Case Digest (G.R. No. 198083)
Facts:
The case involves Bai Sandra Sinsuat A. Sema (Petitioner) against the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) (Respondent). The events leading to this case began with the issuance of a Freeze Order by the Court of Appeals on June 6, 2011, which targeted various bank accounts and properties associated with individuals, including Bai Sandra Ampatuan and Bai Sandra S. Ampatuan. This Freeze Order was granted following an Urgent Ex Parte Petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines, based on an investigation by the AMLC. The investigation included a Special Audit Report from the Commission on Audit, an Evaluation Report from the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, and affidavits from witnesses related to the Maguindanao massacre. The Court of Appeals found probable cause to issue the Freeze Order, which was effective for 20 days and later extended for six months.
Sema, who claimed to be the duly elected representative fo...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 198083)
Facts:
Background of the Case
The case involves Bai Sandra Sinsuat A. Sema, who filed a Petition for Review assailing the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals that denied her Urgent Motion to Lift Freeze Order. The Freeze Order was issued by the Court of Appeals, covering various bank accounts and properties of individuals, including those under the names "Bai Sandra Ampatuan" and "Bai Sandra S. Ampatuan." The Freeze Order was based on an investigation conducted by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) and was effective for 20 days.
Basis of the Freeze Order
The Freeze Order was issued after the AMLC filed an Urgent Ex Parte Petition, which included the following documents:
- Special Audit Report No. 2010 for the Office of the Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao by the Commission on Audit.
- Evaluation Report on the lifestyle check conducted by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao on Datu Andal S. Ampatuan, Sr. and Datu Zaldy U. Ampatuan.
- Sinumpaang Salaysay of Lakmodin Alamada Saliao submitted to the AMLC.
- Joint Complaint-Affidavit and Supplemental Joint Complaint-Affidavit furnished to the AMLC and executed by the widows of the Maguindanao massacre's victims.
Sema's Allegations
Sema claimed that she is not related by blood to the other respondents in the Freeze Order, who are members of the Ampatuan clan. She stated that her maiden name is Bai Sandra Sinsuat Ampatuan and that she is the daughter of the late Datu Mantato Sumagka Ampatuan, Sr., who is not related to the Ampatuans of Shariff Aguak. She also argued that the name "Bai Sandra Ampatuan/Bai Sandra S. Ampatuan" does not refer to her but to Bai Zandria Sinsuat Ampatuan, the wife of Sajid Islam Uy Ampatuan. Sema further denied any involvement in the alleged illegal transactions of the Ampatuan clan.
Republic's Response
The Republic, represented by the AMLC, argued that Sema's claims did not justify the volume of transactions in her accounts, which numbered at least 30. The Republic also pointed out that Sema had previously served as an undersecretary for the Department of Education of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, during which large unliquidated funds were discovered. The Republic sought to extend the Freeze Order from 20 days to six months to allow for a more thorough investigation.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly issued the Freeze Order based on probable cause.
- Whether the Freeze Order should be lifted due to the alleged mistaken identity of Sema.
- Whether the Republic met the burden of proof to establish probable cause for the issuance of the Freeze Order.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court granted Sema's Petition and lifted the Freeze Order against her and her husband's bank accounts. The Court emphasized that the Republic failed to establish probable cause and that the Freeze Order was improperly issued. This ruling is without prejudice to other preservation orders that may be issued in relation to the forfeiture case filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.