CONTACT: |
Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
(632) 8524-2706 |
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 239047, June 16, 2021 ]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL PETITIONER, VS. JUAN T. NG AND METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari (With Extremely Urgent Application for Temporary Restraining Order)[1] filed by the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), assailing the Decision[2] dated April 27, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 152891. The CA denied the Petition for Certiorari (With Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction)[3] filed by the Republic, dissolved the Writ of Preliminary Injunction it issued on December 20, 2017, and affirmed the Orders dated September 19, 2016[4] and May 29, 2017[5] of Branch 53, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila in AMLC Case No. 15-003-53 for Civil Forfeiture.
The Antecedents
The facts, gleaned from the Decision of the CA and the Orders of the RTC, are as follows:
Benhur K. Luy (Luy) is an employee of JLN Group of Companies (JLN Corporation) owned and managed by Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles) alias "Jenny Lim" and her family. On March 23, 2013, Luy executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay[6] on JLN Corporation's illegal business practices. Luy averred that upon learning of the illegal business, he planned to separate himself from JLN Corporation and establish his own business. Luy subsequently executed a Supplemental Sworn Statement[7] dated March 27, 2013 alleging that he was entrusted to establish non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which served as conduits to illegally funneled government funds. The funds were then remitted to Napoles' personal bank accounts which Luy also created.[8]
On April 2, 2013, Merlina Pablo Suñas (Suñas), a project coordinator and employee of JLN Corporation, executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay[9] concerning her personal knowledge of Napoles' unlawful activities. In particular, Suñas alleged that they submitted fictitious liquidation papers to the concerned government agencies in the implementation of the Malampaya fund worth P900,000,000.00.[10]
On August 5, 2013, Luy, Suñas, and other employees of JLN Corporation, namely, Gertrudes K. Luy (Gertrudes) and Annabelle Luy-Reario (Annabelle) executed a Joint Sworn Statement[11] providing minute details of Napoles' operations. The Joint Sworn Statement disclosed the following information:
The issuance of the statements prompted the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to send a Letter[13] dated July 17, 2013 to the AMLC requesting a financial investigation in relation to any suspected financial transactions of Luy and Napoles. The Office of the Ombudsman sent a similar Letter[14] dated August 6, 2013 to the AMLC requesting its assistance to conduct an examination and secure pertinent records and documents concerning several accounts, including those of Luy and Napoles, which were found to be related to the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam.[15]
On September 11, 2013, another Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay[16] was executed by Luy, Suñas, and other JLN employees implicating several government officials, including Senators Ramon Revilla III, Juan Ponce Enrile, and Jose "Jinggoy" Ejercito Estrada (Estrada), as part of the PDAF scheme. On September 16, 2013, the NBI filed eight complaints for Plunder under Section 2[17] of Republic Act No. (RA) 7080[18] and for violation of Section 3(e)[19] of RA 3019[20] against Napoles and other government officials, including Senator Estrada. On March 28, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman issued Joint Resolution[21] in OMB-C-C-0313 and OMB-C-C13-0397 finding probable cause against those charged in the complaints filed by the NBI. Informations against the respondents in the complaints were filed before the Sandiganbayan.
The AMLC filed before the CA an ex parte application under Section 11[22] of RA 9160,[23] praying for the issuance of an order to authorize it to inquire into the bank accounts of those charged in the Informations. The CA granted the application in its Resolution[24] dated May 28, 2014 in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00108. In the Resolution[25] dated August 15, 2014 in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00113 (in relation to AMLC No. 00108), the CA allowed a supplemental bank inquiry on other persons who were revealed to be connected to the earlier examined accounts, including the account of Juan T. Ng (Ng), a supposed close friend of Senator Estrada.[26] Ng allegedly received the following amounts:
The facts, gleaned from the Decision of the CA and the Orders of the RTC, are as follows:
Benhur K. Luy (Luy) is an employee of JLN Group of Companies (JLN Corporation) owned and managed by Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles) alias "Jenny Lim" and her family. On March 23, 2013, Luy executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay[6] on JLN Corporation's illegal business practices. Luy averred that upon learning of the illegal business, he planned to separate himself from JLN Corporation and establish his own business. Luy subsequently executed a Supplemental Sworn Statement[7] dated March 27, 2013 alleging that he was entrusted to establish non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which served as conduits to illegally funneled government funds. The funds were then remitted to Napoles' personal bank accounts which Luy also created.[8]
On April 2, 2013, Merlina Pablo Suñas (Suñas), a project coordinator and employee of JLN Corporation, executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay[9] concerning her personal knowledge of Napoles' unlawful activities. In particular, Suñas alleged that they submitted fictitious liquidation papers to the concerned government agencies in the implementation of the Malampaya fund worth P900,000,000.00.[10]
On August 5, 2013, Luy, Suñas, and other employees of JLN Corporation, namely, Gertrudes K. Luy (Gertrudes) and Annabelle Luy-Reario (Annabelle) executed a Joint Sworn Statement[11] providing minute details of Napoles' operations. The Joint Sworn Statement disclosed the following information:
The True Purpose and Operation of the Foundations
8. JLN [Napoles] initially informed the JLN Corporation Employees (including Benhur K. Luy and Merlina P. Suñas) that these foundations were created to help the farmers improve their lives. However, when these foundations began operation about three years after their registration, the real reason became clear. JLN informed us that Government funds will be allocated to these Foundations to finance the implementation of several programs. These funds came from the CDF/PDAF of legislators as well as special funds from government agencies like the DOTC, DA, NABCOR, NLDC, TRC, etcetera.
9. The financial transactions of JLN and JLN-owned-or-controlled corporations on one hand, and the foundations on the other hand, were recorded by me, Benhur K. Luy, being part and parcel of the tasks assigned to me by JLN. Based on my (Benhur K. Luy) records, the financial transactions of the above are as follows:9.1. Upon receipt by the foundations of these government funds, the same will be immediately withdrawn through over-the-counter transactions by either the President of the foundation, or any authorized representative to be determined by JLN, accompanied by some security personnel of JLN.x x x
9.2. At times, once monies are withdrawn from foundation accounts, the same will be directly remitted to JLN either in the JLN Corporation office in Discovery Center Suites in Ortigas Center, Pasig City or in her condominium unit at Unit 18B, Pacific Plaza Tower in Taguig City.
9.3. I, Gertrudes K. Luy, personally saw that at times, the cash delivered to the above condominium unit was stashed in the vault, or in the bathtub of JLN's bathroom.x x x x
9.4. To liquidate these funds, JLN will instruct her employees, including us, Benhur K. Luy and Merlina P. Suñas, to prepare Acknowledgment Receipts from supposed beneficiaries, Accomplishment Reports, and Requests for the release of remaining funds, and Official Receipts.
9.5. The implementation of these programs, however, involve three types: a) under-delivery; b) mis-delivery; or c) ghost delivery, depending on the instructions of JLN and the "commission" being requested by certain government officials. Accordingly, then the liquidation documents that JLN employees prepare are either partially or completely false. For example, the list of beneficiaries may be a mix of bona fide beneficiaries and fictitious individuals. The acknowledgment receipts purportedly executed by the beneficiaries in a listing are either wholly or partially truthful, or completely fake; the Official Receipts issued by the NGOs are also fake. In short, the government funds intended to certain beneficiaries in fact do not reach them; while the funds received by these foundations were diverted, as narrated in the sample transactions above, to the personal account of JLN or to her owned-or-controlled corporations like Jo-Chris Trading, JLN Corporation, and JCLN Global Properties Development Corporation.
9.6. Some bank transactions instructed by JLN to be done and recorded by Benhur K. Luy involve fund transfers from these foundations to specific accounts of certain government officials.
10. In summary, and based on our personal knowledge, all government funds received by these foundations were actually diverted from their intended purposes to the personal accounts of JLN and to her owned-or-controlled corporations like JLN Corporation, Jo-Chris Trading, JCLN Global Properties Development Coxporation, and TNU Trading.[12]
The issuance of the statements prompted the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to send a Letter[13] dated July 17, 2013 to the AMLC requesting a financial investigation in relation to any suspected financial transactions of Luy and Napoles. The Office of the Ombudsman sent a similar Letter[14] dated August 6, 2013 to the AMLC requesting its assistance to conduct an examination and secure pertinent records and documents concerning several accounts, including those of Luy and Napoles, which were found to be related to the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam.[15]
On September 11, 2013, another Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay[16] was executed by Luy, Suñas, and other JLN employees implicating several government officials, including Senators Ramon Revilla III, Juan Ponce Enrile, and Jose "Jinggoy" Ejercito Estrada (Estrada), as part of the PDAF scheme. On September 16, 2013, the NBI filed eight complaints for Plunder under Section 2[17] of Republic Act No. (RA) 7080[18] and for violation of Section 3(e)[19] of RA 3019[20] against Napoles and other government officials, including Senator Estrada. On March 28, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman issued Joint Resolution[21] in OMB-C-C-0313 and OMB-C-C13-0397 finding probable cause against those charged in the complaints filed by the NBI. Informations against the respondents in the complaints were filed before the Sandiganbayan.
The AMLC filed before the CA an ex parte application under Section 11[22] of RA 9160,[23] praying for the issuance of an order to authorize it to inquire into the bank accounts of those charged in the Informations. The CA granted the application in its Resolution[24] dated May 28, 2014 in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00108. In the Resolution[25] dated August 15, 2014 in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00113 (in relation to AMLC No. 00108), the CA allowed a supplemental bank inquiry on other persons who were revealed to be connected to the earlier examined accounts, including the account of Juan T. Ng (Ng), a supposed close friend of Senator Estrada.[26] Ng allegedly received the following amounts:
Date Description Amount Source 03/30/2010 Fund Transfer Php10,000,000.00 Debited from Metrobank Account No. 255-3-25504715-0 of Agri and Economic Program for Farmer's Foundation 04/13/2010 MetroBank
Manager's Check Php10,000,000.00 Debited MetroBank Account No. 073-3-07367717-4 of Social Development- Program for Farmer's Foundation, Inc. 03/15/2012 Metrobank Check No 7302 Php9,750,000.00 Metrobank Account of Janet Napoles[27]
Date | Amount received (in PHP) | Mode | Source |
September 30, 2010 | 10,000,000.00 | Deposit of Metrobank Check No. 0733638724 | JLN Corporation's Metrobank Account No. 007073509285 |
September 30, 2010 | 10,000,000.00 | Deposit of Metrobank Check No. 0733638725 | JLN Corporation's Metrobank Account No. 007073509285 |
October 1, 2010 | 4,500,000.00 | Deposit of Metrobank Check No. 0733638727 | JLN Corporation's Metrobank Account No. 007073509285[62] |
On the other hand, the bank inquiry, as contained in the August 15, 2014 Resolution in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00113, states:
Date Description Amount Source 03/30/2010 Fund Transfer Php10,000,000.00 Debited from Metrobank Account No. 255-3-25504715-0 of Agri and Economic Program for Farmer's Foundation 04/13/2010 MetroBank Manager's Check Php10,000,000.00 Debited MetroBank Account No. 073-3-67717-4 of Social Development Program for Farmer's Foundation, Inc. 03/15/2012 MetroBank Check No. 7302 Php9,750,000.00 MetroBank Account of Janet Napoles[63]
However, despite the discrepancy, Ng admitted to receiving the amount of P24,500,000.00 deposited to the subject account from Napoles, which he claimed was payment for the loans he extended. Coupled with the admission, the Court underscores that Ng failed to present any loan agreement to substantiate his claim. To the Court, Ng's mere allegation that Napoles was just an acquaintance with whom he had no business transactions, but to whom he extended loans on several occasions by way accommodation because of their Chinese heritage, tradition, and culture[64] does not satisfy the good cause required under Section 12 of A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC in order for the PAPO to be lifted.
The CA also ruled that the AMLC failed to prove that the dates of the deposits fall within the time frame of the PDAF scam. A reading of the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay shows that Luy recorded transactions from 2004 to 2011 and from 2011 to 2012.[65] It is thus too early, at the stage of determining whether the APO should issue, to make a conclusion that the AMLC was not able to prove that the transactions were made within the period of the PDAF scam.
In addition, the deposits made by Napoles and the NGOs are not the only basis presented by the AMLC. The subject account also received money from Senator Estrada's bank account that is also under investigation. In the Resolution[66] dated August 15, 2014 in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00113, the CA granted the Verified Supplemental Ex-Parte Application for bank inquiry filed by AMLC. The bank inquiry included the subject account as one of the recipients of the amount of P16,637,000.00 from Senator Estrada's Union Bank, account. The Resolution dated August 15, 2014 showed that the amount of P16,637,000.00 was transferred to seven Metrobank accounts, all in the name of Ng. One of the seven accounts is the subject account. The CA ruled that the AMLC failed to specify what part of the P16,637,000.00 was transferred to the subject account. The Court does not find it necessary, for the purpose of determining whether to issue an APO, to identify the specific amount transferred to each account considering that the money has one source and the account holder of all the accounts is the same.
To be clear, the issuance of a PAPO or an APO is only to secure the funds contained in the subject account which, at the time of the issuance of the PAPO, had a frozen balance of P962,286.27. The amount is minuscule considering the money involved in the PDAF scam. The civil foreclosure will still proceed where the parties will be given opportunities to present more evidence to prove their respective claims. The Court also takes into account the AMLC's argument that the subject account is not the only account of Ng that received transfers from Napoles and JLN Corporation, but the subject account is the only remaining open account since the others were already closed. Hence, prudence and the evidence presented would justify the issuance of an APO pending the outcome of the civil foreclosure case. Considering the foregoing, the Court disagrees with the CA that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing its Orders dated September 19, 2016 and May 29, 2017.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 27, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152891 is MODIFIED in the t the application for the issuance of the Asset Preservation Order before Branch 53, Regional Trial Court, Manila is GRANTED.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to ISSUE an Asset Preservation Order against respondent Juan T. Ng with respect to Metrobank Account No. 3067507917, the subejct account in AMLC Case No. 15-003-53.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, (Chairperson), Delos Santos, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
Hernando, J., on official leave.
[1] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 3-45.
[2] Id. at 52-67; penned by Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.
[3] Rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 853-889.
[4] Id. at 751-758; penned by Executive Judge Reynaldo A. Alhambra.
[5] Id. at 851-852.
[6] Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 68-69.
[7] Id. at 71-76.
[8] Id. at 53.
[9] Id. at 77-80.
[10] Id. at 53.
[11] Id. at 82-91.
[12] Id. at 53-55.
[13] Id. at 103-104.
[14] Id. at 105-106.
[15] Id. at 55.
[16] Id. at 92-102.
[17] Section 2 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7080 provides:
SECTION 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. — Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described in Section 1(c) hereof, in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Seventy-five million pesos (P75,000,000.00), shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by life imprisonment with perpetual absolute disqualification from holding any public office. Any person who participated with said public officer in the commission of plunder shall likewise be punished. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stock derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State.
[18] Entitled "An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder," approved on July 12, 1991.
[19] Section 3(e) of RA 3019 provides:
SECTION 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
[20] Entitled "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," approved on August 17, 1960.
[21] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 252-371.
[22] Section 11 of RA 9160 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 involved are in any way related to a money laundering offense: Provided, That this provision shall not apply to deposits and investments made prior to the effectivity of this Act.
[23] Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, September 29, 2001.
[24] Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 408-434; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando (now Court of Appeals Presiding Justice) and Normandie B. Pizarro, concurring.
[25] Id. at 436-458.
[26] Id. at 56.
[27] Id. at 56-57, 439-440.
[28] See Inquiry Report on the Bank Transactions Related to the Alleged Involvement of Senator Jose P. "Jinggoy" Ejercito Estrada in the PDAF Scam, id. at 459-548.
[29] Id. at 57.
[30] Rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 602-613.
[31] Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 57.
[32] Rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 615-616.
[33] Id. at 751.
[34] Id. at 751-752.
[35] Id. at 617-620.
[36] Id. at 751-758
[37] Id. at 758.
[38] Id. at 757.
[39] Id.
[40] Id. at 759-774.
[41] Id. at 851-852.
[42] Id. at 893-894; penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.
[43] Id. at 896-899; penned by Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a member of the Court), concurring.
[44] Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 61.
[45] Id. at 61-62.
[46] Id. at 62-63.
[47] Id. at 64-65.
[48] Rollo, Vol. 2, pp 1051-1067.
[49] Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 17.
[50] Rollo, Vol. 2, p. 854.
[51] October 6, 2017 is the date of the Petition for Certiorari (id. at 887), and the date of filing indicated by Ng in his Comment (id. at 1057).
[52] Rules of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset Preservation, and Freezing of Monetary Instrument, Property, or Proceed Representing, Involving, or Relating to an Unlawful Activity or Money Laundering Offense under Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, approved on November 15, 2005.
[53] Crispino, et al. v. Tansay, 801 Phil. 711, 722 (2016). Citations omitted.
[54] Id. at 723, citing Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, 671 Phil. 320, 334-335 (2011).
[55] Uematsu v. Balinon, G.R. No. 234812, November 25, 2019.
[56] See Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. v. Lim, 593 Phil. 435 (2008).
[57] Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 296 Phil. 298, 309 (1993). Citations omitted.
[58] Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 3-4.
[59] Section 3(i) of RA 9160, as amended, provides:
Section 3. Definitions. — For purposes of this Act, the following terms are hereby defined as follows:
x x x x
(i) "Unlawful Activity" refers to any act or omission or series or combination thereof involving or having region to the following:
x x x x
[60] Rollo, Vol. 2, p. 756.
[61] Id.
[62] Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 39-40.
[63] Id. at 56-57.
[64] Rollo, Vol. 2, p. 756.
[65] Id. at 98.
[66] Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 436-458.