Case Digest (G.R. No. 207078) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Republic of the Philippines v. Ongpin et al. (G.R. No. 207078, June 20, 2022), the Anti‐Money Laundering Council (AMLC) petitioned the Court of Appeals ex parte under Section 10 of the Anti‐Money Laundering Act (AMLA) for a freeze order on 179 bank accounts. These accounts belonged to former public official Roberto V. Ongpin, his associates Josephine A. Manalo and Ma. Lourdes A. Torres, their corporations (Deltaventure, Goldenmedia, Boerstar, Compact Holdings, Elkhound), and 14 ex‐officers of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) implicated in the approval of two loans (₱150 million and ₱510 million) to Deltaventure in 2009. The AMLC alleged that the loans violated RA 8791 and RA 3019, and that the sale of Philex shares produced ill‐gotten gains laundered through those accounts. The Court of Appeals granted the freeze order on December 6, 2012 (effective 20 days), extended it to June 26, 2013, and lifted it in part on May 7, 2013—unfreezing all but one account—after r Case Digest (G.R. No. 207078) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Underlying Transactions
- Petitioners: Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
- Respondents:
- Individuals and corporations linked to Roberto V. Ongpin (Ongpin), namely Josephine A. Manalo, Ma. Lourdes A. Torres, Deltaventure Resources, Inc., Goldenmedia Corporation, Boerstar Corporation, Compact Holdings, Inc., and Elkhound Resources, Inc.;
- Former officers of Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) involved in approving two large credit lines: Reynaldo G. David, Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, Miguel L. Romero, Franklin M. Velarde, Renato S. Velasco, Edgardo F. Garcia, Rolando S.C. Geronimo, Perla S. Soleta, Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio Jr., Jesus S. Guevara II, Cresenciana R. Bundoc, Armando O. Samia, Ma. Teresita S. Tolentino, and Rodolfo C. Cerezo;
- Various banks holding 179 targeted accounts.
- Key corporate-financial transactions (2009):
- Deltaventure obtained P150 M and P510 M credit lines from DBP to buy shares in Philweb and Philex, pledging those same shares as security;
- Shares were registered in Goldenmedia’s name then block-sold with Boerstar and Elkhound to Two Rivers Pacific Holdings at P21.00/share for P2.1 B, allegedly earning unlawfully-tainted profits.
- Investigations and Freeze Order
- Ombudsman and Senate inquiries found probable cause for graft (RA 3019 § 3(e)) against Ongpin group and DBP officers; AMLC resolved ex parte on 14 Nov 2012 that funds from the loans were tainted.
- AMLC filed ex parte petition for a freeze order (179 accounts) under AMLA § 10 on 3 Dec 2012 before the Court of Appeals (CA).
- CA issued a 20-day freeze order on 6 Dec 2012, effective immediately; application for bank inquiry filed on 11 Dec 2012.
- Procedural History in the Court of Appeals
- Motions to lift the freeze were filed by respondents (Two Rivers, Ongpin et al., DBP officers) contesting lack of direct link, lawful loan approvals, and flawed AMLC methodology.
- CA granted a separate lift for Two Rivers (21 Dec 2012) and partial relief for Samia (21 Dec 2012); extended the freeze to six months on 26 Dec 2012 “without prejudice” to motions to lift.
- CA denied severance of freeze and bank inquiry proceedings (15 Feb 2013); conducted continued hearings and requested AMLC progress reports.
- On 7 May 2013, CA lifted the freeze on all accounts except Boerstar Corporation’s Bank of Commerce Acct. No. 900000028241 (linked to the P2.1 B share sale funds).
- Petition to the Supreme Court
- Republic (AMLC) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari on 24 May 2013.
- AMLC’s arguments:
- CA missed the mandatory 20-day resolution requirement (AMLA § 10 as amended by RA 10167), thus motions should be deemed denied; colatilla in CA’s extension resolution is void;
- Proceedings on bank inquiry must remain wholly ex parte and separate from freeze order;
- Issuance/extension of freeze order establishes probable cause and shifts burden onto account holders; CA erred in demanding further evidence;
- AMLC had shown probable cause linking accounts to unlawful loan/share transactions.
- Respondents countered that the petition is moot (freeze expired 26 June 2013), 20-day lapse lifts the freeze, consolidation was proper, burden never shifted, and no eveidence of direct linkage.
Issues:
- Is the Petition moot by supervening expiration of the freeze order?
- Did CA’s failure to resolve motions within the original 20-day period nullify or extend the freeze order?
- Was it proper to jointly conduct the freeze order and bank inquiry proceedings?
- Could CA lawfully require AMLC to present additional evidence after establishing probable cause in the original order?
- Was there probable cause to believe the frozen accounts were related to unlawful activity under AMLA?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)