Case Digest (G.R. No. 198083)
Facts:
Bai Sandra Sinsuat A. Sema v. Republic of the Philippines represented by the Anti‑Money Laundering Council (AMLC), G.R. No. 198083, October 10, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, SAJ., writing for the Court. The petition challenged Court of Appeals resolutions that denied Sema's motion to lift a freeze order issued on the AMLC's ex parte petition.
The AMLC, through an Urgent Ex Parte Petition filed with the Court of Appeals, sought a freeze order over numerous bank accounts and properties allegedly related to unlawful activities by members of the Ampatuan clan. The petition attached investigative materials including a COA Special Audit Report (Office of the Regional Governor, ARMM), an Ombudsman lifestyle‑check evaluation, witness sinumpaang salaysay, and joint complaint‑affidavits by widows of victims of the Maguindanao massacre. On June 6, 2011 the Court of Appeals found probable cause and issued a 20‑day freeze order directed to multiple banks and government offices; the order enumerated many accounts, including thirty accounts listed in "Annex H" that were identified in the rollo as belonging to petitioner Sema and her husband.
Sema filed an Urgent Motion to Lift Freeze Order asserting mistaken identity and lack of relation to the Ampatuan respondents: she said she is politically and genealogically distinct from the Ampatuans of Shariff Aguak, is married to Muslimin Sema (not an Ampatuan), and that the AMLC's listing resulted from a database match of the surname rather than any connection to unlawful transactions. The Republic opposed, pointed to the volume and timing of transactions and to Sema's previous government service, and moved to extend the freeze order’s effectivity to six months under A.M. No. 05‑11‑04‑SC (sec. 53[b]).
The Court of Appeals denied Sema's motion and, on motion by the Republic, extended the freeze order up to six months (until December 2, 2011). Motions for reconsideration were denied. Sema elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, arguing (inter alia) that the freeze order lacked probable cause as to her accounts, that questions of fact should be reviewable given the extraordinary nature of f...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the petition moot by reason of the expiration of the Court of Appeals’ freeze order?
- May the Supreme Court review factual findings (probable cause) in a Rule 45 petition challenging a Court of Appeals freeze order?
- Was there probable cause to include and freeze petitioner Sema’s and her husband’s bank...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)