Case Digest (G.R. No. 171054) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Edgardo T. Yambao v. Republic of the Philippines, petitioner Edgardo T. Yambao, brother-in-law of Retired Lieutenant General Jacinto C. Ligot, challenged the issuance and extension of a freeze order by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 90238. On February 1, 2005, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) forwarded to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) its findings that Gen. Ligot and his immediate family, including petitioner, had amassed wealth grossly disproportionate to their declared income. The OMB noted unexplained growth of Gen. Ligot’s assets from ₱105,000.00 in 1982 to ₱3,848,000.00 in 2004, undeclared investments and properties held in family members’ names, substantial tuition and travel expenses for Ligot’s children, and real properties registered in petitioner’s name though he lacked independent means. Acting on these findings, the AMLC filed an ex-parte application for a freeze order under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act), Case Digest (G.R. No. 171054) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Ombudsman and AMLC Investigation
- On February 1, 2005, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) forwarded to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) a complaint against Ret. Lt. Gen. Jacinto C. Ligot and immediate family for perjury (RPC Art. 183), R.A. No. 6713, and R.A. No. 3019 violations, recommending further probe under R.A. No. 9160 (AMLA) due to grossly disproportionate wealth.
- The OMB found that Gen. Ligot’s declared assets rose from ₱105,000 (1982) to ₱3,848,000 (2004); that he and spouse Erlinda owned undeclared investments and properties; that their children acquired substantial assets beyond their means; and that petitioner Edgardo T. Yambao, Erlinda’s brother, was a nominee/dummy with no verifiable income or BIR filings, using the Ligots’ addresses. The OMB estimated unexplained wealth at ₱54,001,217, comprising:
- Gen. Ligot’s undeclared assets – ₱41,185,583.53
- Children’s assets – ₱1,744,035.60
- Tuition and travel – ₱2,308,047.87
- Yambao’s properties – ₱8,763,550.00
- AMLC Ex-parte Application and CA Proceedings
- The AMLC confirmed bank accounts, investments, and real properties linked to the Ligots and petitioner, and, by AMLC Resolution No. 52 (2005), filed an urgent ex-parte application with the Court of Appeals (CA) for a freeze order.
- On July 5, 2005, the CA (Lagman, J.) issued a 20-day freeze order over specified bank accounts in petitioner’s name (MBTC US$ 00012407; UOBP 021072002773/002072001829; Keppel 3035000914; Citicorp US$ 000117966; Insurance Brokerage US$ 006911804) and motor vehicles (1996 Honda Accord UFY223; 2001 Toyota Hi-Lander XBD223; 2002 Subaru Forester XEB718; 2003 Subaru Forester XHY362).
- Petitioner moved to lift the freeze order and to separate his case; the OSG sought extension. On September 20, 2005, the CA denied lift motions and extended the freeze order “until after all … proceedings and/or investigations … are terminated.”
- After A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC (Rule on Civil Forfeiture, Asset Preservation, and Freezing) took effect on December 15, 2005, petitioner filed urgent motions for summary hearing and to limit the freeze order under the new rule. On January 4, 2006, the CA denied all pending motions, holding the new rule inapplicable and refusing separation.
Issues:
- Whether A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC applies to petitioner’s freeze-order proceedings given pending motions at its effectivity.
- Whether petitioner was deprived of due process by the ex-parte freeze application and lack of opportunity to rebut AMLC allegations.
- Whether sufficient probable cause existed to freeze petitioner’s monetary instruments and properties.
- Whether petitioner should have been separated from co-respondents based on distinct causes and defenses.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)