GR 198083; (October, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 198083 , October 10, 2022
Bai Sandra Sinsuat A. Sema, Petitioner, vs. Republic of the Philippines represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), Respondent.
FACTS
The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) filed an Urgent Ex Parte Petition before the Court of Appeals seeking a freeze order on various bank accounts and properties allegedly linked to the Ampatuan family, following investigations into the Maguindanao massacre and related unlawful activities. The petition was supported by a Special Audit Report from the Commission on Audit, an Evaluation Report from the Office of the Ombudsman, and sworn statements from witnesses. The Court of Appeals, finding probable cause, issued a Freeze Order covering accounts under the names “Bai Sandra Ampatuan” and “Bai Sandra S. Ampatuan,” among others.
Petitioner Bai Sandra Sinsuat A. Sema moved to lift the freeze order, arguing that the accounts subject to the freeze were held under her married name, “Bai Sandra Sinsuat A. Sema,” and that she was not the “Bai Sandra Ampatuan” or “Bai Sandra S. Ampatuan” named in the petition. She asserted she was not related to the Ampatuan family by blood or affinity and that her assets were lawfully acquired. The Court of Appeals denied her motion, prompting this Petition for Review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing and subsequently refusing to lift the freeze order against petitioner Bai Sandra Sinsuat A. Sema’s accounts for lack of probable cause linking her to the alleged unlawful activities.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that a freeze order under the Anti-Money Laundering Act requires a finding of probable cause based on facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that an unlawful activity or money laundering offense has been committed and that the accounts or properties subject of the order are related to said activity. The burden is on the AMLC to establish this nexus.
The Court found that the AMLC failed to discharge this burden concerning petitioner Sema. The evidence presented—the audit reports, lifestyle checks, and affidavits—pertained to members of the Ampatuan family and made no specific mention of Bai Sandra Sinsuat A. Sema. The mere similarity of the first names “Bai Sandra” was insufficient to establish probable cause, especially since her accounts were under a demonstrably different surname (Sema, not Ampatuan) and she presented evidence of legitimate sources of income. The freeze order was issued based on a misidentification, and the Court of Appeals’ refusal to rectify this error despite clear proof of mistaken identity constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered the lifting of the freeze order on all accounts and properties registered in the name of Bai Sandra Sinsuat A. Sema.