REPUBLIC V GLASGOW

GR NO 170281
January 18, 2008
AMLA
FACTS:
On July 18, 2003, the Republic, as represented by the AntiMoney Laundering Council (AMLC) filed a complaint in the
Manila RTC for civil forfeiture of assets (with urgent plea for
issuance of a TRO and a writ of preliminary investigation)
against the bank deposits in an account maintained by
Glasgow in Citystate Savings Bank, Inc (CSBI). While the trial
court granted the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction,
the summons to Glasgow was returned unserved since it
can no longer be found at its last known address.

October 8, 2003: omnibus motion for issuance of

summons and leave of court to serve summons by
publication by the Republic
October 15: trial court directed issuance of summons
but no mention re: leave of court
January 30, 2004: trial court archived the case
allegedly for failure of the Republic to serve the alias
summons but the Republic filed another motion to
reinstate the case and resolve the motion for leave of
court
May 31: court reinstated case but still did not resolve
the motion for leave of court to serve summons by
publication on the reason that any action on such
motion would be untenable if not premature. This
motion remain unsolved.
August 11, 2005: Republic filed a manifestation and
ex parte motion to resolve the above motion.
August 12 (yuh the next day): the OSG received a
copy of Glasgows Motion to Dismiss (By Way of
Special Appearance). The motion alleged that the
trial court had no jurisdiction over its person as
summons had not yet been served on it; that the
complaint was premature and stated no cause of

Week 13 - AMLA
SPL Digests

action as there was still no conviction for estafa or

other criminal violations and there was failure to
prosecute on the part of the Republic.
The Republic opposed the Motion to Dismiss but on
October 27, the trial court dismissed the case.
(Issues involved below!)

ISSUES:
Whether the complaint for civil forfeiture was correctly
dismissed on grounds of improper venue, insufficiency in
form and substance and failure to prosecute
HELD:
The complaint for civil forfeiture was not correctly
dismissed. Petition by the Republic was granted.
1. On issue of venue: the complaint was filed in
the proper venue.
Under Section 3, Title II of the Rule of Procedure in Cases of
Civil Forfeiture, A petition for civil forfeiture shall be filed in
any regional trial court of the judicial region where the
monetary instrument, property or proceeds representing,
involving or relating to an unlawful activity or to a money
laundering offense are located xxx
In this case, RTC Manila, as one of the RTCs of the NCR
Judicial Region was a proper venue of the Republics
complaint for civil forfeiture of Glasgows account since the
account sought to be forfeited was in Pasig City, which is
likewise situated within the NCR Judicial Region.
2. On issue of sufficiency of complaint: the
complaint was sufficient in form and in
substance
Under Section 4 of the aforementioned Rules, the petition
for civil forfeiture shall be verified and shall contain the
following allegations: (a) the name and address of the
respondent; a description with reasonable particularity of
the monetary instrument, property xxx; and (c) the acts or
omissions prohibited by the specific provisions of the AMLA,

which are alleged to be the grounds relied upon for the

forfeiture of the monetary instrument, property xxx.
In this case, the verified complaint contained the name and
address of Glasgow (principal office at Unit 703, 7th floor,
Citystate Center, No 709, Shaw Boulevard, Pasig City); a
description of the proceeds of Glasgows unlawful activities
in the amount of P21,301,430.28 maintained with CSBI; and
the acts prohibited by RA 9160 (AMLA), particularly
suspicious transaction reports showed that Glasgow
engaged in unlawful activities of estafa and violation of the
Securities Regulation Code, the proceeds were transacted
and deposited with CSBI, thereby making them appear to
have originated from legit sources and the AMLC subjected
the account to a freeze order.

last known office address during the course of the

proceedings) despite its earlier motions for summons and
leave of court to serve summons by publication. There could
not have been any failure on the part of the Republic to
prosecute and the delay could not be entirely ascribed to
the Republic. It must likewise be recalled that despite efforts
of the Republic to prosecute such case, no prompt action
was taken by the trial court (i.e. re: motion for leave of court
to serve summons by publication).

Pertinent provisions of RA 9160 also provide two conditions

when applying for civil forfeiture:
a.
When there is a suspicious transaction report or a
covered transaction report deemed suspicious
after investigation by the AMLC and
b.
The court has, in a petition filed for the purpose,
ordered the seizure of any monetary instrument
or property, in whole or in part, directly or
indirectly, related to said report.
The account of Glasgow in CSBI complies with the above
conditions since it was covered by several suspicious reports
and it was placed under control of the trial court upon
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunctions.
Also, there need not be any prior charge, pendency or
conviction necessary for the commencement of a petition
for civil forfeiture.
3. On issue of failure to prosecute: there was no
failure to prosecute
The Republic continued to exert efforts to obtain information
from government agencies on the whereabouts of Glasgow
(it must be recalled that Glasgow could not be found on its

Week 13 - AMLA
SPL Digests

People v Cabrini
May 5, 2006

Republic Act No. 9160, Otherwise Known as the Anti Money

Laundering Act of 2001).

FACTS:
In the exercise of its power under Section 10 of RA 9160, the
AntiMoney Laundering Council (AMLC) issued freeze orders
against various bank accounts of respondents.

Under RA 9160, a freeze order issued by the AMLC is

effective for a period not exceeding 15 days unless
extended upon order of the court.

before the lapse of the period of effectivity of its

freeze orders, the AMLC filed with the Court of
Appeals (CA)various petitions for extension of
effectivity of its freeze orders.
o
o

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. (emphasis
supplied)

AMLC interpreted the phrase upon order of

the court to refer to the CA.

Section 12 of RA 9194 further provides:

AMLC believed that CAs power of issuing TRO

or writ of injuction against any freeze order
issued by AMLC, carried with it the power to
extend the effectivity of the freeze order.

SEC. 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.
(emphasis supplied)

CA disagreed with the AMLC and dismissed the petitions. It

uniformly ruled that it was not vested by RA 9160 with the
power to extend a freeze order issued by the AMLC.
ISSUE: which court has jurisdiction to extend the effectivity
of a freeze order?
HELD:
During the pendency of these petitions, or on March 3,
2003, Congress enacted RA 9194 (An Act Amending

Week 13 - AMLA
SPL Digests

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Very Urgent

Motion to Remand Cases to the Honorable Court of Appeals
o

It also asked for the issuance of a TRO on the ground

that the freeze orders would be automatically lifted
on April 22, 2003 by operation of law and the money
or deposits in the concerned bank accounts may be
taken out of the reach of law enforcement

authorities.
OSG further manifested that pending in the CA were 29
other cases involving the same issue. It requested that
these cases be included in the coverage of the TRO prayed
for.

On April 21, 2003, the Court issued a TRO in these

cases and in all other similar cases pending before all
courts in the Philippines.
o

solely the CA which has the authority to issue a

freeze order as well as to extend its effectivity.
It also has the exclusive jurisdiction to extend
existing freeze orders previously issued by the AMLC
visvis accounts and deposits related to money
laundering activities.

Respondents, the concerned banks, and all

persons acting in their behalf were directed to
give full force and effect to existing freeze
orders until further orders from this Court.

The amendment by RA 9194 of RA 9160 erased any

doubt on the jurisdiction of the CA over the extension
of freeze orders. As the law now stands, it is

Week 13 - AMLA
SPL Digests