Case Summary (G.R. No. 91879)
Proceedings in the Court of Appeals
Acting on the AMLC’s ex-parte application, the CA issued a 20-day freeze order on July 5, 2005, covering numerous bank accounts and vehicles in Yambao’s name. Petitioner moved to lift the order; the OSG sought extension; and the Ligots opposed. On September 20, 2005, the CA denied the lift motion and granted an indefinite extension “until after all appropriate proceedings and/or investigations are terminated.” Petitioner’s subsequent motions—for separate handling, reconsideration, and summary hearing under the new civil-forfeiture rules—were denied by resolution dated January 4, 2006, the CA holding that the new rules did not apply because the extension motion had been decided before December 15, 2005, and that Yambao’s defenses were intertwined with the Ligots’.
Petitioner’s Contentions
Yambao argued that:
• His motion for reconsideration was pending when A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC took effect, so the six-month cap and summary hearing provisions apply.
• He was denied due process, having no opportunity to contest probable cause before the freeze order.
• There was no evidence linking his assets to unlawful activities.
• His defenses and evidence differ from the Ligots’, entitling him to separate proceedings.
OSG’s Counterarguments
The OSG maintained that:
• The CA correctly found probable cause based on OMB and AMLC findings of disproportionate wealth, nominee relationships, and lack of lawful income.
• Petitioner had opportunities to present evidence; his due process rights were respected.
• His impleading arose from his role as nominee, giving rise to shared facts and defenses with the Ligots’, justifying common handling.
Applicability of the New Civil-Forfeiture Rule
Echoing the Ligots’ separate petition (G.R. No. 176944), the Court held that A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC applies because Yambao’s motion for reconsideration of the CA’s extension order remained unresolved when the rule took effect on December 15, 2005.
Existence of Probable Cause
Under Section 10 of R.A. 9160, as amended, a freeze order issues upon ex parte AMLC application and a CA determination of probable cause that the assets are “in any way related” to unlawful activity. The embedded OMB findings—nominee arrangements, insufficient income, shared addresses—provided ample basis for the CA’s probable-cause determination.
Duration of Freeze Order and Due Process
A freeze order is an extraordinary interim r
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 91879)
Parties and Representation
- Petitioner: Edgardo T. Yambao, alleged dummy/nominee of Ret. Lt. Gen. Jacinto C. Ligot
- Respondent: Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
- Court of Appeals (CA) decision under review: Resolution dated January 4, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 90238
- Supreme Court first division ponente: Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (with Justices Peralta, Caguioa, Carandang, and Zalameda concurring)
Procedural Posture
- Origin: Ex parte AMLC application for a freeze order against monetary instruments and properties of Gen. Ligot, his family, and petitioner
- CA’s initial action: July 5, 2005 Freeze Order for 20 days, later extended on September 20, 2005
- Petitioner’s motions before the CA:
- Motion to Lift Freeze Order (July 22, 2005)
- Opposition to AMLC’s motion for extension
- Motion for reconsideration of September 20 Resolution
- Urgent motions under A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC for summary hearing and expiration of freeze order
- CA’s challenged Resolution: Denial of all pending motions on January 4, 2006
- Nature of SC petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
Factual Background
- OMB complaint (Feb. 1, 2005): Perjury and violation of R.A. No. 6713 and R.A. No. 3019 against Gen. Ligot and family
- OMB recommendation: Further investigation for anti-money laundering violations (R.A. No. 9160) based on grossly disproportionate wealth
- Wealth accumulation: Gen. Ligot’s assets grew from ₱105,000 in 1982 to ₱3,848,000 in 2004
- Undeclared and nominee properties: Investments, real properties, children’s assets, tuition and travel funding unaccounted for in SALNs
- Petitioner’s profile:
- Employment 1977–1994 with insignificant income
- Owner of Mabelline Foods, Inc. (SEC-registered 1994) with no substantial revenue
- No BIR income tax returns filed since 1999
- Shared residential addresses with Ligots
- Real properties and vehicles registered in his name but alleged owned by Gen. Ligot
Ombudsman’s Findings
- Unexplained wealth estimated at ₱54,001,217, including:
- Gen. Ligot’s undeclared assets (₱41,185,583.53)
- Children’s assets (₱1,744,035.60)
- Tuition and travel expenses (₱2,308,047.87)
- Petitioner’s real properties (₱8,763,550.00)
- Conclusion: Wealth presumed to derive from illegal transactions related to Gen. Ligot’s public office
- Petitioner characterized as dummy/nominee facilitating concealment of assets
AMLC’s Investigation and Application
- AMLC inquiry confirmed: Bank accounts, investments, and properties linked to Gen. Ligot and family
- AMLC Resolution No. 52, Series 2005: Found reasonable grounds under Section 3(i) of R.A. No. 9160 (in relation to Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019)
- Ex parte application filed with the CA for a freeze order over monetary instruments and properties of respondents, including petitioner
Proceedings in the Court of Appeals
- July 5, 2005 Resolution: Issued freeze order valid for 20 days covering petitioner’s six bank accounts (including US$ accounts) and four moto