RA.

7080- ANTI-PLUNDER LAW

Source: Lawphil.net

Public Officer- any person holding any public office in the Government of the Republic of the Philippines
by virtue of an appointment, election or contract.

Ill-Gotten Wealth: Any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person
acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates, and/or
business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:

A. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds or raids on the

public treasury.

B. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any
other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any
government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer
concerned;

C. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National

Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;

D. By obtaining, receiving or accepting, directly or indirectly, any shares of stock, equity or any
other form of interest or participation, including the promise of future employment in any
business enterprise or undertaking.

E. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations,

and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special
interests;

F. By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence

to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage or prejudice of the
Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.

PERSONS LIABLE:

A. Any public officer who, by himself or in with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates and subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates, or
acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described
under above in the aggregate amount or total value of at least 75 million pesos, shall be guilty of
the crime of plunder (as amended by RA 7659).

*aggregate amount or total value of at least 50 million, as amended by R.A. 7659

B. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of plunder.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:

Sandiganbayan.

RULE OF EVIDENCE:

For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and
every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme and conspiracy to amass,
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt
a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

PRESCRIPTION:

20 years. However, the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public
officers from them or from their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches or
estoppel.
CASE DIGESTS

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo vs.People of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan,

G. R. No. 220598

FACTS:

The Court resolves the consolidated petitions for certiorari separately filed by former President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Budget and Accounts
Manager Benigno B. Aguas.

On July 10, 2012, the Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager Aguas (and some other
officials of PCSO and Commission on Audit whose charges were later dismissed by the
Sandiganbayan after their respective demurrers to evidence were granted, except for Uriarte
and Valdes who were at large) for conspiracy to commit plunder, as defined by, and penalized
under Section 2 (b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.

The information reads: That during the period from January 2008 to June 2010 or sometime
prior or subsequent thereto xxx accused Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the then President of the
Philippines xxx Benigno Aguas, then PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager, all public officers
committing the offense in relation to their respective offices and taking undue advantage of
their respective official positions, authority, relationships, connections or influence, conniving,
conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
criminally amass, accumulate and/or acquire, directly or indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the
aggregate amount or total value of PHP365,997,915.00, more or less, [by raiding the public
treasury].

Thereafter, accused GMA and Aguas separately filed their respective petitions for bail which
were denied by the Sandiganbayan on the ground that the evidence of guilt against them was
strong.

After the Prosecution rested its case, accused GMA and Aguas then separately filed their
demurrers to evidence asserting that the Prosecution did not establish a case for plunder
against them. The same were denied by the Sandiganbayan, holding that there was sufficient
evidence to show that they had conspired to commit plunder. After the respective motions for
reconsideration filed by GMA and Aguas were likewise denied by the Sandiganbayan, they filed
their respective petitions for certiorari.

ISSUE:

WON PGMA plunder was sufficiently established?

HELD:

NO, the law on plunder requires that a particular public officer must be identified as the one
who amassed, acquired or accumulated ill-gotten wealth because it plainly states that plunder is
committed by any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons,
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at
least ₱50,000,000.00 through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described.

The State miserably failed to prove the corpus delicti of plunder; that the Court correctly
required the identification of the main plunderer as well as personal benefit on the part of the
raider of the public treasury to enable the successful prosecution of the crime of plunder; that
the State did not prove the conspiracy that justified her inclusion in the charge; that to sustain
the case for malversation against her, in lieu of plunder, would violate her right to be informed
of the accusation against her because the information did not necessarily include the crime of
malversation.

Phrase raids on the public treasury, the key is to look at the accompanying words:
misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds. The Prosecution failed to
prove the predicate act of raiding the public treasury. Pursuant to the maxim of noscitur a sociis,
raids on the public treasury requires the raider to use the property taken impliedly for his
personal benefit.
Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 224162

FACTS:

In 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman received: (1) a Complaint from its Field Investigation
Office; and (2) a recommendation from the NBI; charging Janet Lim Napoles, former Sen. Juan
Ponce Enrile, his Chief of Staff, Atty. Jessica Lucila Reyes and several other individuals with the
crime of Plunder under RA 7080 and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA
3019) for allegedly misappropriating former Sen. Enrile’s PDAF through fictitious NGO’s.

The Ombudsman Special Panel of Investigators found probable cause and thereafter
Informations against them were filed before the Sandiganbayan.

In 2014, Napoles filed a Petition for Bail arguing that the evidence of the prosecution is
insufficient to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Sandiganbayan conducted bail
hearings. The prosecution presented several witnesses but Napoles did not present any nor any
other evidence.

The Sandiganbayan thereafter denied the Petition for Bail of Napoles as well as her Motion for
Reconsideration. Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE:

WON there is strong evidence of guilt on the part of Napoles was resolved by the
Sandiganbayan in accordance with the relevant laws, rules, and jurisprudence in the application
for bail in capital cases

RULING:

Yes, While· bail may generally be granted as a matter of right prior to the conviction of the
accused,26 those charged with a capital offense is granted bail only when the evidence of guilt is
not strong.

In Cortes v. Catral,31 this Court laid down the following duties of the trial court in cases of an
application for bail:

1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of
the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation
(Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as amended);

2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail
regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that
the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its
sound discretion; (Sections 7 and 8, supra).

3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence
of the prosecution;
 4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of
the bailbond (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be denied.32

Since Napoles was charged with the crime of Plunder, which carries the imposable penalty of
reclusion perpetua,33she cannot be admitted to bail when the evidence of her guilt is strong.
This was the burden that the prosecution assumed in the subsequent hearings that followed the
filing of Napoles' Petition for Bail before the Sandiganbayan. As a trial court, the Sandiganbayan,
in turn, possessed the jurisdiction to hear and weigh the evidence of the prosecution and the
defense.

At that stage of the proceedings, the bail hearings are limited to the determination of whether
there is a strong presumption of Napoles' guilt.34 It is merely a preliminary determination, and
the Sandiganbayan may deny admission to bail even when there is reasonable doubt as to the
guilt of Napoles. Thus, the prosecution can discharge its burden by proving that the evidence
against Napoles shows evident proof of guilt or a great presumption of guilt.
R.A. 9160- ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT

AS AMENEDED BY R.A. 10365

*IRR of R.A. 9160

Source: Lawphil.net

Money laundering- a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted, thereby
making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources.

Unlawful activity:

• Kidnapping for ransom

• Drug offenses
• Graft and corrupt practices
• Plunder
• Robbery and extortion
• Jueteng and masiao
• Piracy on the high seas
• Qualified theft
• Swindling
• Smuggling
• Electronic Commerce crimes
• Hijacking, destructive arson and murder, including those perpetrated against non-combatant
persons (terrorist acts)
• Securities fraud
• Felonies or offenses of a similar nature punishable under penal laws of other countries
• Terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism
• Financing of terrorism
• Bribery
• Frauds and Illegal Exactions and Transactions
• Malversation of Public Funds and Property
• Forgeries and Counterfeiting
• Illegal Trafficking of Persons
• Violations of the Revised Forestry Code
• Violations Philippine Fisheries Code
• Violations of Philippine Mining Act
• Violations of Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act
• Violation of the National Caves and Cave Resources Management Protection Act
• Carnapping
 • Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing In, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms,
Ammunition or Explosives
• Fencing
• Violation of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act
• Violation the Intellectual Property Code
• Violation of the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act
• Violation of the Anti-Child Pornography Act
• Violations of the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination

Safe Harbor Provisions. – No administrative, criminal or civil proceedings shall lie against any covered
institution, their personnel, directors or officers or any person for having made a covered transaction
report or a suspicious transaction report in the regular performance of his duties and in good faith,
whether or not such reporting results in any criminal prosecution under this Act or any other Philippine
law.

ACTIONS PENALIZED:

1. Knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to the
proceeds of any unlawful activity:
a. transacts said monetary instrument or property
b. converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses or uses said monetary
instrument or property
c. conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership
of or rights with respect to said monetary instrument or property
d. attempts or conspires to commit money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a),
(b) or (c);
e. aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the money laundering offenses referred
to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above
f. performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money
laundering referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.
2. Knowing that a covered or suspicious transaction is required under this Act to be reported to the
Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so.
3. Failure to Keep Records of all transactions of covered institutions which is to be maintained and
safely stored for five (5) years from the date of transactions. With respect to closed accounts,
the records on customer identification, account files and business correspondence.
4. With malice, or in bad faith, report or files a completely unwarranted or false information
relative to money laundering transaction against any person.
5. Breach of Confidentiality

COVERED INSTITUTION
1. banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, foreign exchange dealers, pawnshops, money changers,
remittance and transfer companies and other similar entities and all other persons and their subsidiaries
and affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);

2. insurance companies, pre-need companies and all other persons supervised or regulated by the
Insurance Commission (IC);

3. (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses and other similar persons managing
securities or rendering services as investment agent, advisor, or consultant, (ii) mutual funds, close-end
investment companies, common trust funds, and other similar persons, and (iii) other entities
administering or otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives based thereon,
valuable objects, cash substitutes and other similar monetary instruments or property supervised or
regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);

4. jewelry dealers in precious metals, who, as a business, trade in precious metals, for transactions in
excess of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00);

5. jewelry dealers in precious stones, who, as a business, trade in precious stones, for transactions in
excess of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00);

6. company service providers which, as a business, provide any of the following services to third parties:
(i) acting as a formation agent of juridical persons; (ii) acting as (or arranging for another person to act
as) a director or corporate secretary of a company, a partner of a partnership, or a similar position in
relation to other juridical persons; (iii) providing a registered office, business address or accommodation,
correspondence or administrative address for a company, a partnership or any other legal person or
arrangement; and (iv) acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a nominee shareholder for
another person; and

7. persons who provide any of the following services:

a. managing of client money, securities or other assets

b. management of bank, savings or securities accounts

c. organization of contributions for the creation, operation or management of companies

d. creation, operation or management of juridical persons or arrangements, and buying and

selling business entities.

COVERED TRANSACTIONS:

 Single, series, or combination of transactions involving a total amount in excess of Four million
Philippine pesos (Php4,000,000.00) or an equivalent amount in foreign currency based on the
prevailing exchange rate within five (5) consecutive banking days except those between a
covered institution and a person who, at the time of the transaction was a properly identified
client and the amount is commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the client; or
those with an underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose, origin or economic justification.
  Single, series or combination or pattern of unusually large and complex transactions in excess of
Four million Philippine pesos (Php4,000,000.00) especially cash deposits and investments having
no credible purpose or origin, underlying trade obligation or contract.

PROSECUTION:

a. Any person may be charged with and convicted of both the offense of money laundering and
the unlawful activity
b. The prosecution of any offense or violation under this Act shall proceed independently of any
proceeding relating to the unlawful activity.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:

Regional Trial Court

CASE DIGESTS:

Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Gidwani

G.R. No. 234616

FACTS:

Respondent was charged with estafa through falsification under Art. 315(2)(a) in relation to Arts. 172(1)
and 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code and for money laundering as defined in Section 4(a) of AMLA upon
discovery by PDIC that the respondent, together with 86 other individuals fraudulently declared that
they are the bona fide owners of 471 deposits with the legacy banks which were ordered closed and put
under receivership in order to claim insurance proceeds from PDIC. These purported depositors, in
conspiracy with Manu Gidwani (Manu), falsified official documents by making the untruthful statement
of ownership in their deposit insurance claims which representations were relied upon by PDIC. As a
result, it released to them the deposit insurance proceeds amounting to P98,733,690.21, of which
P97,733,690.21, was deposited to the RCBC account of Manu. PDIC alleges that the government
suffered damage when it discovered upon investigation that Manu was the sole beneficial owner of the
bank accounts.

When the case reached the Court of Appeals (CA), it dismissed the complaints due to lack of probable
cause and held that the Secretary of Justice (SoJ) gravely abused his discretion in finding probable cause.

ISSUE:

WON the CA erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause?

RULE:

Yes. Money laundering as defined in Section 4 (a) of RA 9160 is:

Section 4.

Money Laundering Offense. — Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful
activity are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is
committed by the following: a. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property
represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to
transact said monetary instrument or property.

It must be recalled that the criminal case is still in the stage of preliminary investigation. The
investigation is advisedly called preliminary, because it is yet to be followed by the trial proper in a court
of law. The occasion is not for the full and exhaustive display of the parties since the function of the
investigating prosecutor is not to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused.

In this case, there exists probable cause to support the complaints since the PDIC reportedly discovered
that there was only one beneficial owner of the 471 bank accounts with the Legacy Banks of the 86
individual depositors — respondent Manu. To illustrate, PDIC reportedly discovered that 142 of these
471 accounts, with the total amount of P20,966,439.09, were in the names of helpers and rank-and-file
employees of the Gidwani spouses who do not have the financial capacity to deposit the amounts
recorded under their names. That such individuals reported either respondent Manu's office or business
address as their own further arouses serious suspicion on the true ownership of the funds deposited. It
gives the impression that they had been used by respondent as dummies, and their purported
ownership mere subterfuge, in order to increase the amount of his protected deposit.
Ligot vs Republic of the Philippines

G.R. 176944

FACTS:

Republic of the Philippines represented by Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) filed an Urgent Ex-
Parte Application for the issuance of a freeze order with the Court of Appeals against certain monetary
and instruments and properties of the petitioners, pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act No. 9160, as
amended otherwise known as Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 based on the letter sent by the
Ombudsman to the AMLC recommending the latter to conduct investigation on Lt. Gen. Ligot and his
family for possible violation of RA. 9160.

Ombudsman’s complaint alleges that Lt. Ligot who served the Armed Forces of the Philippines for 33
years and 2 months, declared in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) that as of
December 31, 2003 he had assets in the total amount of Three Million Eight Hundred Forty-Eight
Thousand and Three Pesos (₱3,848,003.00). In contrast, his declared assets in his 1982 SALN amounted
only to One Hundred Five Thousand Pesos (₱ 105,000.00). Aside from these, the Ombudsman’s
investigation found that the petitioner and his family have assets and properties that were not declared
in the SALN amounting to at least Fifty-Four Million One Thousand Two Hundred Seventeen Pesos
(₱54,001,217.00). Considering the source of income of the petitioner and assets in the name of his wife
and children, the ombudsman declared the said assets to be illegally obtained and unexplained wealth
pursuant to RA 1379 (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).

Ombudsman also investigated the records of the Social Security System of Yambao, petitioner’s brother.
It revealed that he had been employed in private sector. Based on his contributions, he does not have a
substantial salary. Also, they found that he had an investment in Mabelline Food Inc. but the company
only had a net income of ₱5,062.96 in 2002 and ₱693.67 in 2003. But despite Yambao’s lack of
substantial income, the records show that he has a real properties and vehicles registered in his name
amounting to Eight Million Seven Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Pesos
(₱8,763,550.00), which he acquired from 1993 onwards. The Office of the Ombudsman further observed
that in the documents it examined, Yambao declared three of the Ligots’ addresses as his own. From
these circumstances, the Ombudsman concluded that Yambao acted as a dummy and/or nominee of the
Ligot spouses, and all the properties registered in Yambao’s name actually belong to the Ligot family.

ISSUE:

WON CA erred in finding that probable cause exists to support the issuance of freeze order?

HELD:

NO, The CA did not err in finding that there is a probable cause to support the issuance of freeze order.
The legal basis for the issuance of a freeze order is Section 10 of RA No. 9160, as amended by RA No.
9194, which states:

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.

Ligot’s claim that the CA erred in extending the effectivity period of the freeze order because they have
not yet been convicted of any of the offenses enumerated in RA 9160 that would support the AMLC’s
accusation of money-laundering activity it not tenable. Based on section 10, there are two requisites for
the issuance of the freeze order (1) the application ex parte by the AMLC and (2) the determination of
probable cause by CA. The probable cause required for the issuance of freeze order is different from the
probable cause required for the institution of a criminal action. As defined in the law, the probable
cause required for the issuance of a 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.

In other words, in resolving the issue of whether probable cause exists, the CA’s statutorily-guided
determination’s focus is not on the probable commission of an unlawful activity (or money laundering)
that the Office of the Ombudsman has already determined to exist, but on whether the bank accounts,
assets, or other monetary instruments sought to be frozen are in any way related to any of the illegal
activities enumerated under RA No. 9160, as amended. Thus, contrary to the Ligots’ claim, a freeze
order is not dependent on a separate criminal charge, much less does it depend on a conviction.

It should be noted that the existence of an unlawful activity that would justify the issuance and the
extension of the freeze order has likewise been established in this case. Lt. Ligot himself admitted that
his income came from his salary as an officer of AFP. Yet, the Ombudsman’s investigation revealed that
the bank accounts, investments and properties of Ligot amount to more than FiftyFour Million Pesos
which are grossly disproportionate to Lt. Ligot’s income. For failure of the petitioner to provide evidence
showing that he has other sources of income, the CA properly found a probable cause that these funds
have been illegally acquired.