G.R. No. L-28248 - Perido vs. Perido

The Anti‐Money Laundering Council (AMLC), represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed an ex parte petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) under Section 10 of R.A. 9160 as amended by R.A. 9194, seeking to freeze monetary instruments and properties “in any way related” to alleged unlawful activities of the Ampatuan clan. The petition was supported by:

Special Audit Report No. 2010 of the Commission on Audit for the Office of the Regional Governor, ARMM.
Evaluation Report on lifestyle check by the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao (Andal and Zaldy Ampatuan).
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Lakmodin Alamada Saliao.
Joint Complaint-Affidavit and Supplemental Affidavit of Maguindanao massacre victims’ widows.

On June 6, 2011, the CA issued a 20-day freeze order covering bank accounts and properties of multiple Ampatuan respondents. Thirty of these accounts were in the names “Bai Sandra Ampatuan” or “Bai Sandra S. Ampatuan,” later identified as petitioner Bai Sandra Sinsuat A. Sema.

Petitioner Sema filed an Urgent Motion to Lift Freeze Order, alleging mistaken identity: she is Bai Sandra Sinsuat Ampatuan Sema, not “Bai Zandria Sinsuat Ampatuan” of the Ampatuan clan, not related by blood or transaction, and wife of Muslimin Sema. She denied involvement in any unlawful transactions.
The Republic filed a Consolidated Comment and Motion to Extend the freeze for six months, citing the complex nature of the case, pending submission of bank records, and need for further inquiry into fund sources.
Sema opposed the extension, reiterating lack of probable cause against her due to identity error, no relation to the Ampatuans, and absence of any factual nexus between her accounts and the alleged unlawful activities.
On July 5, 2011, the CA denied the motions to lift the freeze order for all respondents, including Sema, noting that issues of lineage, pedigree, and mistaken identity require full‐blown trial and cannot be resolved in summary AMLA freeze proceedings. It extended the freeze order to December 2, 2011.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, challenging (a) the CA’s denial of her motion to lift the freeze order, (b) the CA’s extension of effectivity, and (c) alleged constitutional and procedural violations in issuing the freeze against her.

Whether the petition is moot and academic due to the expiration of the CA’s freeze order on December 2, 2011, and thus should be dismissed.

Whether the petition improperly raises questions of fact (existence of probable cause) and should be denied for that reason.

Whether there existed probable cause to freeze petitioner’s and her husband’s bank accounts and properties as “in any way related” to the Ampatuan clan’s unlawful activities under R.A. 9160, as amended.