THIRD DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 232724-27, February 15, 2021
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, Petitioner, v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
The Anti-Money Laundering Council is not merely a repository of reports and information on covered and suspicious transactions. It was created precisely to investigate and institute charges against those suspected to commit money laundering activities.
The criminal prosecution of such offenses would be unduly hampered if it were to be prohibited from disclosing such information. For the Anti-Money Laundering Council to refuse disclosing the information required of it would be to go against its own functions under the law.
This Court resolves a Petition for Certiorari1 assailing the Resolution2 and Order3 of the Sandiganbayan, which denied the Anti-Money Laundering Council's Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum and its subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.4
This Petition is an offshoot of a criminal case, People v. P/Dir. General Jesus Versoza. In Versoza, the Office of the Special Prosecutor charged former First Gentleman Jose Miguel T. Arroyo (Arroyo) with, among others, plunder for his involvement in the Philippine National Police's anomalous purchase of two secondhand helicopters.5
The seller, Lionair, Inc. (Lionair), sold the helicopters as brand new, as required by law, even if they were already used.6 Lionair's president Archibald L. Po (Po), however, testified that Arroyo was the helicopters' real owner. He alleged that Lionair imported the helicopters from the United States and sold it to Arroyo, who, in turn, deposited partial payment to Lionair's account with the Union Bank.7
Lionair's savings account passbook reflected the following deposits:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
To verify the source of the deposits, the Office of the Special Prosecutor presented Katrina Cruz-Dizon (Cruz-Dizon), the manager of the Union Bank branch where the account was maintained. Cruz-Dizon testified that the account was closed on March 6, 2006, and as five years had lapsed since, the bank has already disposed the account records. She suggested that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas or the Anti-Money Laundering Council (Council) may have reports on the transactions, as banks are required to report covered transactions.9
Teller Date Transaction Amount (USD) S733 02/27/04 Credit Memo 408,067.06 S733 02/27/04 Credit Memo 509,065.41 T731 03/01/04 Cash 148,217.538
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the AMLC's Motion to Quash (Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum dated 10 October 2016) is DENIED for lack of merit.The Sandiganbayan ruled that the Council's misgivings on the disclosure of the bank records were outweighed by the importance of these documents.14
SO ORDERED.13chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 4. Hearing of motion. - Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.Under Rule 15, Section 4, every written motion must be set for hearing by the applicant, except when the court deems it prejudicial to the other party. The motion shall then be served together with its notice of hearing in a manner that would ensure receipt by the other party at least three days before the date of hearing, unless the court, for good cause, sets the hearing on shorter notice.
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.
SECTION 5. Notice of hearing. - The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
SECTION 6. Proof of service necessary. - No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.
The intention behind the notice requirements is to avoid surprises and to provide the adverse party a chance to study the motion and to argue meaningfully against it before the court's resolution.Hence, the notice of hearing on the motion must be furnished to the adverse party, and the latter must be informed of the time and date of the hearing. Failure to comply means the motion is defective, reducing it to a mere scrap of paper.53
This Court has allowed exceptions to this rule when to do so would not cause prejudice to the other party nor violate his or her due process rights.52 (Citations omitted)
In New Japan Motors, Inc. v. Perucho defendant filed a motion for reconsideration which did not contain any notice of hearing. In a petition for certiorari, we affirmed the lower court in ruling that a motion for reconsideration that did not contain a notice of hearing was a useless scrap of paper. We held further -In this case, petitioner does not deny that it failed to furnish the accused or their counsels their copies of the Motion for Reconsideration. However, it contends that it is not required to follow this rule because it is merely a nominal party.Under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, ... a motion is required to accompanied by a notice of hearing which must be served by the applicant on all parties concerned at least three (3) days before the hearing thereof. Section 6 of the same rule commands that '(n)o motion shall acted upon by the Court, without proof of service of the notice thereof....' It is therefore patent that the motion for reconsideration in question is fatally defective for it did not contain any notice of hearing, We have already consistently held in a number of cases that the requirements of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court are mandatory and that failure to comply with the same is fatal to movant's cause.In Sembrano v. Ramirez we declared that -(A) motion without notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper. It does not toll the running of the period of appeal. This requirement of notice of hearing equally applies to a motion for consideration. Without such notice, the motion is pro forma. And a pro forma motion for reconsideration does not suspend the running of the period to appeal.In In re Almacen defendant lost his case in the lower court. His counsel then filed a motion for reconsideration but did not notify the adverse counsel of the time and place of hearing of said motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the motion for reason that "the motion for reconsideration date July 5, 1966 does not contain a notice of time and place of hearing thereof and is, therefore a useless piece of paper which did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal, and, consequently, the appeal was perfected out of time." When the case was brought to us, we reminded counsel for the defendant that -As a law practitioner who was admitted to the bar as far back as 1941, Atty. Almacen knew - or ought to have known that a motion for reconsideration to stay the running of the period of (sic) appeal, the movant must not only serve a copy of the motion upon the adverse party ... but also notify the adverse party of the time and place of hearing...Also, in Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Bath Construction and Company we ruled -The written notice referred to evidently is that prescribed for motions in general by Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5 (formerly Rule 26), which provide that such notice shall state the time and place of hearing and shall be served upon all the parties concerned at least three days in advance. And according to Section 6 of the same Rule no motion shall be acted upon by the court without proof of such notice. Indeed it has been held that in such a case the motion if nothing but a useless piece of paper. The reason is obvious; unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing the court would have no way to determine whether that party agrees to or objects to the motion, and if he objects, to hear him on his objection, since the Rules themselves do not fix any period within which he may file his reply or opposition.In fine, the abovecited cases confirm that the requirements laid down in Sec. 5 Rule 15 of the Rules of Court that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion, are mandatory. If not religiously complied with, they render the motion pro forma. As such the motion is a useless piece of paper that will not toll the running of the prescriptive period.55 (Citations omitted)
1. there is no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification;Section 9(c) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act further details how the covered and suspicious transactions will be reported. Under this provision, covered institutions and their officers and employees are prohibited from communicating that a covered or suspicious transaction report was made, its contents, or any information related to the reports. Section 9(c) states:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
2. the client is not properly identified;
3. the amount involved is not commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the client;
4. taking into account all known circumstances, it may be perceived that the client's transaction is structured in order to avoid being the subject of reporting requirements under the Act;
5. any circumstance relating to the transaction which is observed to deviate from the profile of the client and/or the client's past transactions with the covered institution;
6. the transaction is in any way related to an unlawful activity or offense under this Act that is about to be, is being or has been committed; or
7. any transaction that is similar or analogous to any of the foregoing.63chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 9. Prevention of Money Laundering; Customer Identification Requirements and Record Keeping. -Section 3 enumerates the covered institutions required to report to the Anti-Money Laundering Council:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
....
(c) Reporting of Covered and Suspicious Transactions. Covered institutions shall report to the AMLC all covered transactions and suspicious transactions within five (5) working days from occurrence thereof, unless the Supervising Authority prescribes a longer period not exceeding ten (10) working days.
Should a transaction be determined to be both a covered transaction and a suspicious transaction, the covered institution shall be required to report the same as a suspicious transaction.
When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the AMLC, covered institutions and their officers and employees shall not be deemed to have violated Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, Republic Act No. 6426, as amended, Republic Act No. 8791 and other similar laws, but are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to any person, the fact that a covered or suspicious transaction report was made, the contents thereof, or any other information in relation thereto. In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer and employee of the covered institution shall be criminally liable. However, no administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, shall lie against any person for having made a covered or suspicious transaction report in the regular performance of his duties in good faith, whether or not such reporting results in any criminal prosecution under this Act or any other law.
When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the AMLC, covered institutions and their officers and employees are prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to any person or entity, the media, the fact that a covered or suspicious transaction report was made, the contents thereof or any other information in relation thereto. Neither may such reporting be published or aired in any manner or form by the mass media, electronic mail, or other similar devices. In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer and employee of the covered institution and media shall be held criminally liable.64 (Emphasis supplied)
SECTION 3. Definitions. - For purposes of this Act, the following terms are hereby defined as follows:The prohibition applies to institutions and persons that, under the law and by reason of their business, possess information on covered and suspicious transactions. It supports the functions of the Anti-Money Laundering Council and other prosecuting agencies. If these institutions were allowed to disclose information to anyone, especially to persons subject of the report, their investigatory functions will be rendered ineffective.
(a) "Covered institution" refers to:
(1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, and all other institutions and their subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
(2) insurance companies and all other institutions supervised or regulated by the Insurance Commission; and
(3) (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses and other similar entities managing securities or rendering services as investment agent, advisor, or consultant, (ii) mutual funds, closed-end investment companies, common trust funds, pre-need companies and other similar entities, (iii) foreign exchange corporations, money changers, money payment, remittance, and transfer companies and other similar entities, and (iv) other entities administering or otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives based thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes and other similar monetary instruments or property supervised or regulated by Securities and Exchange Commission.
(3) to institute civil forfeiture proceedings and all other remedial proceedings through the Office of the Solicitor General;To perform these functions, the Anti-Money Laundering Council is authorized to "issue orders addressed to the appropriate [supervising authority] or the covered person to determine the true identity of the owner of any monetary instrument or property: (a) subject of [covered transaction report] or [suspicious transaction report]; (b) subject of request for assistance from a foreign State or jurisdiction; or (c) believed by the Council, on the basis of substantial evidence, to be, in whole or in part, wherever located, representing, involving, or related to, directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, the proceeds of any unlawful activity."67
(4) to cause the filing of complaints with the Department of Justice or the Ombudsman for the prosecution of money laundering offenses;
(5) to initiate investigations of covered transactions, money laundering activities and other violations of this Act;
(6) to freeze any monetary instrument or property alleged to be proceeds of any unlawful activity[.]66chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. - All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private; Provided, however, that said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever.72chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryAs a rule, foreign currency deposits are absolutely confidential, and thus, are not susceptible to examination and inquiry by any person. The law further mandates that foreign currency deposits are exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court or government agency.
[T]he law provides that all foreign currency deposits authorized under Republic Act No. 6426, as amended by Sec. 8, Presidential Decree No. 1246, Presidential Decree No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under Presidential Decree No. 1034 are considered absolutely confidential in nature and may not be inquired into. There is only one exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed upon the written permission of the depositor.Here, there is no question that the owner of the bank account submitted its written permission to allow the inquiry and examination of its accounts. Lionair, the owner of the dollar account subject of the Subpoena, waived its rights under the Foreign Currency Deposit Act and granted the prosecution access to its account. It issued a Board Resolution reflecting this waiver:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
....
... As a corollary issue, sought to be resolved is whether Jose Gotianuy may be considered a depositor who is entitled to seek an inquiry over the said deposits. The Court of Appeals, in allowing the inquiry, considered Jose Gotianuy, a co-depositor of Mary Margaret Dee. It reasoned that since Jose Gotianuy is the named co-payee of the latter in the subject checks, which checks were deposited in China Bank, then, Jose Gotianuy is likewise a depositor thereof. On that basis, no written consent from Mary Margaret Dee is necessitated.
We agree in the conclusion arrived at by the Court of Appeals.
The following facts are established: (1) Jose Gotianuy and Mary Margaret Dee are co-payees of various Citibank checks; (2) Mary Margaret Dee withdrew these checks from Citibank; (3) Mary Margaret Dee admitted in her Answer to the Request for Admissions by the Adverse Party sent to her by Jose Gotianuy that she withdrew the funds from Citibank upon the instruction of her father Jose Gotianuy and that the funds belonged exclusively to the latter; (4) these checks were endorsed by Mary Margaret Dee at the dorsal portion; and (5) Jose Gotianuy discovered that these checks were deposited with China Bank as shown by the stamp of China Bank at the dorsal side of the checks.
Thus, with this, there is no issue as to the source of the funds. Mary Margaret Dee declared the source to be Jose Gotianuy. There is likewise no dispute that these funds in the form of Citibank US dollar Checks are now deposited with China Bank.
As the owner of the funds unlawfully taken and which are undisputably now deposited with China Bank, Jose Gotianuy has the right to inquire into the said deposits.
A depositor, in cases of bank deposits, is one who pays money into the bank in the usual course of business, to be placed to his credit and subject to his check or the beneficiary of the funds held by the bank as trustee.77 (Citations omitted)
RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, to approve the waiver by the Company of its rights under the Bank Secrecy Law and grant the Special Prosecutors, access to LIONAIR INCORPORATED's bank account No. 13133-000199-3 with Union Bank Philippines, Richville Tower Branch, Madrigal Business Park, Alabang, Muntinlupa City;Thus, petitioner's arguments invoking confidentiality should not be an issue, because the owner and depositor of the bank account itself has already waived its rights. Lionair, as the owner of the account and its funds, has the right to inquire into the deposits and its records. Its written permission is sufficient basis for petitioner to disclose the records.
RESOLVED FURTHER, as it is hereby resolved, to authorize and direct the Union Bank of the Philippines and its duly authorized representatives to allow access to the Special Prosecutors to examine, look into and obtain copies of the records of the Company's bank account No. 13133-000119-3[.]78chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, Republic Act No. 6426, as amended, Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act, when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof or a money laundering offense under Section 4 hereof; except that no court order shall be required in cases involving unlawful activities defined in Sections 3(i)(1), (2) and (12).Petitioner's reliance on Section 11 is misplaced. It is not this provision of the Anti-Money Laundering Act that applies here, but Republic Act No. 6426.
To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) may inquire into or examine any deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution when the examination is made in the course of a periodic or special examination, in accordance with the rules of examination of the BSP.79chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 3. Form and Contents. - A subpoena shall state the name of the court and the title of the action or investigation, shall be directed to the person whose attendance is required, and in the case of a subpoena duces tecum, it shall also contain a reasonable description of the books, documents or things demanded which must appear to the court prima facie relevant.A subpoena duces tecum may be issued if the tests of relevancy and definiteness are satisfied. The court must ensure that "(1) the books, documents or other things requested must appear prima facie relevant to the issue subject of the controversy (test of relevancy); and (2) such books must be reasonably described by the parties to be readily identified (test of definiteness)."81
SECTION 4. Quashing a Subpoena. The court may quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly made and, in any event, at or before the time specified therein if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or the relevancy of the books, documents or things does not appear, or if the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of the production thereof.
The court may quash a subpoena ad testificandum on the ground that the witness is not bound thereby. In either case, the subpoena may be quashed on the ground that the witness fees and kilometrage allowed by these Rules were not tendered when the subpoena was served.80chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. The documents, records and other evidence considered by the PCGG and on the basis of which the PCGG issued the Sequestration Order dated June 19, 1986 (Annex "A," hereof) and the Writ of Sequestration dated June 19, 1986 (Annex "B," hereof); andThe Presidential Commission on Good Government moved to quash the subpoena, but when this was denied, it petitioned the case to this Court, arguing that the subpoena was unreasonable and oppressive.84
2. The minutes of the meeting(s) of the PCGG at which the Sequestration Order dated June 19, 1986 (Annex "A" hereof) and Writ of Sequestration dated June 19, 1986 (Annex "B" hereof) was authorized to be issued and which chronicles the discussion (if any) and the decision (of the PCGG Chairman and Commissioners) to issue the Sequestration Order dated June 19, 1986 (Annex "A," hereof) and the Writ of Sequestration dated June 19, 1986 (Annex "hereof).83chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"Documents to be produced:The documents requested are readily and reasonably identifiable: (1) the reports; (2) identification documents; (3) statement of accounts; and (4) other transaction documents particularly pertaining to the specific account number and three specific bank transactions.
The original or certified copies of any and all reports, identification documents, statement of accounts and other transaction documents obtained by the said office from any and all banking institutions, non-bank financial institutions and other covered institutions, in connection with the above-specified transactions reflected in the savings passbook of Lionair under Union Bank Savings Account No. 13133-000119-3. Copy of said passbook is hereby attached for easy reference."87chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-21.
2 Id. at 46-51. The March 28, 2017 Resolution was approved by Associate Justices Alexander G. Gesmundo (now a member of this Court), Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta, and Zaldy V. Trepeses of the Seventh Division, Sandiganbayan, Quezon City.
3 Id. at 65. The May 12, 2017 Order was signed by Associate Justices Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta, Zaldy V. Trespeses, and Alex L. Quiroz of the Seventh Division, Sandiganbayan, Quezon City.
4 Id. at 3-4.
5 Id. at 5.
6 Id.
7 Id: at 6.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 5-6.
11 Id. at 6-7.
12 Id. at 46-51.
13 Id. at 51.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 7-8.
16 Id. at 8.
17 Id. at 9.
18 Id. at 10.
19 Id. at 10-11.
20 Id. at 11-12.
21 Id. at 12.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 13-14.
25 Id. at 14. Petitioner cites the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9160 (2016), Rule 22(B), which provides:
(B) Information Security and Confidentiality - The AMLC and its Secretariat shall protect information received or processed and shall not reveal, in any manner, any information known to them by reason of their office. This prohibition shall apply even after the separation from the AMLC.
26 Id. at 15.
27 Id. at 16.
28 Id.
29 Id. at 90-109.
30 Id. at 94.
31 Id. at 95-97.
32 Id. at 98.
33 Id. at 99, citing Republic Act No. 6426 (1972), sec. 8, which provides:
SECTION 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. - All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private; Provided, however, that said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever.
34 Id. at 100.
35 Id. at 101-102.
36 Id. at 91 and 102.
37 Id. at 102.
38 RULES OF COURT, Rule 15, secs. 4-6 provide:
SECTION 4. Hearing of motion. - Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant. Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.
SECTION 5. Notice of hearing. - The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
SECTION 6. Proof of service necessary. - No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.
39Rollo, p. 103.
40 Id. at 105.
41 Id. at 105-107.
42 Id. at 107.
43 Id. at 123.
44 Id.
45 Id. at 122-129.
46 Id.
47 Id. at 124-125.
48 Id. at 125 citing Republic Act No. 9160 (2001), sec. 11, which provides:
SECTION. 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. - Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, Republic Act No. 6426, as amended, Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act, when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof or a money laundering offense under Section 4 hereof; except that no court order shall be required in cases involving unlawful activities defined in Sections 3(i)(1), (2) and (12).
To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) may inquire into or examine any deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution when the examination is made in the course of a periodic or special examination, in accordance with the rules of examination of the BSP.
49 Id.
50 Id. at 126.
51 808 Phil. 70 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
52 Id. at 82 83.
53 Id. at 82.
54 327 Phil. 936 (1996) [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division].
55 Id. at 940-943.
56Samaniego v. Aguila, 389 Phil. 782, 784 (2000) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
57 RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, sec. 7 provides:
SECTION 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. - Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
58Samaniego v. Aguila, 389 Phil. 782-787, 783-784 (2000) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
59 Republic Act No. 9160 (2001), sec. 2 provides:
SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect and preserve the integrity and confidentiality of bank accounts and to ensure that the Philippines shall not be used as a money laundering site for the proceeds of any unlawful activity. Consistent with its foreign policy, the State shall extend cooperation in transnational investigations and prosecutions of persons involved in money laundering activities wherever committed.
60 Republic Act No. 9160 (2001), sec. 7(1).
61 Republic Act No. 9160, (2001) sec. 3(b) provides:
SECTION 3. Definitions. - For purposes of this Act, the following terms are hereby defined as follows: (b) "Covered transaction" is a single, series, or combination of transactions involving a total amount in excess of Four million Philippine pesos (Php4,000,000.00) or an equivalent amount in foreign currency based on the prevailing exchange rate within five (5) consecutive banking days except those between a covered institution and a person who, at the time of the transaction was a properly identified client and the amount is commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the client; or those with an underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose, origin or economic justification.
It likewise refers to a single, series or combination or pattern of unusually large and complex transactions in excess of Four million Philippine pesos (Php4,000,000.00) especially cash deposits and investments having no credible purpose or origin, underlying trade obligation or contract.
62 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9160 (2001), Rule 2, sec. 1 provides:
SECTION 1. Definitions. -
For purposes of this IRR, the following terms are hereby defined as follows:
....
(w) "Covered Transaction" refers to:
(I) A transaction in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument exceeding Five Hundred Thousand pesos (PHP500,000.00).
(2) A transaction with or involving jewelry dealers, dealers in precious metals and dealers in precious stones in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument exceeding One Million pesos (Php1,000,000.00).
(3) A casino cash transaction exceeding Five Million Pesos (PHP5,000,000.00) or its equivalent in other currency.
63 Republic Act No. 9I60 (2001), sec. 3, as amended by Republic Act No. 9194 (2003), sec. 2.
64 Republic Act No. 9160 (2001), as amended by Republic Act No. 9194 (2003), sec. 9(c).
65 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9160 (2018), Rule 6, secs. 1(B), 1.6.1-1.6.3.
66 Republic Act No. 9160 (2001), sec. 7.
67 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9160 (2018), Rule 6, secs. 1(C), 1.8.1.
68 G.R. Nos. 218232, et al., July 24, 2018, [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
69 Id.
70 Id.
71 Id.
72 Republic Act No. 6426 (I972), sec. 8.
73Intengan v. Court of Appeals, 427 Phil. 293 (2002) [Per J. De Leon, Jr., Second Division].
74 540 Phil. 130 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].
75 Id. at 134.
76 Id. at 140.
77 Id. at 137-140.
78Rollo, p. 99.
79 Republic Act No. 9160 (2001), as amended by Republic Act No. 9194 (2003), sec. 11.
80 RULES OF COURT, Rule 21, secs. 3-4.
81Roco v. Contreras, 500 Phil. 275, 284 (2005) [Per J. Garcia, Third Division].
82 562 Phil. 557 (2007) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, First Division].
83 Id. at 559.
84 Id. at 560.
85 Id. at 562.
86 Id. at 563.
87Rollo, p. 102.cralawredlibrary