G.R. No. 171054 , January 26, 2021
Edgardo T. Yambao, Petitioner, vs. Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council, Respondent.

FACTS

The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) forwarded a complaint to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) against Ret. Lt. Gen. Jacinto C. Ligot and his family for perjury and violations of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 and R.A. No. 3019 , recommending investigation for possible violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act. The OMB found that Gen. Ligot’s wealth was grossly disproportionate to his income, with unexplained wealth estimated at least P54,001,217.00. The OMB concluded that petitioner Edgardo T. Yambao, Erlinda Ligot’s brother, was a mere dummy/nominee of the Ligot spouses, as his declared assets and sources of income could not reasonably account for the properties registered in his name, and he shared addresses with the Ligots. Based on its own investigation, the AMLC filed an urgent ex-parte application with the Court of Appeals (CA) for a freeze order against the monetary instruments and properties of Gen. Ligot, his family, and petitioner. The CA issued a freeze order on July 5, 2005, initially valid for 20 days, covering petitioner’s bank accounts and motor vehicles. Petitioner filed a motion to lift the freeze order. The CA, on September 20, 2005, denied petitioner’s motion and granted the AMLC’s motion to extend the freeze order until after all appropriate proceedings/investigations are terminated. Petitioner filed several subsequent motions, including a motion for reconsideration and an urgent motion for summary hearing, invoking A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC (the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset Preservation, and Freezing of Monetary Instrument), which became effective on December 15, 2005. On January 4, 2006, the CA issued the challenged resolution, denying all of petitioner’s pending motions. The CA ruled that A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC was inapplicable because the issues of extending and lifting the freeze order were already resolved by its July 5, 2005 and September 20, 2005 resolutions, and thus were no longer pending at the time of the Rule’s effectivity. The CA also found probable cause to issue and extend the freeze order and denied petitioner’s plea to be separated from the other respondents.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) holding that the freeze order against petitioner was no longer pending and hence not covered by A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC; (2) depriving petitioner of due process; (3) determining that probable cause existed against petitioner and his monetary instruments; (4) issuing a freeze order based on baseless accusations and mere speculations; and (5) holding that petitioner cannot be separated from the other respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the freeze order against petitioner had already been extended indefinitely by the CA’s September 20, 2005 resolution, which had become final and executory as petitioner’s motion for reconsideration thereof was denied by the CA’s January 4, 2006 resolution. Consequently, the issue of the freeze order’s extension was no longer pending when A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC took effect on December 15, 2005. The new rule, specifically its provision limiting the extension of a freeze order to a maximum of six months, applies only to freeze orders issued after its effectivity or to pending applications for extension. Since the freeze order against petitioner was already extended indefinitely prior to the rule’s effectivity, the six-month limitation did not apply. The Court also found that petitioner was not denied due process, as the nature of a freeze order under R.A. No. 9160 is ex parte, and petitioner was afforded the opportunity to be heard through his various motions filed with the CA. On the existence of probable cause, the Court deferred to the factual findings of the CA, which were based on the evidence presented by the AMLC, including the OMB’s findings that petitioner was a dummy of the Ligots. The Court found no compelling reason to disturb the CA’s determination of probable cause. The Court also upheld the CA’s ruling that petitioner could not be separated from the other respondents, as the charges against them were based on the same facts and involved intertwining defenses.