Title
Girlie J. Lingad vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 224945
Decision Date
Oct 11, 2022
A bank employee, Girlie Lingad, was convicted of money laundering for unauthorized withdrawals and fund transfers totaling Php83M, fleeing to the US after the anomalies were discovered.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224945)

Procedural History

An Information was filed on October 5, 2006 charging Lingad under Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act, AMLA). She was extradited from the U.S., arraigned on a not-guilty plea, and tried before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which convicted her in an August 8, 2013 decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed in a December 11, 2015 decision and denied her motion for reconsideration in a June 2, 2016 resolution. Lingad then sought review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Anomalous Transactions and Evidence

The AMLC uncovered four sets of unauthorized preterminations and withdrawals totaling over ₱83 million:

  1. July 3, 2002 and April 23, 2003 – P10.4 million debited from William Chieng’s placement and Vittsi Tanjuakio’s savings, used to fund a manager’s check.
  2. November 4–15, 2002 and April 9, 2003 – P12.4 million preterminated without client authorization, transferred to Chieng’s new savings account and manager’s check.
  3. August 4–25, 2003 – P11.25 million from Chieng’s 30-day placement, paid out by manager’s check funded by other unauthorized preterminations.
  4. December 4, 2003 to January 8, 2004 – P4.86 million from two of Chieng’s deposits, withdrawn without signed slips, paid by manager’s check.
    Each set bore Lingad’s signatures, initials, User and Teller IDs. Her unexplained absence without leave, use of sticky film on terminals, deletion of data, and immediate flight abroad reinforced the prosecution’s case.

Trial Court Findings

The RTC found that Lingad, abusing her access and position of trust, executed all anomalous transactions to misappropriate client funds. It rejected her denials and uncorroborated claims of supervisor oversight or framing, concluding that her flight to the U.S. evidenced evasion of investigation. The court convicted her of money laundering under Section 4(a) AMLA and imposed an indeterminate sentence of seven to thirteen years’ imprisonment, a fine of ₱34,099,195.85, accessory penalties, and costs.

Elements of Money Laundering Under RA 9160 Section 4(a)

Under AMLA as amended by RA 9194, money laundering occurs when a person, knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to proceeds of an unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transact that instrument or property. The elements are:

  1. An unlawful activity enumerated in Section 3 of the law (qualified theft in this case).
  2. Transacting or attempting to transact its proceeds.
  3. Knowledge that the funds derive from the unlawful activity.
    RTC and CA both found these elements satisfied by Lingad’s acts and records.

Independence of Money Laundering Prosecution

By virtue of RA 10365 (2013 amendment to AMLA) and the law’s implementing rules, prosecution of money laundering proceeds independently of any action against the related unlawful activity. Although the unlawful activity must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the identity of its perpetrators and full details need not have been adjudicated in a separate trial before pursuing the money laundering charge.

Constitutional and Evidentiary Standards

The 1987 Constitution guarantees due process and the presumption of innoce

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms