G.R. No. 232724-27 - Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) filed a Motion to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum issued by the Sandiganbayan in the criminal case People v. P/Dir. General Jesus Versoza, which charged former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo with plunder arising from the Philippine National Police’s anomalous purchase of secondhand helicopters.
The Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to Quash by Resolution dated March 28, 2017, and likewise denied the AMLC’s Motion for Reconsideration by Order dated May 12, 2017, prompting the AMLC to file a Petition for Certiorari with this Court.

Lionair, Inc. sold allegedly “brand new” helicopters to Jose Miguel Arroyo; partial payment was deposited into Lionair’s Union Bank savings account. Passbook entries included three USD credits totaling over USD 1,065,000.
At trial, Union Bank’s branch manager testified the account records had been disposed after five years, suggesting Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas or the AMLC might have covered-transaction reports.
The Sandiganbayan issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum directing Executive Director Julia C. Bacay-Abad of the AMLC to testify and to produce Lionair’s bank records.

The AMLC contended that Section 9(c) of Republic Act No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act, AMLA) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations make covered and suspicious transaction reports confidential, prohibiting any disclosure (“tipping-off”).
It further argued the subpoena failed to reasonably describe the documents sought—its electronic database contained millions of records—and that it was not required to serve the accused with its Motion for Reconsideration because it was allegedly a nominal party.
The AMLC prayed for injunctive relief, claiming irreparable injury if compelled to comply.

The Office of the Ombudsman (Office of the Special Prosecutor) argued that Section 9(c) applies only to covered institutions (banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, brokers, etc.) and not to the AMLC.
Lionair had waived its bank-secrecy rights under the Foreign Currency Deposit Act (RA 6426) by written permission, allowing the production of its Union Bank records.
The subpoena expressly identified the four categories of documents related to three specific transactions in Account No. 13133-000119-3, satisfying the Rules of Court’s requirements.
Service of the Motion for Reconsideration was mandatory under Rule 15, Secs. 4–6, and due process required proof of service.

No temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction was issued; the AMLC, through its officer, testified before the Sandiganbayan on June 19, 2018.
In its Reply, the AMLC maintained that Section 9(c) implicitly covers the AMLC; transaction reports are mere “leads” and not admissible evidence absent a Court of Appeals order under Section 11 of AMLA. It also challenged the scope of Lionair’s waiver.

Whether the AMLC was required to serve copies of its Motion for Reconsideration on the accused and their counsel under Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
Whether Section 9(c) of the AMLA prohibits the AMLC from disclosing covered and suspicious transaction reports.
Whether Lionair’s written permission under the Foreign Currency Deposit Act suffices to compel production of its bank records.
Whether the Subpoena Duces Tecum reasonably described the documents required under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court.