ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT (RA 9160),
AS AMENDED BY RA 9194
Approved on September 29, 2001
What is the purpose of this Act?
To protect and preserve the integrity and
confidentiality of bank accounts and to ensure
that the Philippines shall not be used as a
money laundering site for the proceeds of any
unlawful activity. Consistent with its foreign
policy, the State shall extend cooperation in
transnational investigations and prosecutions of
persons involved in money laundering activities
wherever committed.
What is a Money Laundering offense?
It is a crime whereby the proceeds of an
unlawful activity as herein defined are
transacted, thereby making them appear to
have originated from legitimate sources.
What are Unlawful Activities?
Any act or omission or series or combination
thereof involving or having direct relation to
following:
(1) Kidnapping for ransom
(2) Violations under the Comprehensive
Dangerous Act of 2002
(3) Violations under Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act
(4) Plunder
instrument or property involves the proceeds of
(5) Robbery and extortion
(6) Jueteng and Masiao
(7) Piracy on the high seas
(8) Qualified theft
(9) Swindling
(10) Smuggling
(11) Violations under the E-Commerce Act of
2000;
(12) Hijacking and other violations under
Republic Act No. 6235; destructive arson and
murder, including those perpetrated by terrorists
against non-combatant persons and similar
targets;
(13) Fraudulent practices and other violations
under Securities Regulation Code of 2000
(14) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature that
are punishable under the penal laws of other
countries.
Who can be guilty of money laundering
offense?
(a) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property represents, involves, or
relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful activity,
transacts or attempts to transacts said monetary
instrument or property.
(b) Any person knowing that any monetary
any unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform
any act as a result of which he falicitates the
offense of money laundering referred to in
paragraph (a) above.
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property is required under this Act
to be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so.
What court has competent jurisdiction over
a money laundering offense?
The regional trial courts shall have jurisdiction to
try all cases on money laundering. Those
committed by public officers and private persons
who are in conspiracy with such public officers
shall be under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
May a person be charged with and convicted
of both the offense of money laundering and
the unlawful activity as herein defined?
Yes.
Suppose that any monetary instrument or
property is in any way related to an unlawful
activity?
The Court of Appeals, upon application ex parte
by the AMLC and after determination that
probable cause exists may issue a freeze order
which shall be effective immediately. The freeze
order shall be for a period of 20 days unless
extended by the court.
May the AMLC inquire into or examine any
particular deposit or investment?
Yes. But only upon order of any competent court
in cases of violation of this Act, when it has been
established that there is probable cause that the
deposits or investments are related to an
unlawful activities or a money laundering
offense.
Exceptions: Unlawful activities defined
numbers (1), (2) and (12).
May the BSP do the same inquiry and
examination of any deposit or investment?
Yes. When the examination is made in the
course of a periodic or special examination, in
accordance with the rules of examination of the
BSP.
May this Act be used as a means of political
harassment?
Of course not. This Act shall not be used for
political persecution or harassment or as an
instrument to hamper competition in trade and
commerce.
No case for money laundering may be filed
against and no assets shall be frozen, attached
or forfeited to the prejudice of a candidate for an
electoral office during an election period.
What will govern the restitution for the
aggrieved party?
The provisions of the New Civil Code.
Penalty:
(a) Penalties for the Crime of Money
Laundering. - The penalty of imprisonment
in ranging from seven (7) to fourteen (14) years
and a fine of not less than Three Million
Philippine pesos (PhP3,000,000.00) but not
more than twice the value of the monetary
instrument or property involved in the offense,
shall be imposed upon a person convicted under
Section 4(a) of this Act.
The penalty of imprisonment from four (4) to
seven (7) years and a fine of not less than One
million five hundred thousand Philippine pesos
(PhP1,500,000.00) but not more than Three
million Philippine pesos (PhP3,000,000.00),
shall be imposed upon a person convicted under
Section 4(b) of this Act.
The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) months
to four (4) years or a fine of not less than One
hundred thousand Philippine pesos
(PhP100,000.00) but not more than Five
hundred thousand Philippine pesos
(PhP500,000.00), or both, shall be imposed on a
person convicted under Section 4(c) of this Act.
(b) Penalties for Failure to Keep Records. - The
penalty of imprisonment from six (6) months to
one (1) year or a fine of not less than One
hundred thousand Philippine pesos
(PhP100,000.00) but not more than Five
hundred thousand Philippine pesos
(PhP500,000.00), or both, shall be imposed on a
person convicted under Section 9(b) of this Act.
(c) Malicious Reporting. - Any person who, with
malice, or in bad faith, reports or files a
completely unwarranted or false information
relative to money laundering transaction against
any person shall be subject to a penalty of six (6)
months to four (4) years imprisonment and a fine
of not less than One hundred thousand
Philippine pesos (PhP100,000.00) but not more
than Five hundred thousand Philippine pesos
(PhP500,000.00), at the discretion of the court:
Provided, That the offender is not entitled to
avail the benefits of the Probation Law.
If the offender is a corporation, association,
partnership or any juridical person, the penalty
shall be imposed upon the responsible officers,
as the case may be, who participated in the
commission of the crime or who shall have
knowingly permitted or failed to prevent its
commission. If the offender is a juridical person,
the court may suspend or revoke its license. If
the offender is an alien, he shall, in addition to
the penalties herein prescribed, be deported
without further proceedings after serving the
penalties herein prescribed. If the offender is a
public official or employee, he shall, in addition
to the penalties prescribed herein, suffer
perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
from office, as the case may be.
Any public official or employee who is called
upon to testify and refuses to do the same or
purposely fails to testify shall suffer the same
penalties prescribed herein.
(d) Breach of Confidentiality. - The punishment
of imprisonment ranging from three (3) to eight
(8) years and a fine of not less than Five
hundred thousand Philippine pesos
(PhP500,000.00) but not more than One million
Philippine pesos (PhP1,000,000.00), shall be
imposed on a person convicted for a violation
under Section 9(c).
PLUNDER (RA 7080)
Approved on July 12, 1991
Who can be guilty of Plunder?
1) Any public officer who, by himself or in
connivance with members of his family, relatives
by affinity or consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates or other persons,
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten
wealth through a combination or series of overt
criminal acts in the aggregate amount or total
value of at least P50 million.
2) Any person who participated with the said
public officer in the commission of an offense
contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise
be punished for such offense.
What is Ill-gotten wealth?
Any asset, property, business enterprise or
material possession of any person, acquired by
him directly or indirectly through dummies,
nominees, agents, subordinates and/or
business associates by any combination or
series of specific or similar criminal means or
schemes.
How is ill-gotten wealth acquired?
1) Misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
malversation : Public funds or raids on the public
treasury
2) Receive (directly or indirectly) in connection
with any government contract or project or by
reason of the office or position : Commission,
gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other
form of pecuniary benefit from any person
and/or entity
3) Illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition
: Assets of the Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or
GOCCs and their subsidiaries
4) Obtaining, receiving or accepting (directly or
indirectly) in any business enterprise or
undertaking : Shares of stock, equity or any
other form of interest or participation including
promise of future employment
5) Establishing the ff. to benefit particular
persons or special interests : Agricultural,
industrial or commercial monopolies or other
combinations and/or implementation of decrees
and orders
6) Taking undue advantage of the ff. to unjustly
enrich himself at the expense and to the
damage and prejudice of the country and its
citizens : Official position, authority, relationship,
connection or influence
What must be the total value or aggregate
amount of ill-gotten wealth?
At least P50 Million.
What is the penalty?
Reclusion perpetua to death.
How is the penalty determined?
In the imposition of penalties, the degree of
participation and the attendance of mitigating
circumstances shall be considered by the court.
What shall happen to the ill-gotten wealth?
Any or all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and
other incomes and assets including the
properties and shares of stocks derived from the
deposit or investment thereof shall be forfeited
in favor of the State.
Who is a Public Officer?
Any person holding any public office in the
Philippine Government by virtue of an
appointment, election or contract.
What is the scope of the Government?
It includes the National Government, and any of
its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities,
including GOCCs and their subsidiaries.
What is a Person?
It includes any natural or juridical person, unless
the context indicates otherwise.
Which court has competent jurisdiction over
plunder cases?
The Sandiganbayan in its original jurisdiction,
until otherwise provided by law.
How is the crime of plunder established by
means of evidence?
It shall not be necessary to prove each and
every criminal act done by the accused. It is
sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt
a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of
the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.
Will the public officer accused of plunder be
suspended from office?
Yes. Any public officer against whom any
criminal prosecution under a valid information
under this Act in whatever stage of execution
and mode of participation, is pending in court,
shall be suspended from office.
What happens if he is convicted by final
judgment?
He shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits
under any law.
If acquitted?
He shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the
salaries and other benefits which he failed to
receive during suspension, unless in the
meantime, administrative proceedings have
been filed against him.
Is plunder prescriptible?
Yes. It shall prescribe in 20 years. However, the
right of the State to recover properties unlawfully
acquired by public officers from them or from
their nominees or transferees shall not be
barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
BP.22 DOES NOT COVER MANAGER’S
CHECK AND CASHIER’S CHECK. It is as good
as the money it represents and is therefore
deemed as cash.
BP.22 COVERS ACCOMODATION OR
GUARANTEE CHECK.
BP.22 COVERS CROSSED CHECK since it is a
negotiable instrument. It falls within the
coverage of BP. 22.
The Supreme Court ruled that BP. 22 considers
the mere act of issuing an unfunded check as an
offense not only against property but also
against public order to stem the harm caused by
these bouncing checks to the community. (Mitra
vs. People, July 05, 2010)
THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSPIRACY UNDER
THE REVISED PENAL CODE IS APPLICABLE
IN BP.22 WHICH IS A SPECIAL LAW.
A. WAYS BY WHICH VIOLATION OF BP. 22
ARE COMMITTED.
The gravamen of the offense punished by Batas
Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 is the act of making or
issuing a worthless check or a check that is
dishonored upon its presentation for payment –
It is not the nonpayment of the obligation which
the law punishes. The mere act of issuing a
worthless check – whether as a deposit, as a
guarantee or even as evidence of pre-existing
debt – is malum prohibitum.
THE ELEMENTS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH
OF SECTION 1 OF BP.22 ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The accused makes, draws or issues any
check to apply to account or for value;
2. The accused knows at the time of the
issuance that he or she does not have sufficient
funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for
the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment .
There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds when the check was
presented within 90 days from the date
appearing on the check and was dishonored
unless:
a. such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof
the amount due thereon within 5 banking days
after receiving notice that such check has not
been paid by the drawee, or
b. makes arrangements for payment in full by
the drawee of such check within (5) banking
days after receiving notice of non-payment.
Is the 90 day-period to deposit the check an
element of BP 22?
No. That the check must be deposited within
ninety (90) days is simply one of the conditions
for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of
lack of funds to arise, but it is not an element of
the offense, and neither does it discharge the
accused from his duty to maintain sufficient
funds in the account within a reasonable time
thereof. (Nagrarnpa vs. People, 386 SCRA
412).
The notice of dishonor of a check may be sent to
the drawer or maker, by the drawee bank, the
holder of the check, or the offended party.
(Ambito vs. People, 579 SCRA 68, February 13,
2009)
ELEMENTS OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH
OF SECTION 1 OF BP.22.
This way of violating B.P.22 suggests that at the
time the check was issued, the issuer had
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank. However, the check was dishonored when
presented for payment within 90 days from its
date for failure to maintain sufficient funds or
credit to cover the amount. The elements are as
follows:
a) any person, makes or draws and issues a
check;
b) such person has sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank;
c) failure to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a
credit to cover the full amount of the check if
presented within a period of ninety (90)
days from the date appearing thereon;
d) for which reason it is dishonored by the
drawee bank.
COMPARISON OF VIOLATION OF BP 22
FROM ESTAFA UNDER PAR. 2 [D], ARTICLE
315, OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
First, the elements of estafa under paragraph
2(d), Article 315 of the RPC are (1) the
postdating or issuance of a check in payment of
an obligation contracted at the time the check
was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency of funds to
cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee.
(Cajigas vs. People, 580 SCRA 54, February 23,
2009)
For violation of the “Bouncing Check Law”,
deceit and damage are not essential or required.
The essential element of the offense is
knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of
the check of the insufficiency of his funds. The
gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a bad
check, not the non-payment of an obligation.
Second, Article 315, Par.2 (d) is a crime against
property because the issuance of the check is
used as a means to obtain a valuable
consideration from the payee. On the other
hand, in BP. 22, the mere act of issuing an
unfunded check is an offense against public
order to stem the harm caused by these
bouncing checks to the community. (Mitra vs.
People, July 05, 2010).
Third, in estafa, the failure of the drawer to
deposit the amount necessary to secure
payment of the check within 3 days from receipt
of notice from the bank and or the payee or
holder that said check has been dishonored for
lack or insufficiency of funds is prima facie
evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act.
In B.P. 22, the failure of the drawer to pay in full
the payee or holder within 5 banking days after
receiving notice that the check has been
rejected by the drawee bank gives rise to
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of
funds or credit.
Fourth, in estafa, the check is issued in payment
of a simultaneous obligation to defraud the
creditor.
In B.P. 22, the check is issued in payment of a
pre-existing obligation.
Fifth, in estafa, an endorser who is with
knowledge that the check is worthless and had
acted with deceit is liable.
In B.P. 22, the persons liable are the maker,
drawer and the issuer but not an endorser.
Lastly, since estafa is mala in se, good faith is a
proper defense.
B.P. 22 is mala prohibitum, it is punished by a
special law and therefore, good faith is not a
defense.
“SIMULTANEOUS OBLIGATION” FROM
“PRE-EXISTING” OBLIGATION.
“Simultaneous obligation” as an element of
estafa connotes that the issuance of a check is
used as a means to obtain valuable
consideration from the payee. Deceit is the
efficient cause for defraudation. To defraud is to
deprive some right, interest, or property by
deceitful devise. (People vs.Quesada, 60 Phil.
515)
In the issuance of a check in payment of a
“pre-existing obligation”, the drawer derives no
material benefit in return as its consideration
had long been delivered to him before the check
was issued. Since an obligation has already
been contracted, the accused in this case obtain
nothing when he issued the check, his debt for
the payment thereof had been contracted prior
to its issuance.
There is deceit when one is misled -- by guile,
trickery or by other means - to believe as true
what is really false. (Dy vs. People, 571 SCRA
59, November 14, 2008)
Damage as an element of estafa may consist in
(1) the offended party being deprived of his
money or property as a result of the
defraudation; (2) disturbance in property right; or
(3) temporary prejudice. (Nagrampa vs. People,
386 SCRA 412). To constitute estafa, the act of
postdating or issuing a check in payment of
obligation must be the efficient cause of
defraudation and, as such, it should be either
prior to, or simultaneous with, the act of fraud.
(Nagrampa vs. People, 386 SCRA 412)
A PERSON MAY BE BOTH LIABLE FOR
VIOLATION OF B.P. 22 AND ANOTHER
PROVISION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
The filing of a criminal case under B.P. 22 shall
not prejudice any liability arising from a felony
committed under the Revised Penal Code.
B. DEFENSES IN BP. 22
WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE DEFENSES IN
B.P. 22?
1. The presentation of the registry card, with an
unauthorized signature, does not meet the
required proof beyond reasonable doubt that the
petitioner received such noticed, especially
considering that he denied receiving it. (Suarez
v. People 555, SCRA 238, June 19, 2008)
2. Presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of
funds is not conclusive as it may be rebutted by
full payment. (Tan vs. Philippine Commercial
International Bank 552 SCRA 532, April 23,
2008)
3. Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must
prove not only that the accused issued a check
that was subsequently dishonored. It must also
establish that the accused was actually notified
that the check was dishonored, and that he or
she failed, within five (5) banking days from
receipt of the notice, to pay the holder of the
check the amount due thereon or to make
arrangement for its payment.
4. Prescription is a proper defense. The
prescriptive period is 4 years reckoned from the
lapse of the five (5) banking days from notice of
dishonor within which to make good the check.
5. Forgery of the signature appearing on the
check (Ilusorio vs. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA
89)
An agreement surrounding the issuance of
dishonored checks is irrelevant to the
prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22. (Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v.
Janiola 591 SCRA 466, June 30, 2009)
LACK OF VALUABLE CONSIDERATION is not
A PROPER DEFENSE IN VIOLATION OF B.P.
22.
(Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiola 591
SCRA 466, June 30, 2009) NOVATION is not A
PROPER DEFENSE IN B.P. 22.
IS “STOP PAYMENT” A PROPER DEFENSE IN
BP. 22?
PAYMENT” or countermand, yet if it was clear
from the statement of account that the check
bounced due to insufficiency of funds, the
drawer of the check is still liable.Chang vs. IAC,
146 SCRA 46 BAR Q. [2002]
C. CORPORATION IN RELATION TO BP. 22
Section 1 of the law provides: “Where the check
is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the
person or persons who actually signed the
check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable
The officer who is accused of signing the check
must receive the notice of dishonor.
Constructive
notice to the corporation, who has a separate
personality from its officer, is not enough.
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000
refers to the imposition of penalties for violation
of B.P. 22. It provides:
Court has not decriminalized B.P. 22 violations,
nor have removed imprisonment as an
alternative penalty.
Needless to say, the determination of whether
the circumstances warrant the imposition of a
fine alone rests solely upon the judge. Should
the judge decide that imprisonment is the more
appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular No.
12-2000 ought not to be deemed a hindrance.
(Lunaria vs. People, 5701 SCRA 572,
November 11, 2008).
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13-2001 is
a circular addressed to all judges which clarifies
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 on the
penalty for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
It provides:
The clear tenor and intention of Administrative
Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove
imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to
lay down a rule of preference in the application
of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22.
The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not
foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for
violations of B.P. 22. Neither does it defeat the
legislative intent behind the law.
Thus, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000
establishes a rule of preference in the
application of the penal provisions of B.P. Blg.
22 such that where the circumstances of both
the offense and the offender clearly indicate
good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint
of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone
should be considered as the more appropriate
penalty.
It is, therefore, understood that:
1. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not
remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty
for violations of B.P. Blg. 22;
2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of
sound discretion, and taking into consideration
the peculiar circumstances of each case,
determine whether the imposition of a fine alone
would best serve the interests of justice or
whether forbearing to impose imprisonment
would depreciate the seriousness of the offense,
work violence on the social order, or otherwise
be contrary to the
imperatives of justice;
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the
accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no to
the application of the Revised Penal Code
provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.