People V Deguito - CA Decision

Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
RI -·---~-- soBbt+i'R'ifeNER,,
FEB 2 8 2023 f
, :1, \ _j ·J, • A r-i.J
DOCKET MANAGEMENT ~s:,:,,,, -
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus - CA-G.R. CR No. 44284
MAIA SANTOS-DEGUITO, ET AL.,

Accused,
MAIA SANTOS DEGUITO, ET AL.,
Accused-Appellant.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
February 6, 2023
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sir/Mad am:
Please take notice that on February 6, 2023, a DECISION, copy hereto attached, was
rendered by the FIRST DIVISION , Court of Appeals, in the above-entitled case, the original
copy of which is on file with this office.
You are hereby required to inform this Court under oath within five (5) days from
receipt hereof, of the date when you received this notice and a copy of the decision.
Copy furnished :
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL - registered

(counsel for plaintiff-appellee)
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City
CUSTODIO ACORDA SICAM & DE CASTRO LAW OFFICES - registered

(counsel for accused-appellant)
15th Fir., BDO Towers Valero (formerly Citibank Tower),
8741 Paseo de Roxas cor. Villar St.,
Salcedo Village, 1227 Makati City
THE PRESIDING JUDGDE - registered

RTC - Br. 149
1200 Makati City
mie/@
• r r
. , ' I
cl~~~
r;;fo
~..- !!'►
R p u bli f th e P hil ippin
Court of Appeal
Manila
FIRST (1 st) DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR No. 44284

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Members:
- ·versus -Salazar-Fernando, R.A.,

Chairperson
Perez, P.A., and
MAIA SANTOS-DEGUITO, Lauigan, R.R.R., ]J.
JOHN/JANE DOES A.K.A.
"MICHAEL FRANCISCO
CRUZ," "JESSIE
CHRISTOPHER M.
LAGROSAS," II ALFRED
SANTOS VERGAR~" AND

"ENRICO TEODORO
VASQUEZ,"
Accused,
MAIA SANTOS DEGUITO,

ET AL., Promulgated:
Accused-Appellant.
x- ________________________ -~~ w _eM _ 1 x
DECISION
Lauigan, L.
Before the Court is an appeal1 filed by the accused-

appellant, Maia Santos Deguito (Deguito), assailing the Joint
Decision 2 dated 10 January 2019 of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City, Branch 149 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. R-MKT-17-
02993-CR, R-MKT-17-02994-CR, R-MKT-17-02995-CR, R-MKT-17-
1
RP/lo, pp. 72-178
2
Id. at 180-205
CA-G.R. CR No. 44284
Decision
Page 2
x-----------------------x
02999-CR, R-MKT-17-03000-CR and R-MKT-17-04107-CR, finding

Deguito guilty beyond reasonable doubt of eight (8) counts of
violation of Section 4 (f) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9160, also
known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, as amended
by R.A. No. 10365. 3
Likewise challenged is the Resolution 4 dated 20 September

2019 of the RIC, denying the subsequent Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Deguito.
THE ANTECEDENTS
Deguito, along with four (4) John Does alias "Michael

Francisco Cruz" (Cruz), "Jessie Christopher M. Lagrosas"
(Lagrosas), "Alfred Santos Vergara" (Vergara) and "Enrico
Teodoro Vasquez" (Vasquez), were indicted for violation of
Section 4 (f) of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, under the following
Informations: 5
"R-MKT-17-02993-CR 6
That on or about Fcbmary 9, 2016 ill Makati City, Philippines and

I1 ithin the jurisdiction of this Ho110rable Court, the abore-11amed
1
accused MAIA SANTOS-DEGUITO, who was then the branch

manager of Rizal Co111111ercial Banking Corporation (RCBC),
Jupiter Branch, 11 cm'<:'red pcrso11, with JOHN/JANE, DOES
a.k.a. "MICHAEL FRANCISCO CRUZ", "JESSIE
CHRISTOPHER M. LAG ROSAS", "ALFRED SANTOS
VERGARA" and "ENRICO TEODORO VASQUEZ"
conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did
1
An Act Further Strengthening the Anti-Mont'Y Laundering Lnv, Amending for the
Purpose Republic Act Nu. 9160, otherwist: Knovvn as the" 1\nti-Money Lc1umlering Act of
2001 ", As /\mended
1
Rollo, pp 206-213
In the Order dated 19 October 2017, the RTC noted that Informations in Crim. Case Nos.
R-MKT-17-02993-CR, R-MKT-17-02994-CR, R-MKT-17-02995-CR, R-MKT-17-02996-CR,
R-MKT-17-02997-CR, R-MKT-17-02998-CR, R-MKT-17-02999-CR and R-MKT-17-03000-
CR should have been titled as "Amended Information", as per discussion in open court
in the morning of 19 October 2017. The word "Amended" did not prefix the word
"Information", although there were signs of amendments on the second page of each
Informations, Records, p. 93 (Vol. II)
6
Records, p. 62 (Vol. II)
Decision
Page 3
x-----------------------x
then and there knowingly, willji1lly, and feloniously facilitate tlze

following transactions: (1) the 01 1cr-the-cow1ter withdrawal of the
nnzount of Five Million Nine Hundred Eigl1ty Five Thousand
Eight Hundred Eighty Three and Forty SevenLl00 US Dollars
(US$5,985,883.47) fro111 ,m irregularly opened RCBC accowzt no.
9013-547-047, 7l'licre tlzc owner "Michael F. Cruz" 111/IS found to
be fictitious, which they allowed/approved despite JmmPi11g tlzis
irregularity and knowing also that the said a11w1111t is a portion of
tlze Eighty One Million US Dollars (US$81,000,000.00) more
or less, was involved or was related to tlze proceeds of 1111 unlawful
activity, that is, the ,,iolation of tlze Electronic Commerce Act
mzd/or the lnfor11111tiou and Co1111111mirntio11 Technology Act, the
penal law of Bangladesh, 1l'herei11 on or about February 4, 2016 in
Bangladesh, an unauthorized user issued thirty-five (35)
Bangladesh Bank (BB) Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial
Teleconrnrnnirntions (51N!FT) payment instructions to the Federal
Resen 1e Bank of New York (FRB-NY) irwolz1i11g millions of US
Dollars; four (4) of these payment instructions were cleared mzd
credited to the RCBC, Jupiter Branch, struings account of
beneficiaries "Michael F. Cruz", "Jessie Christopher M.
Lagrosas", "Alfred S. Vergara" and "Enrico T. Vasquez",
thereby making it appear tlzat the said amount originated from
legiti111ate sources, to the damage and prejudice of complainants.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
R-MKT-17-02994-CR 7
That on or about February 9, 2016 in Makati City, Philippines and

withi11 tlze jurisdiction of this f-ionomble Court, tlze abow-nmned
accused MAIA SANTOS-DEGUlTO, who was then tlze branch
manager of Rizal Com111ercial Banking Corporation (RCBC),
Jupiter Branch, a covered person, with JOHN/JANE DOES a.k.11.
"MICHAEL FRANCISCO CRUZ", "JESSIE CHRISTOPHER
M. LAGROSAS", "ALFRED SANTOS VERGARA" and
"ENRICO TEODORO VASQUEZ", conspiring, confederating
1111d mutually aiding one mwtlzer, did then mzd there knowingly,
willfi1lly, and feloniously _{t1cilitatc the following transactions: (1)
tlze oucr-t/ze-counter 7l'i tlzdmwal of tlze mnount of Nine Millioll
Seven Hundred Sixty Thousand One Huudred Twenty Four
and FifteenLl00 US Dollars (US$9,760,124.15) from an
irregularly opened RCBC account no. 9013-547-156, 7l'l1ere the
owner "Enrico T. Vasquez" was found to be fictitious, wl,iclz they
allowed/apprm1ed despite knowing this irregularity 1111d knowing
also that the said 11111ount is 11 portion of tlze Eighty One Million
7
Id. at 66
J '

Decision
Page4
x-----------------------x
US Dollars (US$81,000,000.00) more or less, was i1wofoed or

was rell1ted to tlze proceeds of rm lllzlanful acti'uity, that is, t/zc
violation of the Electronic Commerce Act and/or the Information
and Con11nu11irntion Technology Act, tl1e penal law of Bangladesh,
wherein 011 or about February 4, 2016 in Bangladesh, mz
unauthorized user issued tlzirty-fiz•e (35) Bangladesh Bank (BB)
Society of Worldwide Interbank Finmzcial Telecommunicatz'o11s
(SVVJFT) payment instructions to tlze Federal Reserz,e Bank of
New York (FRB-NY) inrnh 1i11g millions of US Dollars; four (4) of
these payment instructions were cleared a11d credited to tlie RCBC,
Jupiter Bnmclz, sm ings accozmt of beneficiaries "Michael F.
1
Cmz", "Jessie Christopher M. Lagrosas", "Alfred S. Vergara"

and "Enrico T. Vasquez", thereby making it appear that the said
11111ou11t originated from legitimate sources, to the damage and
prejudice of colllplainants."
CONTRARY TO LAW.
R-MKT-17-02995-CR 8
That 011 or about Febmary 9, 2016 in Makati City, Philippines and

witlzin tl1c 1urisdictio11 of tlzis Honorable Court, tlze abm 1c-n11111ed
accused MAIA SANTOS- DEGUITO, who Zl'(JS then tlze branch
manager of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC),
Jupiter Branch, a couered person, with JOHN/JANE DOES 11.k.a.
"ENRICO TEODORO VASGUEZ", conspiring, confederating
mrd mutually aiding one mwtlzer, did then and tl1ere knozl'ingly,
7l'illfully, and feloniously _fi1cilitnte the following transactions: (1)
tlze 01 1er-tlze-counter 1uitlzdrml'(Jl of the mno1mt of Nineteen
Million Nine Hundred Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred
Two and ThirteenLlQQ US Dollars (US$19,951,502.13) from an
irregularly opened RCBC account no. 9013-547-098, where t/zc
owner "Alfred S. Vergara", was fowid to be fictitious, wl1icl1 they
allowed/approved despite knowing this irregularity and k11owing
also that the said 1111wu11t is a 7-1ortio11 of the Eighty One Million
US Dollars (US$81,000,000.00) I/lore or less, ll'17S inz,o!'ucd or
was related to the proceeds of 1111 unlmuflll 11cth 1ity, that is, t!ze
·uiolation of tlzc Electronic Com111erce Act and/or tlze Inforlllatio11
and Communirntio11 Technology Act, t/1e penal law of Ba11gladeslz,
wl1erein on or about February 4, 2016 in Bangladesh, nn
unnutlzorized user issued thirty-fiI'C (35) Bangladesh Bank (BB)
Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
(SWIFT) payment instrurtions to the Federal Resen•c Bank of
8 Id. at 70
J ' J

Decision
Page 5
x-----------------------x
New York (FRB-NY) involving millions of US Dollars; follr (4) of

these paylllent instructions were cleared and credited to tlze RCBC,
Jupiter Bmnch, sm1ings accowzt of beneficiaries "Michael F.
Cruz", "Jessie Christopher M. Lagrosas", "Alfred S. Vergara"
and "Enrico T. Vasquez", thereby 11111king it 11ppe11r that the said
111110w1t originated from legiti11wte sources, to the damage and
prejudice of co111pfoinm1ts."
CONTRARY TO LAW.
R-MKT-17-02996-CR 9
That on or about February 9, 2016 in M11kati City, Philippines and

within the jurisdiction of this Ho11omble Court, t/ze 11bove-1u1111ed
11ccused MAIA SANTOS-DEGUITO, who w11s then the bmncl1
mmwger of RiZ11l Co11m1erci11l B11nking Corpomtion (RCBC),
Jupiter Bmnch, a wuered person, with JOHN/JANE DOES a.k.a.
M. LAGROSAS" "ALFRED SANTOS VERGARA" and
"ENRICO TEODORO VASQUEZ" conspiring, confedemting
and 11Zutu11lly aiding one 11not/zer, did tl1en and there knowingly,
willfully, mzd feloniously f11cilitate the following tmnsactions: (1)
tlze 011er-tlze-co1mter {withdmwal] deposit of tlze mnount of
Fourteen Million Three Hundred Twelve Thousand One
H1mdred Eighty Five and Fifty Four/100 US Dollars
(US$14,312,185.54) to tlze William So Go's, doing business as
Centurytex Tmdi11g, irreg11l11r RCBC US Dolfar Account No.
9016455240 {account], Il'lzere the know your custmner procedure
was not followed, which deposit they allowed/appwued dl'spitl'
knowing such irregularity mzd knml'ing 11/so that till' said amount
is a portion of the Eighty One Million US Dollars
(US$81,000,000.00) more or less, Il'as im)ofoed or was related to
the proceeds of 1111 unlmuful activity, that is, the viol11tio11 of the
Ell'ctronic Commerce Act and/or the Infor11111tion and
Conzmunirntion Tl'clmology Act, tlze penal law of Bmzgll1desh,
wlzerein 011 or about February 4, 2016 in Bangladesh, an
unauthorized user issued thirty-fi'ue (35) B11ngl11deslz Bank (BB)
Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Teleco111nzunirntions
(SWIFT) paylllent instructions to the Fedeml Reserve Bank of
New York (FRB-NY) involving ,ni/lions of US Dollars; four (4) of
these payment instructions Il'ere clearl'd and credited to the RCBC,
Jupiter Bmnc/1, Sffoings 11ccozmt of bl'11efici11nes "Michael F.
Cruz", "Jessie Christopher M. Lagrosas", "Alfred S. Vergara"
and "Enrico T. Vasquez", thereby nwking it appear tlz11t the said
111nount originated fro111 legitimate sources, to the d11n111ge and
" Id. at 74
j • /

Decision
Page 6
x-----------------------x
prejudice of complainants."
CONTRARY TO LAW.
R-MKT-17-02997-CR 10
Tlzat on or about Febru11ry 9, 2016 in M11k11ti City, Philippines and

1uitlzin the jurisdictio11 of this Honomble Court, tlze above-named
accused MAIA SANTOS-DEGUITO, who was then tlie bm11clI
manager of Riwl Co111111erci11! B11nking Corpomtio11 (RCBC),
Jupiter Bmnch, 11 capered person, with JOHN/JANE DOES a.k.11.
M. LAGROSAS", "ALFRED SANTOS VERGARA" , and
mzd 111utzwlly 11iding one 11110tller, did then and there k1101ui11gly,
willfully, mzd feloniously facilit11te the following tnmsactio11s: (1)
the m1er-tlze-cou11ter withdrmml of the m1101£nt of Seven Million
Two Hundred Thirty Six Thousand One Hundred Fifty Four
and Sixty TwoLlQQ US Dollars (US$7,236,154.62) from an
irreglllarly opened RCBC 11cco1Lnt 110. 9013-547-055, where the
owner "Jessie Christopher M. Lagrosas" w11s found to be
fictitious, which they allowed/11pproved despite knmuing tlzis
irregularity and knowing also tlwt tlze said 1111101111/ is a portion of
the Eighty One Million US Dollars (US$81,000,000.00) more
or less, was involved or was related to the proceeds of an unlawful
activity, tlwt is, tlze ·uiol11tion of tlze Electronic ComJJierce Act
and/or tlze h~fon1111tio11 and Co111111unication Technology Act, tlze
penal law of Bangladesh, wherein Oil or about February 4, 2016 in
Bangladesh, an 1mau tlwrized user issued thirty-fi11e (35)
Ba11gladesli Bank (BB) Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecomnwmcations (SWIFT) payment instructions to tlze Federal
Reserue Bank of New York (FRB-NY) im1olving millions of US
Dollars; four (4) of these payrnent instructions were cleared and
credited to the RCBC, Jupiter Branch, savings account of
Lagrosas", "Alfred S. Vergara" and "Enrico T. Vasquez",
thereby 11111ki11g it appear that the s11id 1111101111t originated from
legitimate sources, to the damage and prejudice of complainants.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
111 Id. at 75
, ' r

Decision
Page 7
x-----------------------x
R-MKT-17-02998-CR11
That on or about February 9, 2016 in Makati City, Philippines and

1l'ithi11 t/1e jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the ab01 1e-n11111ed
accused MAIA SANTOS-DEGUITO, w/Jo was then tlie bmnclz
manager of Rizal Co111111ercial Banking Corporation (RCBC),
Jupiter Bnmclz, a couered person, witlz JOHN/fANE DOES a.k.a.
and 111utually aiding one another, did then and there knowingly,
wil~fully, muf feloniously facilitate the following transactions: (1)
tlie over-tl1e-cow1ter [witluirawal/ deposit of tlze a11101mt of
Fourteen Million Two Hundred Ninety Eight Thousand and
Thirty Seven/100 US Dollars (US$14.298.209.37) to tlie
William So Go's, doing business as Centurytex Tmding,
irregular RCBC US Dollar Account No. 9016455240 [account],
1ulzere the Know Your Customer Procedure was not followed,
which deposit they allowed/approved despite knowing suclz
irregularity and knowing also that tlze said 11111011nt is a portion of
tlze Eighty One Million US Dollars (US$81,000,000.00) more
or less, was involved or Il'l1S related to the proceeds of an unlmuftll
activity, that is, the 11iolatio11 of the Electronic Co111111erce Act
and/or the Information and Co11111tunirntion Technology Act, tlze
penal law of Bangladesh, wherein on or about February 4, 2016 in
Bangladesh, an unauthorized user issued thirty-Ji1 1e (35)
Bangladesh Bank (BB) Society of Worldwide Interbank Fiwmcial
Telecom111unic11tions (SWIFT) payment instructions to the Federal
Resen 1e Bank of New York (FRB-NY) irruol"uing 111illions of US
Dollars; four (4) of these paylllent instructions were cleared and
credited to the RCBC Jupiter Branch, sm,iHgs accmint of
Lagrosas", "Alfred S. Vergara" and "Eurico T. Vasquez",
thereby making it appear that tlze said amount originated from
legitimate sources, to the d1111111ge and prejudice of co111plaina11ts.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
11 Jd.at167
J ' ,

Decision
Page 9
x-----------------------x
R-MKT-17-03000-CRn
Tlzat 011 or about Febmary 9, 2016 i11 Mnkati City, Pl1ilippillcs and
withi11 the jurisdiction of tlzis Honomble Court, the nbo-ue-ll11//1ed
acrnsed MAIA SANTOS-DEGUITO, ll'lw cl'ns then the lmmclz
111a1111ger of Rizal Co11u11ercial Banking Corporation (RCBC),
Jupiter Bmnclz, 11 col ered person, witlz JOHN/JANE DOES a.k.a.
1

M. LAGROSAS", "ALFRED SANTOS VERGARA" nlld
"ENRICO TEODORO VASQUEZ", conspiring, confedemting
1111d mutually aiding olle anotlzcr, did then mzd there lowwingly,
ll'illji1lly, and feloniously f11cilitate tlze follou 1ing tra1Ls11ctio11s: (1)
tlze m1er-the-cou11ter withdmwal of the 1111101111t of Fifteen Million
Two Hundred Fiftee11 Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Seven
and Twenty Six/_100 US Dollars (US$15,215,977.26) from 11/l
irregularly opened RCBC 11cco11nl no. 9013-547-156 wl1ere tlze
m1 ner "Enrico T. Vasquez" was found to be fictitiom, wlziclz they
1
allowed/apprm1ed despite Jozoll'i11g this irregulnrity and knowing

also tlz11t the said 111110w1t is 11 portion of tlzc Eiglzty One Million
US Dollars (US$81,000,000.00) 111ore or less, w11s i1woh1cd or
ll't1S related to the proceeds of mz unlawful 11cfroity, thllt is, the
violation of the Electro/lie Commerce Act 1111d/or tl1e I11fon1111tion
1111d Cornmwzirntion Tecl11wlogy Act, tlzc penal law of B1111glndcsl1,
ll'lierei11 011 or about Fclmwry 4, 2016 ill Bnngl11dcsh, 1111
unautlwrizcd user issued thirty-fi1 e (35) Bnngladcs/z Bank (BB)
1
Society of l:Vorldwide /11tcrlm11k Financial Telecomnmnirntions

(SVvTFT) payment instmctiolls to the Fedeml Reserue Bank of
New York (FRB-NY) i11rnl'lii11g millions of US Dollars; four (4) of
tl1esc paylllent instructions were cleared 1111d credited to tlze RCBC,
Jupiter Bm11clz, sm1i11gs 11ccow1/ of bellcficinrics "Michael F.
Cruz", "Jessie Clzristopher M. Lagrosas", "Alfred S. Vergara"
and "E11rico T. Vasquez", thereby !llaki11g it appear that the said
1111101u1t originated frolll legitilllate sources, to the damage and
prejudice of complainants.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
R-MKT-17-04107-CR22 11
Thl1f 011 or 11bo11t February 9, 2016, in Mnkati City, Philippi11cs

and within the jurisdiction of this Hol!orable Court, the 11bm 1e-
1111111e{i 11crnsed MAIA SANTOS-DEGUITO, wlzo ,uns tlze11 tlze
hmnclz 111m111ger of Rizal Co111111crcinl Ba11ki11g Corporation
(RCBC), Jupiter Bnmch, a couercd person, with JOHN/JANE
1
'° Id. at 90
11
Records, pp.10-11 (Vol. 1-i)
' , f
CA-GR. CR No. 44284

Decision
Page 10
x-----------------------x
DOES a.le.a. "MICHAEL FRANCISCO CRUZ," "JESSIE

CHRISTOPHER M. LAG ROSAS," "ALFRED SANTOS
VERGARA" and "ENRICO TEODORO VASQUEZ,"
co1Zspiri11g, collfcdcrnling n11d 11111/11nlly aiding one 11notlier, did
then and there knmPingly, willfully and feloniously _{t1cilit11te tlze
followillg tnmsactions n itlzout pe1fonnillg t/ze corresponding
1
rnsto111er due diligence: (1) t/ze 01 er-the-co1111ter deposit of the

1
a11101.mt of Fourteeu Milliou Tlzree Hundred Twenty Three

Tlzousand Two Hundred Sixty Nine and Forty SixL1QJ}_ US
Dollars (US$14,323,269.46) to the William So Go's, doing
business as Centurytex Tradillg, irregular RCBC US Dollnr
Account No. 9016455240, which deposit they t1lloH ed/appmucd
1
despite lwmPing such irregularity 111Zd knowing also that the said
1m10unt is 11 portion of the Eighty Oue Million US Dollars
(US$81,000,000.00) more or less, m1s inuoh cd or was related to
1
the proceeds of t111 w1lmPful actiz,ity, that is, tl1c violotioll of the
Electro/lie Co111111erce Act and/or tl1e T11fcm11atio11 1111d
Communirntion Techllology Act, the pe1wl 111111 of Ballgladcslz,
wherein or 11bout February 4, 2016 in Banglndeslz, 1111
u1uwtlzorized user issued thirty-JiN' (35) B1mgl11desh Bank (BB)
Society of tVorldwide lllterb1111k Financial Tcleco1111111111irntio11s
(SlV!FT) pay111cnt instructions to the Federal Reserl'e B1111k of
New York (FRB-NY) i1ruoluing millions of US Dollars; four (4) of
tl1ese payment i11structio11s ll'ert' cleared 1111d credited to tlze RCBC,
Jupiter Bmnch, sm i11gs r1cco1111ts of beneficiaries "Michael F.
1
Cruz", "Jessie Cristoplzer M. Lagrosas", "Alfred S. Vergara"

and "Enrico T. Vasquez", thereby making it appear that the said
1111wu11t originated frolll legitin111te sources, to the dn11111gc 1111d
prejudice ofco111plainants.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
On 20 October 2017, Deguito filed an An1ended Motion to

Quash, 15 but the RTC denied the same in the Resolution 16 dated
08 November 2017.
On 10 November 2017, Deguito filed a ivfotion for

Reconsideration 17 of the aforesaid Resolution, but the subject
motion was similarly denied by the RTC in its Resolution 18 dated
24 April 2018.
E, {-(ecords, pp. 100-118 (Vol. ll)

Ii, Td. at I 44-1-t5
17 Id. at 155-160
1
~ Id. at 232-238
. '

Decision
Page 11
x-----------------------x
During arraignment on 26 April 2018, Deguito entered a

plea of "not guilty" to each of the nine (9) counts of violation of
Section 4 (f) of R.A. No. 9160, as amended. 19
After the termination of the pre-trial conference, trial on the

1nerits ensued.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of the following

witnesses: 1.) Atty. Rafael A. Echaluse (Atty. Echaluse), 20
Financial fnvestigator, Anti-Money Laundering Council (AT\,1LC);
2.) Nenita M. Cadapan (Cadapan), 21 Bank Officer IV, Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); 3.) Adolfo Michael L. Estrada
(Estrada), 22 Senior Transportation Development Officer, Central
Office License Section, Land Transportation Office (LTO); 4.)
Mohammad Abdur Rab (Rab), 23 Joint Director, Bangladesh
Financial Intelligence Unit; 5.) Rayhan Uddin Khan (Khan), 24
Additional Superintendent of Police, Criminal Investigation
Department (CID), Bangladesh Police; 6.) Md. Jalal Uddin Fahim
(Fahim), 25 Additional Superintendent of Police, CID, Bangladesh
Police; 7.) Andreliza R. Cala (Cala), 26 Chief, Data Warehousing
and Systems Operations Division, Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR); 8.) Yolanda R. delos Reyes (delos Reyes), 27 Social Security
Officer, Identity Management Department, Social Security System
(SSS); 9.) Rowena F. Subido (Subido), 28 Head, Human Resources
Group, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC); 10.)
Catherine R. Aquino (Aquino), 29 Senior Question Documentation
Examiner, Truth Verifiers System, Inc.; 11) Maria Teresa A.
Gafi.ac (Gafi.ac),3° Branch Operations Head, RCBC, Trinoma
19
Id. at 238
211 Jd. at 1-55 (Vol. Ill); TSN dated 21 June 2018 (8:30 a.m.), pp. 5-169; TSN dated 21 June 2018
(2:00 p,m.), pp. 2-78
21 T<ctords, pp. 90-100 (Vol. IV); TSN dated 28 June 2018, pp. 8-29
22
ld. at 80-89
2., Id. at 13:i-141
21
Id. at 145-154; TSN dated 05 July 2018, pp. 11-47
r, Id. at 155-165; TSN dated D5 July 2018, pp. 49-97
2c, Id. at 211-216; TSN datl,d 10 July 2018, pp. 5-24
,,." Id. at 218-225; Id. at 25-51

:,,, Id. at 286 A-2861; TSN dated 19 July 2019, pp. 31-1 HJ
:,,i TSN elated ~1 July 2018, pp. 9-71; /SN dated 02 August 2018, pp. 4-93
111
TSN dated 14 August 2018, pp. 8-28
CA-G. R. CR No. 44284
Decision
Page 12
x-----------------------x
Business Center; 12.) Antonio C. Liao, Jr. (Liao), 31 Audit Manager

and Unit Head, Internal Audit Group, RCBC; and, 13.) Dennis
Alos (Alos)/'2 Legal Assistant, Department of Foreign Affairs
(DFA).
After the prosecution rested its case, Deguito filed a Motion

for Leave to File Den1urrer to Evidence, ::n attaching thereto her
Demurrer to Evidence dated 03 October 2018. 3-+ However, in the
Resolution 35 dated 25 October 2018, the RTC denied Deguito s 1
Demurrer to Evidence.
On 07 November 2018, Deguito filed a Motion for

Reconsideration (Of the Resolution dated 25 October 2018), 36 but
the subject motion was similarly denied by the RTC in the Order 37
dated 19 November 2018.
With the denial of Deguito s Demurrer to Evidence, the

1
defense presented Deguito 38 and Riyadh Dain David, 39

Department Head, Information Security and Data Privacy
Division, Globe Telecom, as its witnesses.
On 20 December 2018, Deguito filed a Motion for

1nhibition 40 against the Presiding Judge of Branch 149 of ivfakati
City, Cesar 0. Untalan (Judge Untalan), but the RTC, in its
Order41 dated 28 December 2018, denied the subject motion.
The prosecution and the defense submitted their respective

l\ifemoranda. 42 Thereafter, the consolidated cases were submitted
for decision.
11
Rcrnrds, pp. 28-55 (Vol. V); and TSN dated 1-l /\ugust 2018, pp. 29-169
,:> TSN dated 14 August 2018, pp. --1--11
'' Rel'ords, pp. 119-125 (Vol. VJ)
11
Id. at 126-172
13 Id. at 228-232
'" Id. at 286-293

17
Id. at 32--1-
18 Id. at4--t9 (Vol. VII); TSN dated 05 Dl'cembl'r 2018, pp. 23-161
1
" TSN dated 05 December 2018, pp. 7-22
-1 11 Records, pp. 133-156 (Vol Vlll)
11
/d.at552
-1:, Id. at 553-580 and 657-717
CA-G.R CR No. 44284
Decision
Pagel?,
x-----------------------x
VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION
Bangladesh Bank (BB) is the Central Bank of Bagladesh. 43 In

a letter44 dated 16 February 2016, BB Governor Atiur Rahman
(Governor Rahman) sought the assistance of then BSP Governor,
Amanda M. Tetangco, Jr. (Governor Tetangco), regarding the loss
of millions of United States (US) dollars from BB's Account No.
021083190 with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY),
where the foreign currency of Bangladesh is kept.
According to the First Information Report (FIR) 45 prepared

by Joint Director Nld. Zubair Bin Huda of the Accounts and
Budgeting Department of BB, and the Case Report 46 of Khan,
there was an unauthorized intrusion into the IT system and the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecomn1unications
(SWIFT) facility of BB. As a result, unauthorized SWIFT Payment
Instructions (Pis) were issued on 4 February 2016 to FRBNY, in
favor of four (4) accounts maintained at Rizal Commercial
Banking Corporation (RCBC) - Jupiter Business Center (RCBC
Jupiter). 47 Apparently, BB's system was hacked and the SWIFT Pis
were fraudulently issued. 48
On 6 February 2016, a Saturday, the BB SWIFT Room Back

Office discovered the unauthorized SWIFT Pis when it noticed,
among others, two (2) SWIFT messages dated 4 February 2016
from FRBNY mentioning "doubtful" payment instructions. 49
FRBNY did not execute thirty (30) of the thirty-five (35) SWIFT
Pis, amounting to a total of USD850,005,262.00, due to lack of
beneficiary details. The other five (5) SWIFT Pis, involving a total
amount of USD101,001,623.00, were cleared. But the payment for
one was blocked and returned because of the discrepancy in the
beneficiary's name, i.e., "Shalika Fundation", instead of "Shalika
-1:i Id. at 6
-1.i Folder o(Ex!,ihits, p. 41 (Vol. I)
·15 Id. at 65-67; T./.1'cords, p. H9 (Vol. IV)
It, Id. at 08-72
47 T./.crords, p. 8 (Vol. Ill)
18
Id. at 9
-I') Id. at Y
CA-G.R. CR No. 4-1284
Decision
Page 14
x-----------------------x
Foundation". 50 The four (4) SWIFT Pls were cleared since their
beneficiary details were complete.
On 05 February 2o-I 6, around 4:50 a.m. to 5:12 a.in., RCBC

Settlements Department received the SWIFT MT103 via RCBC
Swift Payment System from three (3) corresponding banks,
namely: Wells Fargo, New York, Citibank New York and Bank of
New York - Mellon. Said MT103 instructed payment to the
individual dollar accounts of Cruz, Lagrosas, Vergara and
Vasquez with RCBC Jupiter (RCBC Jupiter), to wit:
Beneficiary RCBC Account No. Value in USD lntennediary

Name Bank
Cruz 9013547047 6,000,029.72 1-Vells Fargo, New
York
Lngrosas 9013547055 30,000,028.12 Bn11k of New York
- Mellon
Vergam 9013547098 19,999,990.00 ~Veils Forgo, New
)'ark
Vnsrp1cz 9013547156 25,001,573.88 Citilm11k, Neu 1
York Ci t_i;='> 7
Also on 05 February 2016, at 3:16 p.m., Lagrosas 1nade an

over-the-counter withdrawal an1ounting to USD22,735,000.00.
The transaction was approved by Deguito. On even date, the
same amount of USD22,735,000.00 was deposited to Account No.
9016455240, a dollar account under the name of William So Go
(Go), doing business as Centurytex Trading (Go Account). 52 The
Go Account was opened only at 3:00 p.m. on 05 February 2016. 53
On 08 February 2016, BB requested RCBC, through several

SWIFT messages, for a stop payment and refund of the
aforementioned funds. It also requested RCBC to freeze or put the
funds on hold if they were already transferred to the beneficiary
accounts. 54
11
' Id. at 9 and 94
:;i Id. at 48-49 (Vol. V)
02 Id. at 95 (Vol. I[[)
5 '• Id. at 49 (Vol. V)
3-1 Id.at92(Vo1. Ill)
' ,

Decision
Page 15
x-----------------------x
Despite BB's request for a refund to RCBC, withdrawals

were still made from the Jupiter Accounts. The details of the
withdrawals are as follows:
Name Trausaction Date Amount (USD)

Lngrosns Oucr-tlzc-cowz ter 05 Fclmtary 2016 22,735,000.00
tVitlzdmw11l
Oucr-tlzc-cow1tcr 7,236,154.62
lVitlzdmw11!
Cru:: Ouer-tlzc-co1111ter 5,985,883.47
lVi thdnrn,11 l
Vcrgnm Oz 1cr-tlzc-co11nter 09 February 2016 19,951,502.13
lVillzdrmPal
Vasquez Ooer-the-cou II ter 9,760,124.75
T, VitluirmPal
Ouer-the-cou nter 15,215,977.26

TVi tlzd rmual
TOTAL USDS0,884,641.63 55
Except for the amount of USD15,215,977.26 that was

withdrawn on 09 February 2016, all the amounts withdrawn were
deposited to the Go Account. The details of these deposits are as
follows:
Account Account No. Bauk Transaction Transaction Anwunt

Holder Bmnclz Date (USD)
Cash Deposit 05 February 22,735,000.00
2016
!Villi11111 9016455240 RCBC
C11sl1 Deposit 14,323,269.46
So Go Jupiter 09 February
Cas/1 Dcposi t 14,293,209.37
2016
Cnslz Deposit 14,312,135.54
TOTAL: USD65,668,664.3756
Acting on BB's letter of request for assistance, the AMLC

Secretariat conducted its investigation. Based on RCBC Account
Opening forms, the Jupiter Accounts were opened on 15 l\!lay
"-' Id. at 10
"" Id.
Decision
Page 16
x-----------------------x
2015, 57 but the transaction history of said accounts indicate that

they had no financial activity after their opening, and prior to the
inward remittances on 05 February 2016. 58
Deguito was the Business Manager of RCBC Jupiter during

the commission of the BB Heist. She allowed the opening of the
Jupiter Accounts based on identification documents that were
verified to be fictitious. She did not personally witness the alleged
clients in filling out the forms and in signing the Customer
Relationship Forms and signature cards, violating the face-to-face
policy of the AMLA regulations, RCBC Money Laundering and
Terrorist Financing Program (MLPP) Manual and BSP circulars.
Further, Deguito allowed and facilitated the rush withdrawals of
the money remitted to the Jupiter Accounts despite the non-
appearance of the supposed account holders, and only upon
instructions of Kam Sin Wong (Kim Wong), who is not among the
owners of the Jupiter Account. At the time Deguito allowed the
subject withdrawals, she already knew that the money was stolen
from BB, as there was already a request for stop payment. 59
RCBC commenced an administrative proceeding against

Deguito, and she was dis1nissed from employ1nent on 21 March
2016 for failure to perform her duties and functions as Business
Manager of RCBC Jupiter, and for violation of the following,
among others: a.) RCBC's MLPP and Business Center Operations
Manual; b.) provisions of Retail Banking Group (RBG) products
and services guide as of September 2013; c.) RCBC's Code of
Conduct; d.) Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (Falsification);
and, e.) the General Banking Act of 2000, R.A. Nos. 1405 and 6426.
Deguito was also found guilty of serious misconduct and/ or
willful disobedience of RCBC's lawful orders. 60
VERSION OF THE DEFENSE
In the afternoon of 14 May 2015, Deguito received a phone

call fr01n Kim Wong, asking her to 1neet him at Midas Hotel and
07 Id. at 11 and 94
08
Id. at 94; R.ciords, p. 46 (Vol. V)
09 Id. at 97 (Vol. Ill)
611 Fo!df'r of Ex/11hits, pp. 172-18.J. (Vol. I)
Decision
Page 17
x-----------------------x
Casino (Midas Hotel) along Roxas Boulevard. 61 Kim Wong said

that he had friends to refer to Deguito for the opening of accounts
with RCBC Jupiter. Kim Wong is a Chinese businessman who
became Deguito's client when she was still working at EastWest
Bank. Deguito knew him to be a friend of Lorenzo Tan, who was
the President of RCBC at that time. Deguito, along with Angela
Torres (Torres), the Branch Senior Customer Relationship Officer
(SCRO) of RCBC Jupiter, and a Bancassurance Sales Agent,
proceeded to Midas l-Jotel. 62 Upon reaching Midas Hotel, they
proceeded towards the casino area on the first floor to see Kim
Wong in his office, but only Deguito was allowed to cmne in. So,
Deguito's con1panions proceeded to a restaurant on the second
floor. Deguito told them to wait for her there. 63
Inside his office, Kim Wong led Deguito to five (5) men,
who were seated at a round table. Kim Wong introduced them to
her as Cruz, Lagrosas Vergara, Vasquez and Ralph E. Picache
(Picache). According to Kim Wong, the five (5) men intend to
open accounts in RCBC Jupiter as they were expecting to receive
loan proceeds. Deguito verified their identities by asking for their
identification cards (IDs). They took out their IDs from their
respective wallets and handed them to Kin1 Wong, who, in turn,
gave them to Deguito. Deguito carefully checked the IDs and
confirmed that the persons in the IDs were the same individuals
who were just introduced to her by Kim Wong. She then took
photos of their IDs using her mobile phone. 64
After verifying the identities of the five (5) men, Deguito

gave the Customer Relationship Forms and signature cards to
Kim Wong. Deguito was then asked to leave, so she proceeded to
the restaurant where she left her companions. 65
Subsequently, Kim Wong arrived at the restaurant while

Deguito and her companions were having dinner. He handed to
rd
1<.ccords, p. 7 (Vol. VII); TSN dated 05 December 2018, pp. 55-58
he Rollo, p. 96; l<.ffords, pp. 7-8 (Vol. Vll)
rd
ld. at 96-97; Id. at 8-'IO; TSN datt-d 05 December 2018, pp. 59 and 85-86
h-! Id.; Id. at 8-1 0; TSN dated 05 December 2018, pp. 59 and 85-86
":; Id. at lJ7 and TSN dated 05 December 2018, p. 54

Decision
Page 18
x-----------------------x
Deguito an envelope containing the account opening forms. Upon

receiving the forms, Deguito compared the signatures, birthdays,
and addresses in the account opening forms with those in the IDs
presented to her by the five (5) men. Deguito then confirmed that
these were the same. She also checked and was able to confirm,
that the forms were completely and correctly filled-up. 6h
1
The next day, 15 May 2015, Kim Wong s messenger came to
RCBC Jupiter to deliver the amount of USD2,500.00, together with
clear and colored copies of the account holders IDs and written 1
instructions to deposH USD500.00 each to the five (5) accounts.

The copies of the IDs received by RCBC Jupiter were clear,
colored, and showed both the front and back of the IDs. Deguito
compared the photocopies of the lDs with the photos in her
mobile phone. 67 When she confirmed that they were the same, she
turned the documents over to Torres, and instructed her to
process the opening of the dollar accounts. 68 As the SCRO, Torres
was responsible for checking the Customer Relationship Forms
and signature cards to ensure that the infonnabon needed was
properly filled-up. After ensuring that the docu1nents were m
order, she handed them to the New Accounts officer. 69
After the New Accounts officer encoded the information

contained in the documents into the bank s computer system, he
1
gave the documents back to Torres for counterchecking. After

that, Customer Information File (CIF) numbers were generated
for each account holder, then the documents were given back to
the New Accounts officer. 70
The New Accounts officer generated the account numbers

for each account. Subsequently, he submitted the documents to
Romeo Agarrado (Agarrado), the Customer Service Head of
RCBC Jupiter. 71 The Customer Service Head is responsible for
checking and verifying that the documents and information are
---····----- -----~
"'' Jd. and Renmis, pp. 10-22 (Vol. Vff)
"' J~crnnls, p. 11 (Vol. Vil); TSN dated 05 December 2018, pp.61-65
"N Rollo. pp. 97-98; Rrn1rd~, p. r-1 (Vol. Vil)
"~ Jd. at 98; Id. at 12

711
Id.; Ir/. at 13
71 Id.; Ir/.
Decision
Page 19
x-----------------------x
valid, complete, and without discrepancy before issuing the

corresponding passbooks for the accounts. Otherwise, he would
indicate his findings in his end-of-day report. It is the Customer
Service Head who functions as the checks and balances of the
branch. In this case, Agarrado did not report any invalidity,
incmnpleteness, or discrepancy regarding the documents and
inform_ation submitted for the opening of the five (5) accounts.
After the account fonns and documents were processed by RCBC
Jupiter, Deguito informed Kim Wong that the accounts were
-?
opened/-
On 04June 2015, Kim Wong called Deguito and asked her to

check if deposits were made on the five (5) accounts. Deguito
asked him where the funds were cmning from, but he simply
said, gnli11g ibmzg bnnsa. "73 On 01 December 2015, Deguito
11
received another call from Kirn Wong, asking her to send to him
the bank details of the five (5) accounts, including the
remittance/ swift code of RCBC Jupiter. In response, Deguito sent
him a text message containing the bank account nmnbers of the
five (5) dollar accounts and the remittance/ swift code of RCBC
Jupiter.74
At around 12 noon on 05 February 2016, Deguito received a

call from Kim Wong, asking her if funds have been deposited into
the Jupiter Accounts. 75 Deguito inquired from Christine Malbog,
RCBC Jupiter's New Accounts officer, if funds were credited to
the Jupiter Accounts. Malbog initially informed Deguito that
around USD6,000,000.00 was credited to the account of Cruz. A
few minutes later, Malbog told Deguito that a total of
USD81,001,621.79 was deposited to four (4) of the five (5)
accounts. Deguito was surprised that funds were credited to the
Jupiter Accounts without the branch receiving any notice from
RCBC's Settlements Department. The Settlements Department is
the first point of entry for the processing of inward remittances. If
the remittances are at least Php1,000,000,000.00, it tags the
72
1,/. at 98-99; Id. at 13
7~ Id. ,1t 99; Id. at 14
7-1 Id. at 99; /ti. at 14
7s ld.
Decision
Page 20
x-----------------------x
transaction for manual checking. The Settlements Departn1ent

ensures that the transmitted amount passes the validation criteria
in the Pre-Validation System, meaning it ensures that the
beneficiary accounts are valid and active, the beneficiary names
match the account names, there is complete AML information, the
originating country is not in the Office of Foreign Assets Control
(ODAC) sanctions list, and the remittance is funded by the
correspondent banks. 76
To ensure the validity of the remittance, Deguito asked

Torres to get in touch with the Settlements Department to confirn1
the legiti1nacy of the sources of the funds together with a request
for copies of the corresponding MT103s. 77 MT103s are message
transfer instructions where all the details of the remittances are
stated, including the purpose of the remittance. In this case,
however, the Settlements Department did not send copies of the
MT103 messages to RCBC Jupiter. 78
At 2:25 P.M. on 05 February 2016, Torres sent an e-mail to

the Settlements Department. At 5:23 p.1n. of the saine day, Donna
Belle A. Pedro of the Settlements Department replied to Torres' e-
n1ail by attaching PDF files of the MT103s. After being informed
of the remittance, Deguito told Kim Wong that USD81,000,000.00
had already been credited to the Jupiter Accounts, and the latter
told her that all of the funds in the Jupiter Accounts would be
withdrawn on that day. Deguito, however, requested Kirn Wong
not to withdraw the funds. She asked him to keep the funds in
RCBC Jupiter for at least a few days. As the Business Manager
and Marketing Head of RCBC Jupiter, Deguito was required to
maintain a target average daily balance of deposits for the branch.
If the funds in the subject accounts remain with the branch even
for just a few days, it would increase the branch's average daily
balance. 79
7
" ld.at100;/d.at16-18
77 TSN dated 05 December 2018, p. 81
78
Records, p. 19 (Vol. VII)
71
' Rolin, p. 101; Records, pp. 20-24 (Vol. VII)
Decision
Page 21
x-----------------------x
Thus, Kim Wong did not withdraw the full amount, but he
insisted that the amount of USD22,735,000.00 be withdrawn from
the account of Lagrosas, and deposited in the Go Account that
will be opened in RCBC Jupiter. In the afternoon of 05 February
2016, RCBC Jupiter received a pre-signed Customer Relationship
Form for the opening of the dollar account for Centurytex. It was
1
signed by Go in the Client s Acknowledgment portion. Based on
RCBCs policies, the submission of the Cust01ner Relationship
Form is necessary only when the client is new and has no existing
account with the branch. In this case, the submission of the
Customer Relationship Form was no longer necessary for the
opening of the dollar account since Centurytex was already an
existing client of RCBC Jupiter, being the holder of Regular Peso
Savings Account No. 9-010-27020-6. Go had previously
accomplished a Customer Relationship Forn1 for the opening of
1
that Peso Account. Centurytex s Peso Account with RCBC Jupiter
was active considering that numerous checks under the name of
Centurytex were deposited therein 80
To verify and confirm the opening of the dollar account,

Deguito called Kim Wong. The latter made her speak to a person
who sounded like, and who Deguito believed was, Go. The
person she spoke to agreed to the opening of the dollar account
for Centurytex. Later, Deguito asked Torres to verify with Go if
he would indeed allow the opening of a dollar account. Torres
1
was able to get Go s approval. Together with the signed Customer
Relationship Form, RCBC Jupiter also received pre-signed
withdrawal and deposit slips, with a post-it attached to each
withdrawal and deposit slip. Written on the post-its were specific
instructions to withdraw the USD22,735,000.00 from the account
of Lagrosas, and deposit the same amount to the Go Account.
Said withdrawal and deposit were processed by the Operations
Department of RCBC Jupiter on the same day. 81 The withdrawal
was effected on 05 February 2016 at 3:13 p.m. 82
Hll Id. at 101-102; Id. at 24-26

81
Id. at 102-103; Id. at 27
Hl Id. at 103; Id. at 27-28
Decision
Page 22
x-----------------------x
Deguito did not know at that time, but several departments

within RCBC were investigating the subject remittances. While
the Regional Sales Head of the Service Group, Nancy Quiogue
(Quiogue), was investigating the validity of the subject
remittances, a "hold" was placed on the rem.aining funds in the
Jupiter Accounts. Until the completion of the investigation, the
Settlements Department sustained the hold order. At 6:00 p.m. on
05 February 2016, District Sales Director Nestor Pineda (Pineda)
called Deguito to ask her if she could possibly put a hold on the
Jupiter Accounts. In response, Deguito told him. that the re1nitted
amounts have already been credited to the Jupiter Accounts, so
the bank could not si1nply hold the accounts. Nonetheless,
Deguito asked Pineda to send her an official e1nail to document
his instructions to serve as her basis in case she had to hold the
Jupiter Accounts. However, she did not receive any email from
Pineda. 83
After speaking with Pineda, Deguito felt uneasy about the

supposed "hold" on the accounts. Thus, she called RCBCs
Regional Sales Director Brigitte Capina (Capina) for clarification.
Capina told Deguito that there was no reason to hold the funds
because these were remittances that passed through due diligence
from correspondent banks. Pineda, Capina, and outgoing RBG
Head, Raul Victor B. Tan, met to discuss the possible risks of
continuing with the "hold" of the Jupiter Accounts. The Senior
Officers were afraid of liability since banks cannot prevent
account holders from withdrawing, transferring, or disposing the
funds in their accounts, unless accompanied by a proper court
order. 84
At 6:22 p.m. on 05 February 2016, Quiogue confirmed the

validity of the subject remittance by sending an email to all
concerned departments saying, this is n 'on/id rcrnittnncc. At 7:14
1
'
11
p.m., upon Raul Tan's instruction, Quiogue sent an email to

Sabino Maximo Eco (Eco), the Deputy Head of the Operations
Group, directing him to lift the hold status on the beneficiary
accounts. By stating that this is n vnlid rcmittmzce," the Settlements
11
Hi Id. at 103-104; Id. at28-29

H4 Id. at 104; Id. at 30
Decision
Page 23
x-----------------------x
Department and the other officers confirmed that the transmitted

amount passed the Settle1nents Department's validation criteria. 85
On 09 February 2016, Kim Wong asked Deguito to pick-up

pre-signed withdrawal and deposit slips from Solaire. 8(1 Upon
receipt of said documents at RCBC Jupiter, Agarrado approved
and signed the withdrawal slips. Being the Operations Head of
RCBC Jupiter, Agarro's signature was sufficient to process the
transactions. Agarrado, nevertheless, asked Deguito to sign the
withdrawal slips simply because the account holders were her
clients. 87
The deposit and withdrawal h·ansactions were then

processed, even if the account holders were not physically present
in RCBC Jupiter. This is because valued clients, or clients who the
bank is familiar with, may conduct deposit and/ or withdrawal
transactions by just sending signed deposit slips. This practice is
usually done by the bank, particularly in cases when no physical
cash is actually released to a person and taken out of the branch.
As in this case, the money withdrawn was not actually received
by any person in the branch, but was deposited directly into
another account. 88
It was only after the completion of withdrawal and deposit

transactions that Deguito was informed of the emails that were
sent by the Settlements Department. Apparently, the Settlements
Department received MTJ 99 and MT999 messages from BB,
requesting for stop payment and freezing of the Jupiter Accounts.
Despite the seeming urgent nature of the e1nails, however, the
Settlements Department only forwarded it to RCBC Jupiter hours
after the emails were received and read. Aside from sending the
emails, there was no other advice made by the Settlements
Department or any responsible officer of RCBC to RCBC Jupiter
regarding the messages sent by BB. 89
80 Id. at 104; Td. at 30

Hr, Records, p. 31 (Vol. Vil)
87
Rollo, pp. 105-Hlb and Rrcon/,;, p. 35 (Vol. VII)
88
ft/. at I 06; Id. at 36
89 Id. at 10fi-Hl7; Id. at 39-40
Decision
Page 24
x-----------------------x
Upon reading the emails, Deguito became worried since the

subject funds were already withdrawn and deposited to other
accounts. When she confronted the other officers of RCBC Jupiter
about the emails, she learned that Agarrado had read the emails
but did not do anything about them. Deguito then called Capina
to seek guidance regarding the emails. Deguito explained that,
although the funds have already been withdrawn from the
original accounts, they were still with RCBC Jupiter, and they
could still do something about it. Capina gave the phone to Raul
Tan, who told Deguito, 11 hindi nntin problenrn yan. Problenw ng
Bnngladeslz ymz. 1190
On 21 March 2016, after the supposed investigation

conducted by RCBC, Deguito's employment as Business Manager
of RCBCs Jupiter was terminated. 91
THE RULING OF THE RTC
In the Joint Dedsion dated 10 January 2019, the RTC found

Deguito guilty beyond reasonable doubt of eight (8) counts of
violation of Section 4 (0 of RA. No. 9160, as amended. The RTC
acquitted Deguito in Cri1ninal Case No. R-NIKT-17-02998-CR on
the ground of double jeopardy. The RTC disposed the case, as
follows:
WHEREFORE, pre//lises considered, this court lzereby _fi'nds

accused MAIA SANTOS-DEGUTTO, GUILTY beyond rc11sonable
doubt, lie11ce tliis court lierl!by imposes pm11lty of i111priso11ment
1111d_fi'nes, 11s follm1 s:
1
Criminal Case No. As Mi11i11111111 As l\lnxi11111111 Fi11e (US$)
R-MKT-17-02993-CR Four (4) yrs Sru/'11 (7) yrs $5,985,833.47

I<-MKT-17-02994-CR rour (4) 11rs Sce1'11 (7) 11rs $9,760,12415
I<-MKT-17-0299.5-CR Four (-1) yrs Scocn (7) 1;rs $19,9.51,502.13
T<-MKT-17-02996-CR Four(-+) yrs Scoc11 (7) yrs !!,14,312, 185 ..r;..;.
I<-MKT-17-02997-CR Four (4) yrs S1•1w11 (7) yrs 57,236,154.62
11
" Id. at 107-108; Id. ot40
1
" Id. Jt 103; Id. at 45
Decision
Page 25
x-----------------------x
R-MKT-17-02999-CR Four (-J.) yrs 51'1'<'/l (7) 1;rs $L!.,7T5,000.00

R-MKT-17-03000-CR Four (4) 1JrS Sc1>1·n (7) yrs $15,275,977.26
l\-MKT-7 7-04107-CR Four (4) 11rs Sn,c11 (7) yrs $14,323,269.46
Howc11t'r, accused 1\,1m11 S111Ltos-Dcguito is hereby acquitted

1111dcr Criminal Case No. R-MKT-17-02998-CR for tlie silllplc
reason tlzat double jeopardy shall apply cl'lzcn Criminal Case No.
R-MKT-17-02996-CR is also pro11rnlg11tcd lzcrcin.
Cost de-officio.
SO ORDERED.
In so ruling, the RIC noted that Deguito, with her sixteen

(16) years of banking experience and as Vice-President of RCBC,
must and should be familiar with the minimum requirements for
observance and compliance under the AMLA. The RIC opined
that Deguito should have made an inquiry as to the source of the
subject remittances involving huge amounts in US dollars in
order to shield herself from such violation, instead of simply
stating that there was an instruction from the higher officers of
RCBC. Deguito did nothing to protect herself and proceeded in
implementing these covered transactions with gusto. Hence, she
must be made liable for violation of the AMLA. 92
The RIC further emphasized that the Jupiter Accounts had

zero balance, which tneans Deguito practically closed the same,
and such act is a manifestation of her full knowledge of the illegal
source of these remittances. Otherwise, Deguito should have
stopped, and made inquiries as to the simultaneous closure of the
subject accounts. Considering that Deguito appeared to have full
and prior knowledge of the true color and origin of said
remittances, she released and credited the entire amount,
including the initial deposit of USDS00.00 for each account, to the
Go Account. More, the USDS00.00 initial deposits came from Kim
Wong, per testimony of Deguito. 93 These anmnalous money
transfers were done exclusively between Deguito and Kim Wong,
and with haste. Deguito's co-accused in these cases are all non-
()2 Rollo, p. 194
'n Id.
CA-G.R. CR No. 4-±284
Decision
Page 26
x-----------------------x
existing and fictitious persons, and she was well aware of this
fact. 94
The RTC found credence in the testi1nony of Atty. Echaluse

that Deguito executed all the dollar deposit and withdrawal
transactions within the time frame of less than two (2) hours, i.e.,
from 9:15 a.m., when she received the remittance messages, to
11:00 a.m., when Agarro received the email for stop payment. The
two-hour period could have been sufficient for Deguito to inquire
as to the legality of the USD81,000,000.00 remittances, but she
failed to do so. As testified to by Subido, Deguito was dismissed
from the service. The RCBC found her guilty of implementing and
transacting illegal money transfers, in violation of banking laws
and rules. 95
The RTC further declared that Deguita1s failure to comply

with the established procedures for opening a bank account was
the beginning of her violation of the AMLA. 96 The RTC found
Deguito's defense that she had no authority to hold the subject
deposits as unworthy of credence. The benchmark of the law for
its violation is only PhpS00,000.00. 97 Deguito has taken advantage
of her position, banking knowledge and experience. Thus, she
was able to execute and implement these illegal transactions with
ease. 98 Too, Deguito remedied the documentation of the subject
bank transactions to make them appear proper and legal1y
correct. 99 Similarly, the RTC gave no credence to Deguito's claim
that the Jupiter Accounts were opened for the purpose of
receiving loan proceeds. 100 Under the principle of command
responsibility, Deguito was in charge of RCBC Jupiter at that
time. 101
,LJ Td.atl95
,,; Id. at1%
'Ir, Td.
": Td.
"~ Td. at 197
"" Id. at 200-201
11111 Id. at 203
1 11
' ld. at 202
Decision
P,we
o· 27
x-----------------------x
The RTC took particular notice of the cash withdrawal from

the account of Lagrosa on 05 February 2016 at 3:16 p.m.
amounting to USD22,735,000.00. There was no actual cash out, as
the amount was just deposited to the Go Account, which was
actually opened at 3:00 p.m. of the same day. This account was
opened by Deguito, upon her order, without an initial deposit
from Go, and the latter did not authorize the opening of said
account. It was all done and executed by Deguito per instruction
of Wong. Clearly, Deguito did not only facilitate such illegal bank
transactions, she also coordinated with their execution and
implementation to ensure easy and prompt credit and transfer to
the Go Account.102 According to the RIC, the fourth element in
this case is the foreign law of Bangladesh, specifically, Act No. 39
of 2006, Section 54, which provides for penalty for damage to
computer, computer system, etc. 103
Disgruntled, Deguito filed a Motion for Reconsideration

dated 25 January 2019 of the assailed Decision, but the RTC
denied the same in the Resolution 104 dated 20 September 2019.
Aggrieved, Deguito filed the present appeal interposing the

following errors allegedly committed by the RTC, to wit:
,, l.
THE TRIAL COURT'S UNDERSTANDING OF A MONEY

LA UN DERING OFFENSE JS ERRONEOUS.
Il.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN TTS APPRECTA TJON OF

THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE.
A. The ele111ent of k11on lcdgc u as 11ot prm en, but was

1 1 1
IJ/crcly prcszu11cd by tlzc trinl court.
B. Main did not_[t1cilitntc the tm11sactio11s.
C. The trial court rejected Maia's defcllses without reason.

1112
Id. at 201
111\ Id.
1111
Id. at 206-213
Decision
Page 28
x-----------------------x
fl I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED !N TAKING THE CUDGELS

FOR THE PROSECUTION THUS V!OLA TING MATA '5
BAS!C CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE TRIED BY A
NEUTRAL AND IMPAl\TlAL JUDGE.
!V.
THE TR!AL COL!f\T IMPOSED THE !VRONG PENALTY ON

MAIA." 105
Echoing the findings of the RTC, the People of the

Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
maintains that the prosecution was able to establish, without
reasonable doubt, the guilt of Deguito for the crimes charged.
Therefore, there is no reason to disturb the factual findings of the
RTC, and its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. 106
The OSG avers that all the elements of money laundering

under Section 4 (f) of the AMLA are present in this case. Firs(
Deguito had knowledge that the monetary instrument or
property represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of an
unlawful activity. 107 Without her active participation in the
account opening process, the subsequent transactions in these
accounts would not have been possible. Deguito admitted that
she relentlessly heeded the instructions of Kim Wong, a non-
account holder, through a 1nere mobile phone call. Her acts of
allowing the withdrawals of the USD81,000,000.00 from the
Jupiter Accounts to be deposited to the Go Account is a blatant
manifestation of her knowledge about the true nature of the
subject transactions.ms
Second, the unlawful activitv in this case involves the

.I
unauthorized access to BB's IT system, which amounts to

"hacking" or "crackling". This constitutes violation of R.A. No.
111
" Id. at 73-74
10
" Id. at 423
1117
Id. at 425
1118
Id. at 433
CA-G. R. CR No. 44284
Decision
Page 29
x-----------------------x
8792 1 otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. 109

Deguito caused the withdrawal of the remittances credited to the
Jupiter Accounts and transferred the same to Go 1s account. These
1
acts constitute transaction of monetary instrument which relates

to the proceeds of the unlawful activity. 110
Tliird Deguito helped facilitate these money-laundered

1
transactions. On 09 February 2016 a total of five (5) withdrawal

1
transactions and three (3) deposit transactions were processed by

Deguito through the instructions of Kirn Wong using pre-signed
1 1
withdrawal and deposit slips which were picked up by the RCBC

1
Jupiter Branch. 111 Deguito claims that the banking transactions

were perfonned by other bank employees from other
departments of the bank but without her authorization said
1 1
transactions would not have been completed. 112
Finally the OSG counter-argued that the RTC imposed the

1
correct penalty upon her. Deguito was adequately informed of the

nature and cause of accusations against her, as all the
Informations indicated that she was then the Branch Manager of
RCBC Jupiter. Indeed, Deguito deserves a higher penalty since
the law imposes a higher liability upon persons who ought to
have known and complied with the obligations of covered
persons under the AMLA yet failed to do so. 1n
1
Deguito filed her Reply Brief114 dated 07 September 2022 1
insisting that the element of actual knowledge is clearly lacking in

the present case. 115 Purportedly the RTC relaxed the element of
1
knowledge by accepting a "state of mind" rather than actual1
knowledge. Deguito asserts that criminal and penal statutes must

be strictly construed. 116 Therefore the RTC cannot be permitted to
1
wield the power to define and punish the crime of money

111 ' 1 Id. at 434
1111
Id. at 436-437
111
Td. at 438-439
112
Id. at440
111 ld.at442
114
Id. at 46h-497
11 '> Id. at496
11 h Id. at467
Decision
Page 30
x-----------------------x
laundering by equating "willfully turning a blind eye" with actual

knowledge. 117
THE RULING OF THE COURT
The appeal must fail.
Deguito primarily argues that the RTC's understanding of

the offense of money laundering is erroneous. As stated in Section
4 of the AMLA, there must be a monetary instrument or property
which represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of an
unlawful activity. Moreover, the accused must have knowledge
that the monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or
relates to the proceeds of an unlawful activity. None of these
elements was present when the accounts were opened on 15 May
2015. 118 There was no monetary instrument or property to speak
of, and there were no proceeds of any unlawful activity because
the unauthorized SWIFT Pis to the FRBNY took place only on 04
February 2016. Deguito further asserts that the charges against
her have nothing to do with the opening of the accounts. The
prosecution has forgotten that a criminal case requires not just a
"logical reason," but proof beyond reasonable doubt. 119 And
instead of relying on the Webster's Dictionary for the definition of
"knowledge", the RTC should have looked into the intent and
spirit of R.A. No. 9160 since the legislative deliberations on the
said law were presented in evidence. 120
1
Deguito s arguments deserve scant consideration.
The offense of money laundering is defined under Section 4

of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, which reads:
"SEC. 4. Money L11w1rferi11g Off11sc. - Money L111111dcri11g is

co111111ittcd by 1111y person wlzo, knowi11g tlznt any 11w11etary
instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to the
proceeds of a11Jf 1111lrm:f11l activity:
117 Id. at471
118 hi. at·110
119
Id. at ll 0-112
120
Id. at 117
,

Decision
Page 31
x-----------------------x
(11) transacts said 111onct11ry i11str11mc11t or property;
(b) co11zierts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires,

possesses or uses said 11w1Zet11ry i1Zstrn111ent or
property;
(c) conceals or disguises the true 1111ture, source, lorntio11,

dispositio11, 11101 1e111ent or owJiership of or rig/its witlz
respect to said 11101Iet11ry i11stn1111c11t or property;
XXX
(f) pe1;forms or fails to perform 1111y act as a result of

which he facilitates tlzc offense of 111011cy !1111nderi11g
referred to i11 p11mgmpl1s (11), (b) or (c) 11b011e."
(E11Iph11sis 1111d u1u1crscori11g supplied)
In this case, the offense of n1oney laundering was

committed through facilitation under Section 4 (f) in relation to
Section 4 (a) of R.A. No. 9160, as amended. Thus, to successfully
prosecute the offense of violation of Section 4 (f) in relation to
Section 4 (a) of R.A. No. 9160, the following ele1nents must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the offender has knowledge
that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or
relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity; (2) the offender
performed or failed to perform any act, as a result of which, he
facilitated the offense of money laundering; and, (3) the offender
transacts said monetary instrument or property.
All the foregoing elements are present in this case.
Contrary to Deguito's assertion, the element of knowledge

was not 1nerely presumed by the RIC. One is deemed to know a
particular fact if he has the cognizance, consciousness or
awareness thereof, or is aware of the existence of something, or
has the acquaintance with facts, or if he has something within the
mind's grasp with certitude and clarity. When knowledge of the
existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such
knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability
of its existence unless he actually believes that it does not exist.
Decision
Page 32
x-----------------------x
On the other hand, the words "should know" denote the fact that
a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain
the fact in performance of his duty to another or would govern his
conduct upon assumption that such fact exists. Knowledge refers
to a mental state of awareness about a fact. Since the court cannot
penetrate the mind of an accused and state with certainty what is
contained therein, it must determine such knowledge with care
from the overt acts of that person. And given two equally
plausible states of cognition or mental awareness, the court
should choose the one which sustains the constitutional
presumption of innocence. 121
Here, Deguito attempts to downplay her role in the

facilitation of money laundering by claiming that she had no
knowledge of any unlawful activity at the time she opened the
Jupiter Accounts on 15 May 2016. She repeatedly hamn1ered the
view that the unauthorized payment instructions to the FRBNY
involving the foreign currency reserve of BB were 111ade only on
04 February 2016, or nine (9) months after the opening of the
Jupiter Accounts.
Such argument fails to convince considering that Deguito

was the Business Manager of RCBC Jupiter, and not just a mere
employee. It was actually the opening of the Jupiter Accounts that
set the wheels in motion.
One of Deguito's "major responsibilities" as Business

Manager is to ensure compliance with RCBC's Know-Your-Client
(KYC) screening process in accordance with the AMLA
guidelines. 122 As correctly pointed out by the RTC, with Deguito's
sixteen (16) years of experience in the banking industry, she
cannot feign ignorance of the basic provisions of the AMLA and
the RCBC's Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing
Prevention Program (MLPP). Deguito's rather simplistic
explanation that she had no knowledge of any unlawful activity
when she caused the opening of the Jupiter Accounts hardly
persuades since she is a person of reasonable prudence and
121
Tan v. People of the Philippines, C.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999
12 : Foldl'r o(Ex/1ibits, p. 169 (Vol. l)
Decision
Page 33
x-----------------------x
intelligence who would ascertain the fact in the performance of

her duty to another or would govern her conduct upon
assumption that such fact exists. 123
Deguito contends that the RTC erred in concluding that she

had full and prior knowledge of the illegal source of the subject
funds. She insists that said conclusion was not based on direct
proof of the element of knowledge. 124
Deguito is mistaken.
To be clear, the element of knowledge under Al'v1LA may be

established by direct or circumstantial evidence. Rule VI (C) of the
2016 Revised llnplementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of RA.
No. 9160, as amended, explicitly states that the element of
knowledge in the prosecution of money laundering may be
established by direct or circumstantial evidence, to wit:
RULE VJ
PROSECUTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING CASES
"Rule 6. Proscrntio11 of Money L.1111ndcri11g C11ses. -

XXX
C. Knowledge. - Tlie elc111e11t of knowledge 11111y be est11blis/zed

by direct or circumstantial evidence." (E1J1plz11sis 11nd
u11derscori11g supplied)
True, the hacking incident involving the BB account took

place only on 04 February 2016, but Deguito's involvement in this
case was not only limited to the opening of the Jupiter Accounts.
She actually performed significant acts to arrive at the intended
conclusion, which is the movement of funds derived from the
hacking incident.
121
Tan v. People of the Philippines, C.R. No. 1?,4298, August 26, 1999
12 -1 I<.ollo, p. n7
Decision
Page 34
x-----------------------x
To elucidate, the opening of the spurious accounts was not

only preparatory, but directly connected to the crimes for which
Deguito was convicted. Liao, the Audit Manager and Unit Head
of the Internal Audit Group of RCBC, conducted an investigation
on the subject transactions, and testified on the participation of
Deguito in the opening of the Jupiter Accounts and the Go
Account, to wit:
41. Q: prn 1iously idenhfied the specimen sig1111ture rnnis

)'au
for the Go Jupiter Accounts nnd Tri110111n Account. vVhat arc
your findings uis-ii--uis tlzc signatures of Go Oil tlze lDs
submitted and the spccilllen signature cnrds for the Go Jupiter
Accounts and Trino11111 Account?
A: T foLL11d tlzat tl1e sig1111tLLres iJL tlze Post11l TDs 1111d

Dri'ucr's Licellse 11ttnc'1ed lo the Go Dol/11r Accou11t, and tlze
signature ill tlze sig1111ture mrd for the Trino111n Corporate
Account rl(ffer from tlze signatures 011 t/ze sigllnt11re rnrds for
tlze Jupiter Accounts.
42. Q: Vi!/10 was tlze Business Manager at tlzc time tlze Go

Jupiter Acco1111ts were opened?
A: lHs. Maia Santos - Dequito ·was the Business

Manager of Tupiter BC at that time tlze Go Tupiter
Accouut was ope11ed.
43. Q: How did you know t/111t size 7£1115 the Business M111111ger at
the time t/1e Go Jupiter Account wns opened?
A: The face of the CRF shows that accused Deguito

signed the same as Relatious/zip Manager belou, the
"Relations/zip Manager Details" portion.
44. Q: Vv7111t is tlw signfficance of the 11crnsed's signature i11 tlze

"Rel11lionsliip Ma1111ger Dct11ils" portion, ~(you know?
A: This indirntcs t!,11t 11crnscd Dcguito lzad 11 direct

contact ll'itlz tlzc client.
XXX
50. Q: You me11lioncd tl1at you lwcc ex11mi11ed tlw doc11me11ts

ll1itl1 regard to 11cco1u1ts under tlze rn1111e of LVi!li11111 So Go i11ld otlzcr
CA-GR CR No. 44284
Decision
Page 35
x-----------------------x
acro1111ts. vV/1at 11re these other accounts?
A: Aside fro111 the accounts under the name of vVillinm So Go, l

11nd tlze Audit Tc11111 also ex11111incd docu111cnts, 7Plzicl1 lu1ppcncd to be
11!1 dollnr accowzts 7l'itlz regard to tlzc accounts 1mdcr tlzc 1Z11111c of
Michael F. Cruz, Jessie Clzristoplzcr M. Lngrosas, Alfred 5. Vergara,
Enrico T. V11sqllez, and Ralph Picnclze.
51. Q: W/zat pnrtirnlnr dorn111cnts did you exnlllille 7Pitlz

regard to the accounts of M1cl1ael F. Cm: (Cm:), Jessie Clzristoplzcr
M. Lagrosas (Lagros11s), AUi·ed 5. Vergara (Vergnm) and Enrico T.
Vasquez (Vasqllez)?
A: We requested the signature cards, CRFs and the IDs

presented 011 tlze opening of the dollar acco1mts of Miclzncl F.
Cruz, Jessie Christopher M. Lagrosas, Alfred S. Vergara and Enrico
T. V11squcz.
XXX
55. Q: vVl111t was your findings witlz regard to tlzc Cruz

Account?
A: l found llz11l the CRF of Cruz Account was dated 15 May

2015, u1/ziclz is also tlze supposed date of the opening of the 11ccou11 t,
7l'hile tlze driver's license presented was issued at a later date,
10/zic/1 is 5 Tune 2015.
56. Q: VV!zat else did you find out 111 your i1rucstig11tion
rcgardillg t/ze Cruz acco1mt, if any?
A: I, together witlz the audit trnm, 11/so learned tlzat tlzc ID

presented 011 tlze Cruz account n1lzic/z is tlze driver's license, does
not exist in the Lalld Tra11sportatio11 Office database. This was
confirmed by our 1111dit ver~ficatio11 witlz LTO.
57. Q. Going to Lr1grosns Account, zf l show you tlze CRF,

signature rnrd n11d tlze lD presrntedfor ll1e that 11cco1111t, will you be
11blc to irfcnti~J tlw111?
A: Yes.
XXX
67. Q: vV!wt were your findings 011 these four (4) Dollnr
Acco11!lts of Cruz, Vcrg11m, Lagrosns 17/ld Vasqllez?
Decision
Page 36
x-----------------------x
A: !found out that tl1e CRFs were all dated 15 May 2015 and
that 011 all the CRFs and sig1tat11re cards. accused Deguito
affixed her sig1tature thereto.
68. Q: How did you know that 11cc11sed Deguito signed all the
CRF and signature cards?
A: Her signature was affixed above the stamped name Maia

Santos - Deguito 011 tile CRFs and sig11a ture cards.
69. Q: How did you know that this is /zer sig1wt11rc?
A: During our 11udit at Jupiter BC, Il'C rnme across with a lot of
dorn111ents signed by her, thus I a,nfamiliar uJith her signature.
70. Q:vV/zat is tlw significnnce of her signature 011 tlw CRF

1111d sig1wturc cards?
A: The sig,wture of ncrnsed Deg11ito in the acco1111t ope11i11g

forms which are the CRF 1111d signature cards signzfies that she fwd
verWed the authenticity of tlze said form and that proper KYC
procedures were conducted. Although, on our audit we found
out that I<.YC rvrocedures were not .., folloioed.
71. Q: In yo11r audit im estigatio11, n l111t Il'1Te your specific

1 1
findings with regard to accused Deguito in relation to the opening of

these accounts?
A: Accused Oeguito, bei11g then Busi11css !vTmwger of RCBC

fupiler BC, did not comply with Code of Conduct: Knowledge.
Understanding a11d Compliance (E.4) of CBC with regard to
A1tti-Money Lau1tdering Act (AMLA) Regulations, due to tlzc
following reasons:
1. Size did 11ot establish true identity of the clie11ts

a11d iust relied Oil the referrer;
? •
2. Size did not witness actual signing of clients on

CRF and Specime11 Sig11ature Cards:
3. She dealt uiitlz avpare11t gamblers and suspicious

i11di'viduals with unknown addresses and 1tegative
e111ploy111ent ver(ficatio11.
72. Q: L"v1111t else, if any?

Decision
Page 37
x-----------------------x
A: Site also failed to comply witlt the Allti-Money

Law1dering and Terrorist Fi11a11cing Pre1Je11tio11 Program
(MLPP) of RCBC applicnble at tlint ti111e, spccifirnlly V11lid11tion
Guidelines 011 her failure to cst11blislz z,afidity of IOs presented,
particularly:
a. Discrepancies Oil date of issuance and signatures

not lloted:
b. Submitted pltotocopy not authenticated against

the origiHals:
c. Unclear plzotocopies of IDs. xxx125 (Emphasis and

u,zdcrscoriJLg supplied)
Clearly, the opening of the Jupiter Accounts and the Go

Account was marred by blatant irregularities. It bears mentioning
that with banks, the degree of diligence required is more than that
of a good father of a family considering that the business of
banking is imbued with public interest due to the nature of their
functions. The stability of banks largely depends on the
confidence of the people in the honesty and efficiency of banks.
Thus, the law imposes on banks a high degree of obligation to
treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always
having in mind the fiduciary nature of banking. 126 If only
Deguito, who had sixteen (16) years of banking experience,
exercised such diligence, and performed her functions as Business
Manager of RCBC Jupiter, no anomaly or irregularity would have
happened.
Atty. Echaluse, the Financial Investigator of the AMLC, was

tasked to investigate on the stolen funds from BB. 127 He
emphasized the importance of the KYC screening process that
Deguito should have conducted in this case. Atty. Echaluse
further narrated that in the course of his financial investigation,
he discovered that the holders of the Jupiter Accounts were
fictitious persons, who never entered the premises of RCBC
12 c; Ri'rnrds, pp. 37-44 (Vol. V)
12 r, Cagungun v. Planters Development Bank, C.R. No. 158674, October ·17, 2005
127 Records, p. 6 (Vol. Ill)
Decision
Page 38
x-----------------------x
Jupiter when they opened their respective accounts on 15 May

2015, to wit:
"ATTY. AZCUETA: (To the witllcss)
Q: You also 111entioned during tlze cross that one of the

fu11ctions, and C'l_!Cll i11 your Judicial Affid11I1it that 011c of tlzc
fimctions of acrnscd De Guito is to solicit account. T1Vlwt
entails account solicitatio11, ifyou k1zoll'?
XXX
lVITNESS:
Solicitation entails tile process L:f 011-bo11rdi11g clients,

n1enning, the supposed bnnk officer, in this cnse De Guito,
should have exercised the usual KYC vrocess. 5/ie should
'
l,m 1e checked whether these ncc01111t holders are in the watch
list so that size rnay be able to assess tlze risk of this client if
tlzcy would be of high risk with the bank or not; and, similar
procedure, Sir.
Q: What's KYC, Sir?
KYC is KHow-Your-Customer. It's one of the basic

requirements ill a11ti-111011cy lau11derillg preve11tioll. You
must exercise due diligence ill knowi11g exactly ioho
you're dealing with.
XXX
Q: Atty. Erlwluse, did you CO/Ile lo k1w11 71 hetlzer these four (4)
1 1
guys Vergom, Vosquez, Cni:.: and L11gros11s perso1111/ly

appeared at RCBC Jupiter Bm11clz?
A: Sir, they were fictitious persons 1111d i11 fnct these

accounts were created by Maia De Guito and it was
under her control. It 7l'ns fro111 tlzc -uery start, tlze nccounts
were 111ade by her so they n ere all under her control.
1
fa 1erythi11g was fnbrirnted by Moia De Guito.
Q: So, you arc ccrtaill tlz11t these occounts, allegedly, in t/1c

names of these four (4) guys, tl1esc four (4) people 11eN'r
entered the bm11ch of RCBC in Jupiter?
f

Decision
Page 39
x-----------------------x
A: Tltey never entered. 111 _fi1ct, tl111t's 011c Atty. A::uct11 wns
nski11g earlier, Sir, what's 011-boarding. Twas cxpl11i11ing on-
bonrding. On-boarding 11/so 111e1111s J11cc-to-J11ce witl1 client.
There was 110/ace-to-:face with Lagrosas, Vergara, Cruz
and Vasquez because they were fictitious." 128
It is interesting to note that Deguito readily admitted that

on 14 May 2015, she received a phone call from Kim Wong,
requesting her to meet him at Midas Hotel. 129 Deguito, along with
Torres and a Bancassurance Sales Officer, proceeded to iviidas
Hotel, but only Deguito was allowed to enter the office of Kim
\Nong. Inside his office, Deguito was introduced to Cruz,
Lagrosas, Vergara, Vasquez and Picache. Kim Wong told Deguito
that said persons intend to open an account with RCBC Jupiter, as
they were expecting to receive loan proceeds. Deguito asked for
their IDs, and took photos of the san1e using her mobile phone. 130
She handed the Customer Relationship Forms and signature
cards to Kim Wong,rn then she was asked to leave the office. u 2
As a result, she was not able to witness the actual filling-up and
signing of the account opening forms by the potential account
holders. 133 After a while, Kim Wong proceeded to the restaurant
where Deguito and her companions were having dinner, and he
merely handed to her an envelope containing the duly
accomplished account opening forms. 134 Notably, Deguito affixed
her signature as "Relationship Manager" below the "Relationship
Manager Details" portion of the Customer Relationship Forms.
Her signature also appears on all the signature cards.
The following day, 15 May 2015, the messenger of Kim

Wong brought to RCBC Jupiter the amount of USD2,500.00 with
colored photocopies of the IDs of Cruz, Lagrosas, Vasguez,
Vergara and Picache. 135 It was Deguito who handed the subject
documents to the New Accounts officer that paved the way to the
128 TSN dated 21 June 2018, pp. 48-52
129
Rt'rnr,ls, p. 7 (Vol. VII)
1
w Jd. at 8-9 (Vol. VIT)
ui Jd. at 10
112
TSN elated 05 December 2018 (8:30 a.m.), pp. 53-54
i ,·, Jd. at 54
1 ',.J Rffords, p. Hl (Vol. Vil)
11
' TSN dated OS December 2018 (8:30 a.m.), pp. 64-65
Decision
Page 40
x-----------------------x
opening of the Jupiter Accounts.
It is beyond dispute that Deguito disregarded the validation

procedures for individual customers pursuant to BSP Circular
No. 706, which provides:
§ X806.1.c. Mini11rn111 v11lid11tion procedures - V11l!ril1tion
procedures for individual customers slwll i11cl11de but is not
limited to tlzefollowing:
1. Confir1JJi11g the date of birth from a duly authenticated
official doc11mc11t;
2. \/er~fying tl,e pen11111u'11t 171fdress tlzrough evaluation of

utility bills, bank or credit card statement or otl1er
documents showing permanent address or through
on-site visitation;
3. Contacting the customer by plzo11e, email or letter

(s11clz 11s sending of" t/imzk you letters"); 1111d,
4. Determining the authenticity of the identWcation
documents through validation of its issuance by
requesting a certification from the issuing a11thority
or by any other means. (Elllplz11sis and underscoring
supplied)
XXX
§ X806.1.e. Face-lo-f11cc COil tact - No 11cw 11cco1mts shall

be opened and created wit/zo11t face-to-face contact and
personal interview between tlze covered institution's duly
authorized personnel and the potential c11stomer xxx
Deguito conveniently turned a blind eye on the red flag

indicators in this case. As a consequence, the only identification
document submitted by Cruz, Lagrosas, Vasquez and Vergara
turned out to be bogus. Tellingly, LTO Senior Transportation
Development Officer Estrada verified that Vasquez's Driver's
License No. N02-99-154410 and Cruz's Driver's License No. N02-
12-115400 do not exist in the LTO's current file of licensed
drivers. 136 Likewise, Chief Cala of the Data Warehousing and
Systen1s Operations Division of the BIR confirmed that Lagrosas'
TIN 755-265-123-000 is invalid, and does not exist in the database
i,r, Rcrnrds, Vol. lll, pp. 83-84

Decision
Page 41
x-----------------------x
of the BIR. I37 More, Social Security Officer delos Reyes verified
that there is no Alfred Santos Vergara with SSS No. 33-0024132-9
in their system. 138
:tv1oreover, the Court did not fail to note that in determining

the purpose of opening the Jupiter Accounts, Deguito contented
1
herself with Kim Wong s statement that the account holders are
expecting to receive loan proceeds. Apart from asking for their
IDs, there is nothing on record to prove that Deguito interviewed
the account holders at all. In fact, Deguito testified that it was
Kim Wong who answered all her questions on behalf of the
account holders. A cursory reading of the Customer Relationship
Forms of Cruz, 139 Vasquez, I40 Vergara 141 and Lagrosas 142 evince
that their only source of funds is "[s]alary". Additionally, Deguito
merely relied on the account holders' declaration in the Customer
Relationship Forms that they are "Managers/Executives" without
conducting employment verification. What is more, the
subsequent investigations conducted by the AMLC and the RCBC
revealed that based on bank statements or the Transaction
History of the Jupiter Accounts, there was no financial activity
after the opening of said accounts, or prior to the inward
remittances on 05 February 2016.
In light of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court is

convinced that the circmnstances established in this case form an
unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion - that as
far back as the opening of the Jupiter Accounts, Deguito had
knowledge that the Jupiter Accounts were opened solely for the
purpose of receiving proceeds derived from an unlawful activity.
To recapitulate, in the prosecution of money laundering cases, the
element of knowledge may be established by direct or
circumstantial evidence. The absence alone of direct evidence
against an accused does not per se compel a finding of
innocence. 143
117
Id. at 214 (Vol. IV); TSN dated 10 July 2018, p. 22
m fd. at 221-222; fd. at 45-46
11
~ Folder of Exl!i/iils, p. 10 (Vol. II)
1411
Id. at 25
141 Id. at 40
142
Id. at 51
I-F People\'. J\dalia, G.R. No. 235990, January 22, 2020
Decision
Page 42
x-----------------------x
In the instant case, the unlawfu I activity referred to is the

unauthorized access into BB's IT system, which resulted to
unsanctioned SWIFT payment instructions to FRBNY amounting
to millions of US dollars. It is pertinent to note that the
prosecutions of money laundering and the unlawful activity shall
proceed independently. Any person may be charged with and
convicted of both money laundering and the unlawful activity. 144
Si1nilarly, Rule VI (A) of the RIRR of R.A. No. 9160, as ainended,
provides that, "[t]he elen1ents of money laundering are separate
and distinct from the elements of the unlawful activity. The
elements of the unlawful activity, including the identity of the
perpetrators and the details of the com1nission of the unlawful
activity, need not be established by proof beyond reasonable
doubt in the case for money laundering."
In this case, the unauthorized SWIFT payment instructions

to FRBNY in favor of the beneficiary accounts in RCBC Jupiter
amount to "hacking" or "crackling", which is a punishable act
under R.A. No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic
Commerce (E-Commerce) Act of 2000, specifically Section 33 (a),
which provides:
Section 33. Pellnlties. - The followi11g Acts, s/J11ll be pennlized by

fi11c mid/or i111priso1L111e11l, 11s follmus:
(n) Hacking or crackling cl'it/1 n:fcrs to unauthorized

access into or i1Ltcrferc11cc . 1n 11 comvuter .
s11ste111/server or information and communication
l p
S!(Stem: or any access in order to corrupt, alter, steal,

or destroy using 11 computer or ot/Jer similar informntion
mui com1111lllirntio11 dez iccs, without the knowledge
1
and consent of the owner of the computer or

i1~formatio11 a11d co11m11micatio11s system, i11cl11di1Lg
the i11troductio11 of computer "l'imses and the like,
resulting ill t/Jc corruption, dcstmctio11, 11/tcmt/011,
theft or loss of clcctrollic data 111css11gcs or clcctro11ic
doczw1ents shall be p1111ished by 11 111i11i11u1111 fillc of One
Hundred Tlwusnlld pesos (P 100,000.00) and 11
11111xi11111111 co111111c11s11mte to the d1mwge incurred nnd a
1111md(ltory i111priso11111cllt of six (6) 111ontlzs to three (3)
ymrs; xxx (Emphasis a11d 1111derscori11g supplied)
: 11 Rule VI (f\) of the R!Rf< of[(,,\ No, Yl IJU
Decision
Page 43
x-----------------------x
Significantly, "hacking" or "crackling" is among the

predicate offenses of money laundering, as defined under Rule III
(T) (11) of the RIRR of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, thus:
T. Unlawful activity refers to nny act or omissioll or series

or con1bi1wtion thereof i1wol1 i1Zg or luwing direct rel11tio11 to the
1
follmuing:
XXX
(11) Violations under Republic Act No. 8792,

otherwise k11ow11 as the Electronic Commerce Act of
'
2000; xxx (E111plznsis 1111d 11nderscori11g supplied)
Relevantly, "felonies or offenses of a si1nilar nature that are

punishable under the penal laws of other countries" are among
the "unlawful activities" defined under Rule III (T) (34) of the
RIRR of R.A. No. 9160, as amended. It bears mentioning that
"hacking or crackling" under the E-Commerce Act of 2000 has a
counterpart prov1s10n in the 2006 Information and
Communication Technology Act of the Bangladesh (Act No. 39 of
2006), 145 viz:
54. Prnalty for dn11111gc to computer, co11Lputer system, etc. - ~f

1111y person, without permission of the owner or nny person who
is in clznrgc of n COlllp11ter, colllp11tcr system or computer 11etn ork, 1
(11) accesses or secure access lo suclz co1111mter, co111p11tcr

system or computer 11et11 orks for tlzr purpose of destroying
1
i11fomll1tion or retricuing or collfftillg illfor11111tio11 or nssists other

to do so;
(b) downloads, copies or extracts 1111y d11t11, co111p11ter d11t11base

or i11fom111tio11 _ti-0111 such computer, co111putcr system or computer
11elll'Ork i11cludi11g infor111atio11 or datn /1cld or stored i11 any
rcnwmble stomgc 111cdi11111;
XXX
56. P1111islz111e11tfor lz11cki11g ,Pith co111p11tcr systc111. - (1) If a11y

person -
11) 111it!, tl1e i11tc11t to cnusc or knowing th11t lie is likely to

l-l, Fold<'r o{Exhihits, pp. 29-49 (Vol. IV)
Decision
Page 44
x-----------------------x
cause wrongful loss or dm1I11ge to the public or 1111y person, doi's

any net and tl,crcby destroys, deletes or 11ltcrs 1111y i11fon1111tio11
residing in 11 computer resource or dimiJZislzcs its mluc or utility
or nffects it i11juriously by nny 111e11ns;
b) d1111111ge t/zro11glz illegal access to any such computer,

col/lp11tcr network or any other electronic systelll 111/zic/i do ,wt
belong to hi111;
tlzc11 sue/, 11cti11ity slwll be trented 11s hacking offence. 146
The fact that the BB's IT system was hacked was established
by the letter 147 dated 16 February 2016 of BB Governor Rahman,
informing BSP Governor Tetangco that on 04 February 2016,
payment instructions in the amount of USD81,000,000.00 were
n1ade to the FRBNY in favor of beneficiaries with accounts in
RCBC. BB sent SWIFT messages to RCBC to stop the payment and
refund the saine to BB's account with FRBNY. 148 Bangladesh
Police Khan gave a detailed account on how BB's IT system was
hacked, and how its foreign currency reserve with FRBNY made
its way to the Jupiter Accounts on 05 February 2016 without the
knowledge and consent of BB, to wit:
33. Q: W/znt lurue you disccruered 111 your
investigation?
A: On 4 and 5 February, 2016, 11nknow11 hackers and
their associates 11ttc111pted to stcn/ 11ho11t USO 1,926.01 (sic)
111illio11 J,-0111 tl1e account of Bangladesh Bank J11ai11tained into
Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) of New York (NY) .fuJ.
generating and transmitting 70 (Seventy) unauthorized
Payment Instructions (Pis) using SWIFT system
maintained by Bangladesh Bauk.
34. Q: How did the hackers do it, if 1;011 know?

A: They made fake messages and transmitted them
to FRB of NY, wlzert' Foreign Currency Reserve of
Ba11gladcslz is kcpt. 149
116
Id. at 4?i-A to 43-B (Vol. IV)
147
Td. at 41 (Vol. l)
!.jH Id.
i;q Records, pp. 152 (Vol. IV)
Decision
Page 45
x-----------------------x
XXX
38. Q: What else, ~f a11y, did you fi11d out t1bout tlle
1111autlzorized processing t1mf tmns111ission worth USO 101
million?
A: Tlze forensic investigation revet1ls that on 19 Tanuary
2016 or earlier date, unknown hackers intruded into
Bangladesh Bank server, while on 26 ]1111w1ry 2016 Slwlilrn
Found11tio11, 1111 NGO of Sri La11k11 opened 11 USO bank
account t1t P1111 Asia B11nki11g Corporation Ltd. On 1
Februar11 2016, William So Go's USD accoullt z,vas
0
ovened at RCBC, Tuviter Street, Makati Citu, Manila,

• i C
Philippines.
39. Q: How did the llllknown hackers process 1111d

tmns111it the USO 101 million?
A: On 04 February, 2016fro111 2036/zrs to 0359/zrs (BST)
5 Feb 2016, li11ckers logged in 11t 2036/irs to the SvVJFT
system and pe1:for111ed dUfcrc11t activities till at 0359hrs of 5
February 2016 11nd thereby 70 Payment Instructions (PI)
were transnzitted to FRB New York for pauments in
;: .
.
()
total USD 1,926,013,799 to five accou1Zts at RCBC i11

Philippines, where only one (first one) Pl witlz worth USO
20 million fonded in Sri Lanko. 150
Joint Director Rab of Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit

1
and Fahim of the Bangladesh Police corroborated Khan s
1
testimony on the unlawful activity involving BB s account with
FBRNY. DFA Legal Representative Alos testified, and brought
before the RIC, the authenticated copies of Act No. 39 of 2006,
Act No. 5 of 2012, Act No. XLV of 1860 of Bangladesh.
Without doubt, the prosecution was able to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that the inward remittances credited to the
Jupiter Accounts on 05 February 2016 were proceeds derived
from hacking or crackling, an unlawful activity, which 1s
punishable by R.A. No. 8792 and Act No. 39 of 2006 of
Bangladesh.
It is next urged by Deguito that when the remittances were

1011 Id. at 152-15:')
Decision
Page 46
x-----------------------x
credited to the Jupiter Accounts on 05 February 2016, she took

steps to ensure that said re1nittances were in order and that the
funds came frmn legitimate sources. Purportedly, Deguito
instructed Torres to communicate with RCBC's Settlements
Department to request for copies of the corresponding ~1T103
confirmations. When Pineda, one of Deguito's superiors, called
her later that day to ask if she could possibly put a hold on the
Jupiter Accounts, Deguito took steps to clarify the matter and to
confirm the validity of the inward remittances. 151 Deguito denies
that she had the authority to stop the transactions. She faults the
RTC for ignoring the fact that the subject remittances were
credited to the beneficiary accounts via Straight Through Process.
The processing of withdrawal and deposit slips belongs to the
Operations Department of RCBC Jupiter. Too, there was no
reason for her to stop the transactions on 05 February 2016 and 09
February 2016 because at the time they were being processed by
the Operations Department, there were no stop payment
instructions yet, and she was not aware of the emails sent by
RCBC's Settlements Department on the recall of funds. She only
read the subject emails at past noon on 09 February 2016, after all
of the withdrawal and deposit transactions had been effected. 152
Again, Deguito tries to downplay her participation in the

anomalous transactions by pinning the blan1e on RCBC's
Operations Department, Settlements Deparhnent and other
employees of RCBC Jupiter. As previously conveyed, Deguito is
the Branch Manager of RCBC Jupiter. As testified to by Subido,
the Head of RCBC's Human Resources Group, the Business
Manager is the "overall head" and "control officer" of a Business
Center, to wit:
"COURT:
Q Okny, Mn'nnz, in tlznt regnrd, is tl1e Business Mn11nger of the

bmnch prohibited to do the opcmtional ll'ork?
lv7TNE55:
A It's not, that's wl1y J m11 clnnfyi11g 111yself bemuse nt that

li111e ... if I 11111y, Your Ho,wr, to explnin the Hier11rclzy 11t t/Jat
1 1
" /~o//o, pp. 130-132
i:;:, Id. at 134-14(-,
.
f
CA-GR. CR No. 44284

Decision
Page 47
x-----------------------x
ti Ille? Alright, so n e lzavc a Branch Business Center

1
Manager and 11 C11sto//ler Scn ice Head in the branch. Now,

1
for all intrnds (sic) and purposes, tlze Hierarcl1y is tlze

Business Center M111111ger reports to 11 District etc. on tlze cell
site 11nd the Custo//ler Sen ice Henri reports into like 11
1
District Scn 1ice etc. but 11t so111e point in tlzc Hierarchy, they
11!1 report to 11 Retml Bank Head. So, teclz11irnlly speaking
during that time, the Business
WITNESS: (continuatiou)
... Center Manager is the overall head of a Business Center.
COURT:
Q lv7zich i11cl11des /zis or lzcr ·1pork in tlic opcmtioJZs of the
bmnclz?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q So, it does Hot proflibit?

A lt docs not, 11s n1lwt Attorney has 111entio1Led there is n check
and b11ll111ce, so that's the purpose of the C11sto//lcr Scruice
Head at that ti111e in 2076.
Q As J said, M11'a111, there is 110 prolzibitio11 for tlze 11wn11ger to

do tlzc opcmtio1111! work?
lVlTNESS:
A Yes, there is no prohibition at that ti111e.
COURT:
Q So, size rnn do what an Operations Manager is doi11g?

A It depends, Yo1tr Honor, on ,l'l111t you meant l,y size mn do
what rm Opemtio11s Mm111gcr doing but tlze Customers
Service Head is supposed to be the Control Officer. So,
tecllllirnlly speaking, ~f tlie Control Officer is present during
/1111/ time, lze should be the one doing t/ze check and lmltmce.
The Business Center Manager brings in tlzc nccounts and
then tlu'. C1tsto111cr Seruice Head supposedly checks the
I1cc11mcy of the doc11111cnts, so111ctlzi11g like that.
COURT:
Q Supposed t1 Business Manager docs e,ucryll1i11g, Ma'am for

the 11cc01 rn t?
.'

Decision
Page 48
x-----------------------x
I VTTNESS:
A !Nell, 11s we /zm_,e 111c11tio11cd i11 tl1e Notice.
Q Vv7wtNoticc?
A I 111c1m the Notice of Decision. vVe luwe 111e11tio11ed that at
the onset Ms. Deguito did ,wt pe1;form the Kllow Your
Customer Policy. So, tlzose are tlze things tlzat at tlze
onset, tlze Bra11clz Ma11ager should be able to do, like
face to face, making sure that the accounts are in
proper order, etc. Because, as I said, you are the
solicitor of the accouut, right, so at the onset you are
supposed to do the KYC or the Know Your Customer,
Your Honor. So, If T11111 Ms. Deg11ito and t!zcn Tsolicit 111y
vVTTNESS: (co11tinuatio11)
nccowzts, I will lzrr!'e to make sure that 11!/ tlze dornmcnts arc
in pince mid at tlznt time, o/miously, all (~l the C11sto/Jler
Relations/zip For111s, all of these dorn111c11ts will be give11 to
the lmmclz in the CSH - C11stolllcr Seruice Head, then ibn-
vnlidata nya 11g11yo11 iyo11, Sir, kw1g t1111w iyo11. So, in ot/1er
words, it's the respo11sibility of the Branch Ce11ter
Manager wizen soliciting accounts to make sure that
the Know Your Customer Rule is observed and it is
indicated i11 the 1ob Dcscrivtio11 . .
COURT:
Q You mean, M11'11m, in tlzis pnrtirnlar rnse, tl111t Rule was not
o/Jserued?
A That Rule 71'115 1zotobscrued. Th11t's correct, Your Honor." 15 '
Being the "overall head" and "control officer" of RCBC

Jupiter, Deguito cannot feign ignorance of the blatant
irregularities in the inward remittances credited to the Jupiter
Accounts, and pretend as if her hands were tied that she cannot
do anything to rectify the1n. It cannot be overemphasized that it
was Deguito who solicited the Jupiter Accounts, and the account
opening forms were all signed by her, indicating her imprimatur,
before endorsing them to the New Accounts officer. Such
15
", TSN dated 19 July 2018, pp. 66-70
Decision
Page 49
x-----------------------x
actuations are far from being ministerial.
As to the inward remittances, Liao testified that on 5

February 2016, at around 4:50 a.m. to 5:12 a.m., RCBC Settlements
Department received the SWIFT MT103 via RCBC SWIFT
Payment System from Wells Fargo New York, Citibank New York
and, and Bank of New York - Mellon. The MT103 instructed
payment to the Jupiter Accounts. At around 12:33 p.m. to 12:39
p.m. on even date, the total amount of USD81,001,621.79 was
credited to the Jupiter Accounts via Straight Through Process. At
3:·t 6 p.m. on the same day, there was a cash withdrawal from
Lagrosas' account amounting to USD USD22,735,000.00, and the
sa1ne amount was deposited to the Go Account, which was
opened only at 3:00 p.rn. on that day. 154
Another interesting point, Deguito admitted that she

opened a US dollar account in the name of Go without seeing the
latter, and only upon the instruction of Kim Wong. For the second
time, Deguito caused the opening of a new account without
complying with the required face-to-face contact, as mandated by
BSP Circular No. 75 and the RIRR of R.A. No. 9160, as amended.
And again, it was later verified that the driver's license that was
used to open the Go Account does not exist in LTO's data base. 155
Too, it is inescapable to notice that even Kirn Wong was neither
present during the opening of the Go Account, much less armed
with a Special Power of Attorney (SPA). Quoted hereunder is
Deguito's incredible testimony:
"Q Tlze new acco1111ts. Si110 a11g /1111}1 instruction p11m b11ksm1
1111g Dol!nr Account ni !v1r. LVilli1w1 Go?
A Ako po.
Q A1zo11g bnselum 11g order 1110 pnm nwgbukas 11g Dollnr

Account ni lVIr. vVilli11111 Go?
A I got the authority from Mr. William Go to set up a
Dollar Account for Jzim plus 1n111g sinabi ko po sya kay
Angela Torres 11a bulmks1111 ng 11ccoi111 t si TVilli11111 Go 11g
Dollar, she called William Go to verify Cl'Cll before
'"' f;,ffords, pp. 48-49 (Vol. V)

i·,, Id. at 84 (Vol. IV)
Decision
Page 50
x-----------------------x
setting tile 11cco1111t. So, dn!ml'a k11111i11g 1wk1111s11p ny11

11utl10rizi11g t/ze b1111k to open Dollar Accou11t for l1i111.
Q Ka/zit 1111 wnlang illili11l deposit?

A It rnn h11ppen. Yes, Your Honor.
Q So, il,ig 1no11g st1bihi11, Ms. 'vVit11ess, you rnn open 1111
11ccount e11e11 without initial deposit, t11111a?
A It rn11 /117ppC11, Your Honor.
Q Kaya 11ga 11111111 bnng sabiliill iyo11?
LVITNESS:
A T1111111 po.
Q Sa inyong lm111cl1?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q C11se to case bnsis, Your Hmzor. I rn11not speak for otlzer

branch but in RCBC it h11ppe11ed.
XXX
Q You mentioned rnr/icr that there is 110 need for INilli11111 Go to

fill-up a CRF /Jernuse there's 1111 existing Peso Acco1111t,
correct?
A Yes, I did not see lzilll during the time na iuopen y1mg
Peso Account niya, but ll'C n ould talk about it. 1·::; 6
1
The only person who could have corroborated Deguito's

testimony was Torres. Unfortunately, she was not presented as a
witness in this case. It would be the height of naivete or credulity
for this Court to simply accept Deguito's self-serving testimony
that it was possible to open an account without face-to-face
contact, without filling-up and signing account opening forms,
and without initial deposit. This is not only against nonnal
banking practice, but a blatant violation of the AMLA and
banking laws, rules and regulations. What is clear is that Deguito
hastily opened the Go Account, which was the ultimate recipient
of the proceeds of the hacking incident. Notably, Liao presented,
identified and fonnally offered in evidence the withdrawal slip on
Lagrosas' account dated 05 February 2016, and a similarly dated
l:ir, TSN Lfated 05 December 2018, pp. 76-77
CA-G.R. CR No. -1-1284
Decision
Page 51
x-----------------------x
deposit slip to the Go Account, both for the amount of

USD22,735,000.00.
Further on the point, the following circumstances should
have already raised a red flag to induce Deguito, in her capacity
as the Business Manager of RCBC Jupiter, to exercise Enhanced
Due Diligence, and report the same to her supervisors, to wit: 1.)
the funds originated frmn the Central Bank of Bangladesh, a
sovereign entity; 2.) the funds were credited to individual
accounts that had no financial activity since they were opened
nine (9) months ago, signaling unusual pattern of transactions
involving large smn of US dollars; 3.) the account holders never
set foot in RCBC Jupiter; and, 4.) based on the Customer
Information Forms of the owners of the Jupiter Accounts, there
was no apparent economic or lawful purpose to receive funds
from the foreign currency reserve of Bangladesh.
Enhanced Due Diligence is the examination of the
background and purpose of all complex, unusually large
transactions, a11 unusual patterns of transactions, which have no
apparent economic or lawful purpose, and other transactions that
may be considered suspicious. 157 Apart from her uncorroborated
claims, there is nothing on record to prove that Deguito exercised
even the slightest fonn of diligence.
On 09 February 2016, Deguito continued facilitating the

tnovement of funds from the Jupiter Accounts to the Go Account.
As testified to by Liao, at around 9:15 a.m. on 09 February 2016,
RCBC Settlements Division received MT999 SWIFT from BB,
requesting for stop payment and to freeze the Jupiter Accounts.
This, notwithstanding, RCBC Jupiter processed five (5)
withdrawals from the Jupiter Accounts in the total amount of
USDSS,158,641.63 between 10:24 a.m. to 11:37 a.m. on even date.
At around 10:59 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. of the same day, RCBC's
Settlements Deparbnent sent four (4) emails to RCBC Jupiter for
the recall of USD75,000,000.00 funds. The emails contained three
(3) MT999 SWIFT from Bangladesh Bank and one MT199 SWIFT
from Wells Fargo New York. 158
157
Rule 9 of the RIRR of RA. No. 9160, as amended
100
Rcrnrd,, p. 50 (Vol. V)
Decision
Page 52
x-----------------------x
From the withdrawn ainount, USDlS,215,977.26 was

credited to another account. Between 12:02 p.m. to 12:03 p.m., also
on 09 February 2016, three (3) deposit transactions, in the total
amount of USD42,933,664.37, were credited to the newly opened
Go Account. USD20,000,000.00 of which were subsequently
transferred to another account. 159 At this point in time, RCBC
Jupiter was already notified by RCBCs Settlements Department
1
regarding BB request for stop payment or to freeze the Jupiter
Account. Nonetheless, Deguito affixed her signature on each of
the pre-signed withdrawal and deposit slips, but in her defense,
she offered the excuse that said act was merely ministerial and
meaningless. This is unacceptable. Being the Business Manager of
RCBC Jupiter, her signature on official bank documents bore
weight to her subordinates in the branch, and it cannot be
regarded as inconsequential. To the Court s mind, in signing the
1
Customer Relationship Forms, signature cards, withdrawal and

deposit slips, Deguito was wielding influence over the employees
of RCBC Jupiter. For any subordinate employee, his or her
1
supervisor s signature on any official docun1ent is an assurance
that the same was verified to be correct, valid and legal.
1
Additionally, Deguito s contention that she belatedly read the
subject emails is too convenient to warrant consideration.
Evidently, Deguita1s acts constitute a "transaction of the

monetary instrument which relates to or involves the proceeds of
an unlawful activity." Rule III of the RIRR of R.A. No. 9160, as
amended, defines "transaction" as any act establishing any right
or obligation, or giving rise to any contractual or legal
relationship between the parties thereto. It also includes any
movement of funds by any means with a covered person.
The haste by which Deguito transacted the subject funds

indicates her intention to speedily 1nove the same. And what is
even more glaring, the owners of the Jupiter Accounts were not
present in RCBC Jupiter when the withdrawals were made. Just
like the 05 February 2016 transactions, it was only upon verbal
instructions of Kim Wong, who was communicating with Deguito
1:, 9 Id. at 53 (Vol. V)
# I I t

Decision
Page 53
x-----------------------x
through the phone. 160 No other RCBC employee had access to

Kirn Wong, 161 as everything was coursed through Deguito. To
emphasize, Kim Wong was not an1ong the holders of the Jupiter
Accounts. Deguito testified in this wise:
Q.148: Yo11 111C'ntio11C'd thnt you just received the signed

deposit and withdrwwal slips from Killl Wong,
without the account holders being present in
the branch. {f tlznt is ll1e cnse, wlzy were tlie
wit/1dm(m! mzd deposits processed?
A. 148: lt is all cst11/J/islzC'd practice in the bnnki11g i11dustry
t/z11t valued clieuts, or clients who tlze b11nk 11re
fm11ilinr with, may conduct deposit or wit/zdrml'l11
transactions by just sending sigllC'd deposit slips.
Especi11lly i11 rnses of 110 rnsl1-ou t transactions.
Q. 149: W/znt do yo11 mean by "no rnsh-011t tm11s11ctio11s"?

A. 149: No cash-out tnms11ction is when tlzc 11wney
willzdrmu11 is not 11ctu11lly recci"ued by 11ny person in
the bmnclz. Rt1t/zer, it is deposited directly into
another 11ccount. Tlzis 111c11ns 1w plzysirnl rns/z is
actually relenscd to a person muf t11kcn out of tl1e
brm1c/1.
Q. 150: lf at all, lzcm 1 is tlzat establislzcd bm1ki11g practice

you 111e11tioncd applirnble in this case'?
A. 150: Kim Wong is a valued client whom I've knoum
since 2008. T've transacted with hilll many
times, and lie has referred several high value
clients to me. Liknuise, as 1 mc11tioned, I /mow
hi/II to /Jc a Ji'iend of RCBC President Lorenzo Tan.
Killl vV011g was also tlzc one who referred the
11cco1111ts to nu'. He was the one dealing with me
directly regarding the five (5) accounts. The
tm11s11ctzons were 11/so 1w-rnsh tnrns11ctio11s since 110
actual mslz n as released by the bank to 11 pcrso11 i11
1
the bnmclz, but the same 11111011nt was actually

deposited to 1111other acco1111t /llentioned by Kim
WoHg.162
Deguito 1s claim that Kim Wong is a valued client of RCBC

finds no support in the records. In fact, it was not even shown
11 •0 TSN dated 05 December 2018 (8:30 a.111.), p. 108
lhl frf. at 109
Irie Records, p ..~6 (Vol. VII)
I
•
'
.. ' ! ' '

Decision
Page 54
x-----------------------x
that Kim Wong maintains an account with RCBC Jupiter. What

was established is that Kim Wong is a valued personal client of
Deguito.
It is truly perplexing to think that a Business Manager of

one of the biggest banks in the country would si1nply to accede to
all the instructions of Kim Wong. Deguito acted on these
instructions without consulting the account holders of the Jupiter
Accounts. Except on their alleged meeting at l'v1idas Hotel on 14
May 2015, there was no other instance when Deguito spoke with
Cruz, Lagrosas, Vasquez or Vergara. Such acquiescence of
Deguito resulted in several violations of the AMLA, its RIRR and
banking regulations. I63
On another point, Deguito 1s insistence that Judge Untalan

was biased against her for propounding approximately three
hundred forty (340) questions during her cross-examination, as
compared to the prosecution s one hundred forty-three (143)
1
questions, 164 is bereft of merit.
The mere imputation of bias, partiality and prejudgment

will not suffice in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to
overcome the presmnption that the judge will undertake his noble
role to dispense justice according to law and evidence and
without fear or favor. 165 Here, there is no showing that Judge
Untalan had an interest, personal or otherwise, in the prosecution
of Deguitds case. He is therefore presumed to have acted
regularly and in the manner that preserves the ideal of the ' cold 1
neutrality of an impartial judge. 11 On the whole, the Court finds

that the questions propounded by Judge Untalan were merely for
1
clarification purposes. It is a judge s prerogative and duty to ask
clarificatory questions to ferret out the truth. Questions that clear
up dubious points and bring out additional relevant evidence are
within judicial prerogative. The mere fact that the presiding judge
1
"' fd at 28h A (Vol. IV)
11
'" T-?.ol/o, pp. 164-165
1
"' Re: Letters of Lucena B. Rallos, for Alleged /\cts/lncidents/Occurrences Relative to the
Resolution(s) Issued in CA-G.R. Sr' No. 06676 by Court of Appeals Executive Justice
Pampio Abarintos and Associate Justin's Ramon Paul Hernando and Victoria Isabel
Paredes, !Pl No. 12-203-CA-J, December 10, 2013
Decision
Page 55
x-----------------------x
asked clarificatory questions during the trial does not make him a
biased judge. 166
Lastly, Deguito theorizes that the RTC imposed the wrong

penalty upon her. She argues that the penalty under subsection
(e) of Section 10 of R.A. No. 10365 is applied only if the party
charged with money laundering is a "covered person" and the
penalty would be imposed on its directors, officers or personnel
who knowingly participated in the commission of the crime of
money laundering. This penalty would only apply if it was RCBC,
as a covered person, that was charged with money laundering,
with the penalty being imposed on its directors, officers or
personnel who knowingly participated in the commission of the
said crime. She claims that she was charged and tried in her
personal capacity. Therefore, it would be unfair if she would be
penalized as a "personnel" of a covered person when RCBC, the
actual "covered person," was not even charged or accused of
money laundering. If at all, the maximum imposable fine for the
violation for which Deguito was convicted is Php24,000,000.00,
and not USD94,304,069.37. 167
V\!e do not agree.
Section 14 (e) prescribes the penalty for violation of Section

4 of R.A. 9160, as amended, when the same is committed by
covered persons, its directors, officers or personnel who
knowingly participated in the commission of crime of the money
laundering thus:
SEC. 14. Penni Prooisions. - (n) Penn/tics for the Cri111c of

Money Lm111dcri11g. Tlze p('Jlnlty of i//lpriso11111c11t ranging from
sez 1e11 (7) to fourteen (14) yenrs 1111d 11 fi11e of 11ot less tlum Tlzree
111illio11 Philippine pesos (Php3,000,000.00) but ,wt 111ore tlz1111
fcuire the zialue of the nz011et11ry i11stru 111c11 tor property inoolz 1ed in
the offense, slznfl be imposed upon 11 person rniruicted u11der Section
4 (11), (b), (c) a11d (d) of this Act.
w, Peopll' v. Ugang, C.R. No. 14-Hl36, May 7, 2002

1r, 7
Rollo, pp. 173-176
t, •
'
J ' '

Decision
Page 56
x-----------------------x
Tl,e pnrnl ty of i111prison111e11 t ji-0111 four (4) to sez1en (7) yen rs and g
.
{iJLe of.
11ot less tha11 One million ' frve hundred thousand
Philippine pesos (Php1,500,000.00) but not nwre than Three
lllillion Philippine pesos (Php3,000,000.00), shall be i111posed
upon 11 person com ictcd under Sectio11 4(c) 1111d ff). of this Act.
1
XXX
(c) Tlzc penalty of i111priso11111cnt nmgiHgfrom four (4) to seurn

(7) years nnd 11 fine corresponding to not more than tioo
lllmdred percent (200%) of the value of t/ze 11101zet11ry
i11stn1111cnt or property !111111dcred shall be illlposed upon the
covered person, its directors, officers or personnel wl10
knowingly participated i11 the co111111issio11 of the crime of
/Jloney laundering. (E111p/111sis 1111d u11derscori11g supplied)
A perusal of the nine (9) Informations filed against Deguito

reveals that she was then the Branch Manager of RCBC Jupiter
when the acts complained of were committed. As the Business
II
Manager of RCBC Jupiter, Deguito is considered an officer or
personnel" of a covered person pursuant to Section 14 (e) of RA.
No. 9160, as amended. As a matter of fact, on 21 March 2016,
II
Deguito was terminated from employment for her participation
in money laundering activities while at the discharge of her
functions as the Business Manager of RCBCs Jupiter BC." 168
Clearly then, the RTC com1nitted no reversible error in imposing
a fine corresponding to the value of the monetary instrument
laundered by Deguito, in accordance with Section 14 (e) of R.A.
No. 9160, as amended.
In light of the above condusions, there is no doubt that the

prosecution was able to prove that Deguito is guilty of eight (8)
counts of violation of Section 4 (f) of R.A. No. 9160, as amended.
Thus, the Court finds no need to further discuss the other issues
raised by the parties.
lr,K Id. at 2Sri A (Vol. JV)

Decision
Page 57
x--- - ------------------- x
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The Joint

Decision dated 10 January 2019 and the Resolution dated 20
September 2019 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 149 of Makati
City in Criminal Case Nos. R-MKT-17-02993-CR, R-MKT-17-
02997-CR, R-MKT-17-02999-CR, R-MKT-17-03000-CR and R-
MKT-17-04107-CR, finding accused-appellant MAIA SANTOS-
DEGUITO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for eight (8) counts
of Violation of Section 4 (f) of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ORIGINAL SIGNED
RAYMOND REYNOLD R. LAUIGAN
Associate Justice
OPV
WE CONCUR:
JOHN GI
ORIGINAL SIGNED
REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO
Presiding Justice
ORIGINAL SIGNED
P ABLITO A. PEREZ
Associate Justice
l . f
i
l .• t

Decision
Page 58
x-----------------------x
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.
ORIGINAL SIGNED
REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO
Presiding Justice
Chairperson, First Division

People V Deguito - CA Decision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

People V Deguito - CA Decision

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

People V Deguito - CA Decision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

versus - CA-G.R. CR No. 44284

MAIA SANTOS-DEGUITO, ET AL.,

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL - registered

CUSTODIO ACORDA SICAM & DE CASTRO LAW OFFICES - registered

THE PRESIDING JUDGDE - registered

FIRST (1 st) DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR No. 44284

- ·versus -Salazar-Fernando, R.A.,

SANTOS VERGAR~" AND

MAIA SANTOS DEGUITO,

x- ________________________ -~~ w _eM _ 1 x

Before the Court is an appeal1 filed by the accused-

02999-CR, R-MKT-17-03000-CR and R-MKT-17-04107-CR, finding

Likewise challenged is the Resolution 4 dated 20 September

Deguito, along with four (4) John Does alias "Michael

That on or about Fcbmary 9, 2016 ill Makati City, Philippines and

accused MAIA SANTOS-DEGUITO, who was then the branch

then and there knowingly, willji1lly, and feloniously facilitate tlze

That on or about February 9, 2016 in Makati City, Philippines and

CA-G.R. CR No. 44284

US Dollars (US$81,000,000.00) more or less, was i1wofoed or

Cmz", "Jessie Christopher M. Lagrosas", "Alfred S. Vergara"

That 011 or about Febmary 9, 2016 in Makati City, Philippines and

CA-G.R. CR No. 44284

New York (FRB-NY) involving millions of US Dollars; follr (4) of

That on or about February 9, 2016 in M11kati City, Philippines and

CA-G.R. CR No. 44284

Tlzat on or about Febru11ry 9, 2016 in M11k11ti City, Philippines and

CA-G.R. CR No. 44284

That on or about February 9, 2016 in Makati City, Philippines and

CA-G.R. CR No. 44284

"MICHAEL FRANCISCO CRUZ", "JESSIE CHRISTOPHER

allowed/apprm1ed despite Jozoll'i11g this irregulnrity and knowing

Society of l:Vorldwide /11tcrlm11k Financial Telecomnmnirntions

Thl1f 011 or 11bo11t February 9, 2016, in Mnkati City, Philippi11cs

CA-GR. CR No. 44284

DOES a.le.a. "MICHAEL FRANCISCO CRUZ," "JESSIE

rnsto111er due diligence: (1) t/ze 01 er-the-co1111ter deposit of the

a11101.mt of Fourteeu Milliou Tlzree Hundred Twenty Three

Cruz", "Jessie Cristoplzer M. Lagrosas", "Alfred S. Vergara"

On 20 October 2017, Deguito filed an An1ended Motion to

On 10 November 2017, Deguito filed a ivfotion for

E, {-(ecords, pp. 100-118 (Vol. ll)

CA-G.R. CR No. 44284

During arraignment on 26 April 2018, Deguito entered a

After the termination of the pre-trial conference, trial on the

The prosecution presented the testimonies of the following

,,." Id. at 218-225; Id. at 25-51

Business Center; 12.) Antonio C. Liao, Jr. (Liao), 31 Audit Manager

After the prosecution rested its case, Deguito filed a Motion

On 07 November 2018, Deguito filed a Motion for

With the denial of Deguito s Demurrer to Evidence, the

defense presented Deguito 38 and Riyadh Dain David, 39

On 20 December 2018, Deguito filed a Motion for

The prosecution and the defense submitted their respective