Estrada v.

Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division)

G.R. No. 217682 (Resolution) July 17, 2018

Facts:

This case involves a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus filed by Jose "Jinggoy" P.
Ejercito Estrada and Ma. Presentacion Vitug Ejercito (the petitioners) against the Sandiganbayan
(Fifth Division), the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), and the People of the Philippines
(the respondents). The petitioners seek to annul and set aside the resolution of the Sandiganbayan
denying their motion to suppress/exclude certain evidence in a prosecution for plunder.

The case stems from the Pork Barrel Scam, wherein certain legislators allegedly misused their
allocations from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) in connivance with Janet Lim
Napoles. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation and filed criminal
complaints for plunder, malversation, direct bribery, and graft and corrupt practices against the
individuals involved, including Senator Jinggoy Estrada.

The Office of the Ombudsman requested the AMLC to conduct a financial investigation of the
bank accounts of the petitioners and others. The AMLC authorized its secretariat to file an ex parte
application for a bank inquiry in the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the application.

Subsequently, the Office of the Ombudsman filed an information charging Estrada and others with
plunder. During the bail hearings in the Sandiganbayan, the AMLC presented Atty. Orlando C.
Negradas, Jr., an AMLC financial investigator, who testified on the Inquiry Report regarding the
bank transactions related to Estrada's alleged involvement in the PDAF Scam.

Estrada filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the evidence obtained through the bank inquiry
violated his constitutional rights to privacy and due process. The Sandiganbayan denied the
motion, prompting the petitioners to file the present petition.

Issue:

The main issues raised in the case are: (1) whether Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended,
violates the constitutionally-mandated right to due process and right to privacy; and (2) whether
the amendment to Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, violates the ex post facto clause of
the Constitution.

Ruling:

The Court ruled in favor of the respondents and held that the amendment to Section 11 of R.A.
No. 9160, as amended, does not violate the constitutionally-mandated right to due process and
right to privacy, nor does it violate the ex post facto clause of the Constitution.

Ratio:

The Court explained that the amendment to Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, does not
violate the constitutionally-mandated right to due process and right to privacy. The elimination of
the notice requirement does not remove any lawful protection to the account holder because it is
part of the AMLC's investigative powers. The AMLC and the Court of Appeals are still required
to establish probable cause before issuing a bank inquiry order, and the account holder has the
opportunity to challenge the order. Therefore, the amendment does not violate the right to due
process and right to privacy.

The Court also ruled that the amendment to Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended, does not
violate the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. An ex post facto law is a law that either makes
criminal an act done before its passage or changes the punishment for a crime committed before
its enactment. In this case, the amendment does not fall under any of the categories of an ex post
facto law. It does not make criminal an act done before its passage, nor does it change the
punishment for a crime committed before the amendment. Therefore, the amendment does not
violate the ex post facto clause.
Summary:

This case involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of an amendment to the Anti-Money
Laundering Act (AMLA) that allows the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to inquire into
or examine bank accounts without notice to the account holder and without court order. The
petitioners argue that the amendment violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution.
However, the Court ruled that the amendment does not violate the ex post facto clause because it
does not make criminal an act done before its passage or change the punishment for a crime
committed before the amendment. The elimination of the notice requirement does not remove any
lawful protection to the account holder because it is part of the AMLC's investigative powers. The
AMLC and the Court of Appeals are still required to establish probable cause before issuing a
bank inquiry order, and the account holder has the opportunity to challenge the order. Therefore,
the Court held that the amendment is constitutional.