Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Facts: Republic Vs Eugenio GR No. 174629 February 14, 2008

    Uploaded by

    Apple Gee Libo-on
    This case involves a dispute over bank inquiry orders issued by regional trial courts to examine certain bank accounts for evidence of corruption in relation to the NAIA 3 Project. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Applying the bank inquiry order provision under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) to examine transactions that occurred prior to the law's enactment would be unconstitutional ex post facto law. 2) However, the AMLA's provisions can apply to inquire into deposits or transactions made after the law's enactment, even if the bank accounts were opened prior to the law. 3) There is no evidence that Congress intended a blanket exemption for all bank accounts opened before the AML

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Facts: Republic Vs Eugenio GR No. 174629 February 14, 2008

    Uploaded by

    Apple Gee Libo-on
    28 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over bank inquiry orders issued by regional trial courts to examine certain bank accounts for evidence of corruption in relation to the NAIA 3 Project. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Applying the bank inquiry order provision under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) to examine transactions that occurred prior to the law's enactment would be unconstitutional ex post facto law. 2) However, the AMLA's provisions can apply to inquire into deposits or transactions made after the law's enactment, even if the bank accounts were opened prior to the law. 3) There is no evidence that Congress intended a blanket exemption for all bank accounts opened before the AML

    Original Description:

    criminal law 1 digest

    Original Title

    Republic-vs-Eugenio

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over bank inquiry orders issued by regional trial courts to examine certain bank accounts for evidence of corruption in relation to the NAIA 3 Project. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Applying the bank inquiry order provision under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) to examine transactions that occurred prior to the law's enactment would be unconstitutional ex post facto law. 2) However, the AMLA's provisions can apply to inquire into deposits or transactions made after the law's enactment, even if the bank accounts were opened prior to the law. 3) There is no evidence that Congress intended a blanket exemption for all bank accounts opened before the AML

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views2 pages

    Facts: Republic Vs Eugenio GR No. 174629 February 14, 2008

    Uploaded by

    Apple Gee Libo-on
    This case involves a dispute over bank inquiry orders issued by regional trial courts to examine certain bank accounts for evidence of corruption in relation to the NAIA 3 Project. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Applying the bank inquiry order provision under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) to examine transactions that occurred prior to the law's enactment would be unconstitutional ex post facto law. 2) However, the AMLA's provisions can apply to inquire into deposits or transactions made after the law's enactment, even if the bank accounts were opened prior to the law. 3) There is no evidence that Congress intended a blanket exemption for all bank accounts opened before the AML

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Republic vs Eugenio

    GR No. 174629
    February 14, 2008

    Facts
    After the ruling of Agan vs PIATCO nullifying the concession agreement awarded to the later over the NAIA 3 Project, a
    series of investigations concerning the award of the NAIA 3 contracts to PIATCO were undertaken by the Ombudsman
    and the Compliance and Investigation Staff (CIS) of petitioner AMLC. The OSG wrote the AMLC requesting the latter’s
    assistance in obtaining more evidence to completely reveal the financial trail of corruption surrounding the Project and
    also noting that petitioner Republic of the Philippines was presently defending itself in two international arbitration cases
    filed in relation to the NAIA 3 Project. The CIS conducted an intelligence database search on the financial transactions of
    certain individuals involved in the award, including respondent Pantaleon Alvarez (Alvarez) who had been the Chairman
    of the PBAC Technical Committee, NAIA-IPT3 Project. The search revealed that Alvarez maintained eight (8) bank
    accounts with six (6) different banks. The AMLC resolved to authorize the Executive Director of the AMLC to sign and
    verify an application to inquire into and/or examine the deposits or investments of Pantaleon Alvarez, Wilfredo Trinidad,
    Alfredo Liongson, and Cheng Yong, and their related web of accounts wherever these may be found, as defined under
    Rule 10.4 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations; and to authorize the AMLC Secretariat to conduct an
    inquiry into subject accounts once the Regional Trial Court grants the application to inquire into and/or examine the bank
    accounts of those four individuals. The rationale for the said resolution was founded on the cited findings of the CIS that
    amounts were transferred from a Hong Kong bank account owned by Jetstream Pacific Ltd. Account to bank accounts in
    the Philippines maintained by Liongson and Cheng Yong. The Makati RTC rendered an Order inquire and examine the
    subject bank accounts, the trial court being satisfied that there existed probable cause to believe that the deposits in
    various bank accounts, details of which appear in paragraph 1 of the Application, are related to the offense of violation of
    Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act now the subject of criminal prosecution before the Sandiganbayan as attested to by
    the Information.

    Meanwhile, respondent Lilia Cheng, filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
    with Application for TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary, directed against the Republic of the Philippines through the AMLC,
    Manila RTC Judge Eugenio, Jr. and Makati RTC Judge Marella, Jr.. She identified herself as the wife of Cheng Yong with
    whom she jointly owns a conjugal bank account with Citibank that is covered by the Makati RTC bank inquiry order, and
    two conjugal bank accounts with Metrobank that are covered by the Manila RTC bank inquiry order. Lilia Cheng imputed
    grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Makati and Manila RTCs in granting AMLC’s ex parte applications for a bank
    inquiry order, arguing among others that the ex parte applications violated her constitutional right to due process, that the
    bank inquiry order under the AMLA can only be granted in connection with violations of the AMLA and that the AMLA
    cannot apply to bank accounts opened and transactions entered into prior to the effectivity of the AMLA or to bank
    accounts located outside the Philippines.

    Issue
    Whether or not the proscription against ex post facto laws applies to Section 11 of the AMLA, a provision which does not
    provide a penal sanction but which merely authorizes the inspection of suspect accounts and deposits.

    Ruling

    Yes. In this jurisdiction, we have defined an ex post facto law as one which either: (1) makes criminal an act done before
    the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; (2) aggravates a crime, or makes it
    greater than it was, when committed; (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed
    to the crime when committed; (4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different
    testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense; (5) assuming to regulate civil rights and
    remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and (6)
    deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of
    a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. As applied to the AMLA, it is plain that no person may be
    prosecuted under the penal provisions of the AMLA for acts committed prior to the enactment of the law on 17 October
    2001. As much was understood by the lawmakers since they deliberated upon the AMLA, and indeed there is no serious
    dispute on that point. (Emphasis supplied)100 Prior to the enactment of the AMLA, the fact that bank accounts or deposits
    were involved in activities later on enumerated in Section 3 of the law did not, by itself, remove such accounts from the
    shelter of absolute confidentiality. Prior to the AMLA, in order that bank accounts could be examined, there was need to
    secure either the written permission of the depositor or a court order authorizing such examination, assuming that they
    were involved in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in a case where the money deposited or
    invested was itself the subject matter of the litigation. The passage of the AMLA stripped another layer off the rule on
    absolute confidentiality that provided a measure of lawful protection to the account holder. For that reason, the application
    of the bank inquiry order as a means of inquiring into records of transactions entered into prior to the passage of the
    AMLA would be constitutionally infirm, offensive as it is to the ex post facto clause. Still, we must note that the position
    submitted by Lilia Cheng is much broader than what we are willing to affirm . She argues that the proscription against ex
    post facto laws goes as far as to prohibit any inquiry into deposits or investments included in bank accounts opened prior
    to the effectivity of the AMLA even if the suspect transactions were entered into when the law had already taken effect.
    The Court recognizes that if this argument were to be affirmed, it would create a horrible loophole in the AMLA that would
    in turn supply the means to fearlessly engage in money laundering in the Philippines; all that the criminal has to do is to
    make sure that the money laundering activity is facilitated through a bank account opened prior to 2001. Nowhere in the
    legislative record cited by Lilia Cheng does it appear that there was an unequivocal intent to exempt from the bank inquiry
    order all bank accounts opened prior to the passage of the AMLA. There is a cited exchange between Representatives
    Ronaldo Zamora and Jaime Lopez where the latter confirmed to the former that "deposits are supposed to be exempted
    from scrutiny or monitoring if they are already in place as of the time the law is enacted." That statement does indicate
    that transactions already in place when the AMLA was passed are indeed exempt from scrutiny through a bank inquiry
    order, but it cannot yield any interpretation that records of transactions undertaken after the enactment of the AMLA are
    similarly exempt. Due to the absence of cited authority from the legislative record that unqualifiedly supports respondent
    Lilia Cheng’s thesis, there is no cause for us to sustain her interpretation of the AMLA, fatal as it is to the anima of that
    law.

    You might also like