Title
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 5th Division
Case
G.R. No. 217682
Decision Date
Jul 17, 2018
Former Senator Estrada challenged AMLC's bank inquiry under Anti-Money Laundering Act, claiming privacy violations. SC upheld law's constitutionality, ruled evidence admissible, dismissed petition as moot after bail grant.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217682)

Procedural and Factual Background

Whistleblowers executed a sworn statement disclosing the PDAF scheme; the NBI investigated and the Office of the Ombudsman filed verified criminal complaints including plunder against Senator Estrada. The Ombudsman requested the AMLC to investigate relevant bank accounts. The AMLC sought and the Court of Appeals (CA) granted ex parte bank inquiry orders concerning Estrada’s accounts and, later, accounts of his wife. The AMLC produced an Inquiry Report on bank transactions, which it furnished to the Ombudsman. An AMLC financial investigator, Atty. Orlando C. Negradas, Jr., testified regarding the Inquiry Report during Estrada’s bail hearings in the Sandiganbayan. Estrada moved to suppress the Inquiry Report and the testimony; the Sandiganbayan denied suppression. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the Supreme Court challenging those rulings.

Issues Presented

The principal issues presented were: (1) whether Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended by R.A. No. 10167, violates the constitutional rights to due process and to privacy by authorizing ex parte AMLC applications for bank inquiries and by dispensing with notice to holders of related accounts; (2) whether the amendment may be applied retroactively or whether it is an unconstitutional ex post facto law; and (3) whether the AMLC Inquiry Report and the testimony derived from it are admissible evidence or the product of an unconstitutional “fishing expedition.”

Petitioners’ Contentions

The petitioners argued that the ex parte application mechanism and the elimination of the notice requirement under the amended Section 11 violated the constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to privacy and due process. They contended that the AMLC’s inquiry amounted to a fishing expedition that produced the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” rendering the Inquiry Report and related testimony inadmissible. They also insisted the amendment to Section 11 should not be applied retroactively and that the strict scrutiny standard should govern any deprivation of privacy.

Respondents’ Positions

The OSP and the AMLC countered that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion; the right to privacy is not absolute and may be circumscribed by statute; the constitutionality of R.A. No. 10167 had already been upheld in prior jurisprudence; the amendment is not an ex post facto law; the AMLC’s inquiry was investigatory rather than quasi‑judicial and thus the ex parte application did not violate procedural due process; and the Inquiry Report and testimony were admissible because the inquiry was properly authorized and not the result of an impermissible fishing expedition.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Thresholds Considered by the Court

The Court first observed procedural limitations under Rule 65: a petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus may be availed of only by a person aggrieved by the challenged act or decision, i.e., a party to the proceeding before the respondent body. Ma. Presentacion Ejercito was not a party in the Sandiganbayan proceedings against Senator Estrada and thus lacked the requisite aggrievement to seek annulment of the Sandiganbayan resolutions. The Court also noted that attacking the constitutionality of Section 11 by collateral attack in this special civil action is impermissible when the statute has not been directly annulled.

Substantive Ruling on the Constitutionality of Section 11, as Amended

Relying on prior jurisprudence (notably Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices v. Court of Appeals), the Court held that Section 11, as amended by R.A. No. 10167 to expressly allow ex parte applications by the AMLC for bank inquiry orders, is constitutional. The Court reasoned that: (a) the AMLC’s functions in conducting bank inquiries are investigatory in nature—not quasi‑judicial or punitive—and do not contemplate physical seizure of property or the exercise of coercive powers akin to search warrants; (b) the right to confidentiality of bank deposits is statutory in origin, so Congress may validly legislate exceptions; (c) the ex parte character of the application does not in itself violate procedural due process because it facilitates AMLC’s investigatory mission and the CA must still find probable cause before issuing any bank inquiry order; and (d) the AMLC’s inquiry, when properly authorized, does not automatically amount to an unconstitutional fishing expedition.

Ex Post Facto and Retroactivity Claim

The Court addressed the claim that R.A. No. 10167 is an ex post facto law if applied to transactions predating its effectivity. It reiterated the constitutional definition and categories of ex post facto laws and distinguished the present amendment from a proscription that would criminalize or aggravate past conduct. The amendment removed the notice requirement for bank inquiries but did not impose new criminality or penalties for acts already completed, and R.A. No. 10167 itself contains an express provision that penal provisions do not apply to acts done prior to the AMLA’s effectivity. The Court therefore concluded that the amendment is not ex post facto and that its allowance of ex parte applications does not impermissibly impair previously held legal protections.

Admissibility of the Inquiry Report and “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Claim

The

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms