez 1291-16354-4
Bombeo, Jr.
Maybank Phils., Inc. Ace-Alliance for 0016-500155-3
the Conservation
of the
Environment of
Pangasinan, Inc.
Maybank Phils., Inc. Sta. Lucia 0016-500154-6
Educational
Association of
Bulacan, Inc.
Metropolitan Bank & Ariel C. 3-00364790-1
Trust Co. Panganiban
PNB Samuel S. 247-812382-8
Bombeo
PNB Samuel S. 247-525602-9

PNB Samuel S. 247-525602-9
PNB Bombeo
LIVECOR 273-850001-9
Phil. Savings Bank Ariel C. 084-121-00180-8
Panganiban
Planters Development Ariel C. 11-59-004301
Bank Panganiban or
Donnie Ray G.
Panganiban
Bank Panganiban or
Donnie Ray G.
Panganiban
Bank Panganiban or
Donnie Ray G.
Panganiban
Bank Panganiban or
Earl Walter G.
Panganiban
Bank Panganiban or
Earl Walter G.
Panganiban
Bank Panganiban or
Earl Walter G.
Panganiban
Bank Panganiban or
Darryl G.
Panganiban
Bank Panganiban or
Darryl G.
Panganiban
Bank Panganiban or
Darryl G.
Panganiban
Bank Panganiban or
Gavina G.
Panganiban
Bank Panganiban or
Gavina G.
Panganiban
Bank Panganiban or
Gavina G.
Panganiban
Bank Panganiban or
Jaypee G.
Panganiban

Bank Panganiban or
Jaypee G.
Panganiban
Phil. Business Bank Sps. Samuel & PN0576-03
Katherine
Bombeo
Phil. Business Bank Eduardo F. Suerez 010-00-000438-9
&/or Ariel C.
Panganiban ITF;
MKS Finance
Corp.
Union Bank Samuel S. 00894582704-2
Bombeo
Insular Life Assurance Ariel C. Policy No. 2315613
Co. Panganiban
Pru Life Insurance Samuel S. Policy No. CTBF013882
Corp. of UK Bombeo
Pru Life Insurance Samuel S. Policy No. CTBP013882
Corp. of UK Bombeo
Manufacturers Life Samuel S. Policy No. 8710170009
Insurance Co. Bombeo
Standard Insurance Samuel S. Policy No. COC-13643688
Co., Inc. Bombeo
BPI/MS Insurance Ariel C. Policy No. F0005978
Corp. Panganiban
Performance Foreign Samuel S. 2649
Exchange Corp Bombeo, Jr.
Prudential Bank Jocelyn I. Bolante 00000-035110-8
BPI Jocelyn I. Bolante 0200111600000001163007351
BPI
BPI Jocelyn 1.
Jocelyn I. Bolante 0200111600000001167000203
Bolante 0200111600000001167001978
BPI Jocelyn 1. Bolante 0200111600000001167001978
Union Bank Jocelyn I. Bolante 009550000582
Rizal Commercial Jocelyn I. Bolante 1249800445
Banking Corp.
Banking Corp.
Standard Chartered Jocelyn I. Bolante BPY 280851100002150
Bank
24. 569 Phil. 98 (2008).
25. Section 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. — Notwithstanding the
provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, Republic Act No. 6426, as
amended, Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into
or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution
or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases
of violation of this Act, when it has been established that there is probable
cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity as
defined in Section 3 (i) hereof or a money laundering offense under Section 4
unlawful activities defined in Sections 3 (i) (1), (2) and (12).
To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)
may inquire into or examine any deposit or investment with any banking
institution or non-bank financial institution when the examination is made in
the course of a periodic or special examination, in accordance with the rules
of examination of the BSP.
26. Republic v. Eugenio , supra.
27. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 160-164; dated 21 May 2008.
28. Id. at 74-96; filed on 30 June 2008.
29. Id. at 165-184. The Resolution dated 1 July 2008 issued by the CA First Division
was penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Presiding Justice
Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a
Member of this Court) concurring.
30. Id. at 184, 185; conducted on 8 July 2008.
31. Id. at 186-187.

32. Id. at 185-188; Resolution dated 16 July 2008.
33. Id. at 268-296; Resolution dated 19 August 2008.
34. Id. at 273-283. The remaining accounts that show an existing balance are as
follows:

Banco de Oro Samuel S. Bombeo 12160008687
Banco de Oro Ariel C. Panganiban 10160465761
Banco de Oro Ariel C. Panganiban or 0160444063
Gavina Panganiban
Citibank Katherine Bombeo 8243051259
East West Bank
Molugan 04-02-04043-2
East West Bank
Molugan 4302005295
East West Bank
Samuel S. Bombeo 04-02-01842-9
East West Bank
Alliance for the 1502053661
Conservation of the
Environment of
Pangasinan, Inc.
East West Bank Sta. Lucia Educational 1502053562
Association of
Bulacan, Inc.
Maybank Phils., Inc. Ace-Alliance for the 0016-500155-3
Conservation of the
Environment of
Pangasinan, Inc.
Maybank Phils., Inc. Samuel S. Bombeo 1016-003434-3
Metropolitan Bank & Ariel C. Panganiban 3-00364790-1
Trust Co.
PNB Samuel S. Bombeo 247-812382-8
PNB LIVECOR 273-850001-9
Union Bank Samuel S. Bombeo 00894582704-2
Insular Life Assurance Ariel C. Panganiban Policy No. 2315613
Co.
Manufacturers Life Samuel S. Bombeo Policy No. 871170009
Insurance Co.
BPI/MS Insurance Ariel C. Panganiban Policy No. F0005978
Corp.
Corp.
Performance Foreign Samuel S. Bombeo, Jr. 2649
Exchange Corp.
BPI Jocelyn I. Bolante 1163-0073-51
Banking Corp.
Standard Chartered Jocelyn I. Bolante BPY 280851100002150
Bank
35. Id. at 189-206.

36. Id. at 264-267; Order dated 25 July 2008.
37. Rollo (G.R. No. 190357), pp. 212-216.
38. Section 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. — Notwithstanding the
provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, Republic Act No. 6426, as
amended, Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into
or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution
or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases
of violation of this Act, when it has been established that there is probable
cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity as
defined in Section 3 (i) hereof or a money laundering offense under Section 4
unlawful activities defined in Sections 3 (i) (1), (2) and (12).
To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)
may inquire into or examine any deposit or investment with any banking
institution or non-bank financial institution when the examination is made in
the course of a periodic or special examination, in accordance with the rules
of examination of the BSP.
39. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 333-362; dated 22 December 2008.
40. Id. at 363-365; dated 26 January 2009.
41. Id. at 364-365. The 24 accounts are the following:

Banco de Oro Samuel S. Bombeo 12160008687
or Gavina
Panganiban
Citibank Katherine Bombeo 8243051259
East West Bank Molugan 4302005295
East West Bank Samuel S. Bombeo 04-02-01842-9
Union Bank Samuel S. Bombeo 00894582704-2
Insular Life Assurance Ariel C. Panganiban Policy No. 2315613
Co.
Manufacturers Life Samuel S. Bombeo Policy No. 871170009
Insurance Co.
Corp.
Performance Foreign Samuel S. Bombeo, 2649
Exchange Corp. Jr.
Banking Corp.
42. Id. at 366-404; filed on 2 February 2009.
43. Id. at 472-483. The Resolution issued by the CA First Division was penned by
Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Presiding Justice Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam concurring.
44. Id. at 64; conducted on 12 February 2009.

45. Id. at 58-68.
46. Id. at 66-67.
47. Id. at 67-68.
48. Id. at 68.

49. Entitled "Rules of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset 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," dated 15 December 2005.
50. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 520-522.
51. Id. at 537-569 (Respondents Jocelyn I. Bolante, et al.), 609-629 (Respondent
National Livelihood Development Corporation, formerly LIVECOR), 637-656
(Respondents Ariel C. Panganiban, et al.).
52. Id. at 689-700.

53. Rollo (G.R. No. 190357), pp. 42-49.
54. Id. at 45.
55. Id.
56. 586 Phil. 135 (2008).
57. Rollo (G.R. No. 190357), pp. 45-46.
58. Id. at 46.
59. Id.
60. Id. at 46-47.
61. Id. at 47-48.
62. Id. at 50.

63. Id. at 513-514; Resolution dated 10 March 2010.
64. Id. at 693-694.
65. Id. at 829-830.

66. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 1282-1290.
67. 613 Phil. 143 (2009).
68. Rollo (G.R. No. 185717), p. 1202.
69. Id. at 29.

70. 393 Phil. 838 (2000).
71. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), p. 66.

72. See notes 34 and 41.
73. R.A. 9160, Section 7 (5).
74. Id. at Section 7 (6).

75. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 80-85.
76. Id. at 376-384.
77. Id. at 83-85, 391-394.
78. Riviera Golf Club, Inc. v. CCA Holdings, B.V., G.R. No. 173783, 17 June 2015,
758 SCRA 691.
79. Mallion v. Alcantara , 536 Phil. 1049 (2006).
80. Section 10. Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property. — The Court of
Appeals, upon application ex parte by the AMLC and after determination that
probable cause exists that any monetary instrument or property is in any
way related to an unlawful activity as defined in Section 3 (i) hereof, may
issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately. The freeze order
shall be for a period of twenty (20) days unless extended by the court.
81. De Leon v. De Llana, G.R. No. 212277, 11 February 2015, 750 SCRA 53.
82. Section 53. Freeze Order . —

(a) Effectivity; post-issuance hearing. — The freeze order shall be effective
immediately for a period of twenty days. Within the twenty-day period, the
court shall conduct a summary hearing, with notice to the parties, to
determine whether or not to modify or lift the freeze order, or extend its
effectivity as hereinafter provided.
(b) Extension . — On motion of the petitioner filed before the expiration of
twenty days from issuance of a freeze order, the court may for good cause
extend its effectivity for a period not exceeding six months.
83. Entitled "Rules of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset 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," dated 15 December 2005.
84. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 40-41, 1203-1204.
85. Natalia Realty, Inc. v. CA , 440 Phil. 1 (2002).
86. Republic v. Eugenio, supra at 125.

87. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 69-71.
88. G.R. No. 216914, 6 December 2016.
89. Id. at 11.

90. Id. at 11-19.
91. Id.
92. Id. at 20-23.

93. Id. at 23.
94. Id. at 27-39.
95. Id.
96. Id. at 32.
97. 705 Phil. 477 (2013), 501-502.
98. Republic v. Eugenio , supra at 126.

99. Imutan v. CA , 190 Phil. 233 (1981).
100. Id.
101. Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corp. , 565 Phil. 59 (2007).
102. Id.
103. Rollo (G.R. No. 190357), p. 72.

Republic V Bolante

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic V Bolante

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic V Bolante

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 186717. April 17, 2017.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the ANTI-

[G.R. No. 190357. April 17, 2017.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the ANTI-

G.R. No. 186717 is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

The AMLC issued Resolution No. 75 16 ﬁnding probable cause to believe

In view of this development, the AMLC issued Resolution No. 40. 27 It

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

Both petitions sought the issuance of a freeze order against bank

The Republic's commission of forum shopping is further illustrated by

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

Section 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. —

The authority to inquire into or examine the main account and

Grave abuse of discretion is present where power is exercised in an

We note that in the RTC Order dated 17 November 2006 in AMLC SP

5. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), p. 97.

12. Entitled "TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY ON THE ALLEGED MISMANAGEMENT AND

13. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), p. 98.

14. Id. at 104-147.

16. Id. at 97-102; dated 18 September 2006.

18. Id. at 101. The accounts are as follows:

Covered Account Name Account Number

19. Id. at 103.

20. Id. at 151-156.

21. Id. at 151-159; dated 26 October 2007.

23. Id. at 156-159. The accounts are as follows:

Covered Institution Account Name Account Number

AIG Philam Savings Katherine G. 5179-8819-1260-4003

PNB Samuel S. 247-525602-9

Planters Development Ariel C. 11-59-011465

24. 569 Phil. 98 (2008).

31. Id. at 186-187.

33. Id. at 268-296; Resolution dated 19 August 2008.

Covered Institution Account Name Account Number

35. Id. at 189-206.

37. Rollo (G.R. No. 190357), pp. 212-216.

41. Id. at 364-365. The 24 accounts are the following:

Covered Institution Account Name Account Number

44. Id. at 64; conducted on 12 February 2009.

48. Id. at 68.

52. Id. at 689-700.

62. Id. at 50.

65. Id. at 829-830.

69. Id. at 29.

71. Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), p. 66.

74. Id. at Section 7 (6).

82. Section 53. Freeze Order . —

86. Republic v. Eugenio, supra at 125.

89. Id. at 11.

92. Id. at 20-23.

98. Republic v. Eugenio , supra at 126.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like