Facts:
The petitioner’s accounts with various banks were the subject of the Freeze Order by the Court of Appeals, which were later extended, upon petition by the Anti-Money Laundering Council, on suspicion of being related to the alleged unlawful activities of the Ampatuans. In her opposition to the orders, she claimed that she is not related to the Ampatuans of Shariff Aguak, and her being included in the freeze orders were only because her name closely resembled the name of the wife of Sajid Islam y Ampatuan, Bai Zandrai Sinsuat Ampatuan. Petitioner’s real name, on the other hand, is Bai Sandra Ampautan Sema, the wife of Muslimin Sema, the mayor of Cotabato City. The Republic argues that her maintaining over 30 accounts constitute evidence of unlawful transaction.
The CA denied her opposition, thus the petitioner elevated her case to the Supreme Court. Citing her right to be presumed innocent, she argues that there was no probable cause for the issuance of the freeze order, as her bank accounts were not related to the alleged unlawful activities of the Ampatuan clan. The petition in the freeze order does not even show any allegation or evidence that her bank accounts are in any connected with the alleged unlawful activities of plunder and violation of RA 3019.
The Issue:
Whether or not there was probable cause to freeze petitioner’s bank accounts.
Ruling:
Petition granted. There was no probable cause to issue the freeze orders against the petitioner’s bank accounts.
With the amendments of the Anti-Money Laundering Law, it is now the Court of Appeals that evaluates the allegations in the petition filed by the AMLC and determine whether or not probable cause exists for the issuance of the freeze order.
“To establish this, a petitioner must show “facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet, prudent or cautious [person] to believe that an unlawful activity and/or money laundering offense is about to be, is being or has been committed and that the account is in any way related to said unlawful activity and/or money laundering offense.
Such facts and circumstances must be shown in the petition’s allegations as well as its contents. Under Section 46 of A.M. No. 05-11-04-Sc, part of its contents are “supporting evidence showing that the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds are in any way related to or involved in an unlawful activity…” The alleged unlawful activities in the urgent ex parte petition are corrupt practices under Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3( e ) and plunder under Republic Act No. 7080.”
Discussing these allegations, the Court did not find any ground to establish probable cause, and added further that:
“A person’s identity should be ascertained even in-or especially in- the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a freeze order. A party who has not been shown by any probable cause to have any involvement whatsoever in unlawful activities should not be subject to a freeze order.
To be sure, probable cause in the issuance of a freeze orders does not require absolute certainty, but the facts presented by the Republic must convince “a reasonably discreet, prudent or cautious [person] of the commission of an unlawful activity and the relation of the person’s properties sought to be frozen to such unlawful activity. Precisely, the burden of proof to establish probable cause lies with the Republic as petitioner, and this necessarily requires that the persons whose bank accounts are sought to be frozen are positively and accurately identified. We find that respondent has failed to meet this burden.”
BAI SANDRA SINSUAT A. SEMA vs, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL (AMLC), G.R. No. 198083, October 10, 2022