ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 154522. April 2, 2003]

REPUBLIC vs. CABRINI

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 02 2003.

G.R. No. 154522(Republic of the Philippines, Represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) vs. Cabrini, Green & Ros, Inc., Michael Jay Findlay and Jane Gelberg.)

G.R. No. 154694(Republic of the Philippines, Represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) vs. R.A.B. Realty, Inc., Multinational Telecom Investors Corporation, Rosario A. Baladjay and Saturnino Baladjay.)

G.R. No. 155554(Republic of the Philippines, Represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) vs. Mario N. Misa, Michael Z. Lafuente, Jesus Silverio, Reynaldo Nicholas and Rex D. Jao .)

G.R. No. 155711(Republic of the Philippines, Represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) vs.Alberto delos Reyes, Lorenzo Castro, Hermie de Vera, Eduardo Lazo and Danilo Liwag.)

Before us are four petitions initiated by the Anti-Money Laundering Council submitting for the Court's consideration, the sole issue of jurisdiction to extend the effectivity of a freeze order issued by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), pursuant to section 10 of RA 9160, otherwise known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001.

All four cases, being interrelated, were thus consolidated.

The pertinent portions of section 10, RA 9160 read as follows:

Section 10. Authority to Freeze - Upon determination that probable cause exists that any deposit or similar account is in any way related to an unlawful activity, the AMLC may issue a freeze order, which shall be effective immediately, on the account for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) days.

xxx����� xxx�������� xxx

The fifteen (15)-day freeze order of the AMLC may be extended upon order of the court, provided that the fifteen (15)-day period shall be tolled pending the court's decision to extend the period.

The Court takes judicial notice that section 10 of RA 9160 has been amended by section 7 of RA 9194, which reads:

Section 7. Section 10 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 10. Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property -- The Court of Appeals, upon application ex parte by the AMLC and after determination that probable cause exists that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity as defined in Sec. 3(i) hereof, may issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately. The freeze order shall be for a period of twenty (20) days unless extended by the court. (Underscoring supplied)

Furthermore, section 12 of RA 9194 provides that:

"Section 12. Transitory Provision - Existing freeze orders issued by the AMLC shall remain in force for a period of thirty (30) days after the effectivity of this Act, unless extended by the Court of Appeals." (Underscoring supplied)

In the light of the above-stated amendments, it is explicit that it is now the Court of Appeals which has the authority to issue freeze orders, as well as extend existing freeze orders previously issued by the AMLC, vis-a-vis accounts and deposits related to money-laundering activities.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the parties are required to comment, within 10 days from notice, on why these cases should not be dismissed in view of the amendments introduced to RA 9160 by RA 9194.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE