RET. LT. GEN. JACINTO C. LIGOT, ERLINDA Y. LIGOT, PAULO Y. LIGOT, RIZA Y. LIGOT, and MIGUEL Y.

LIGOT vs. REPUBLIC, represented by the AMLC

GR No. 176944 (March 6, 2013)

FACTS:

Republic filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Application for the issuance of a freeze order with the CA against certain
monetary instruments and properties of Ligot, et al. The application was based on a letter from the Office
of the Ombudsman recommending that the latter conduct an investigation on Lt. Gen. Ligot and his family
for possible violation of RA No. 9160. The Ombudsman attached the Complaint it filed against the Ligots
for perjury under Article 183 of the RPC, and for violations of Section 8 of RA 6713 and RA 3019.

The Ombudsman’s complaint alleges that Ligot served in the AFP for 33 years and 2 months as a cadet
until his retirement. He and his wife have four children.

Ligot declared in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) that as of 31 December 2003,
he had assets in the total amount of P3.848M. In contrast, his declared assets in his 1982 SALN amounted
to only P105K.

Aside from these declared assets, the Ombudsman’s investigation revealed that Ligot and his family had
other properties and bank accounts, not declared in his SALN, amounting to at least P54M.

Given that Ligot’s main source of income was his salary as an officer of the AFP and his wife and children’s
lack of any other substantial sources of income, the Ombudsman declared the assets registered in Ligot’s
name, as well as those in his wife’s and children’s names, to be illegally obtained and unexplained wealth,
pursuant to the provisions of RA No. 1379 (An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any Property
Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the
Proceedings Therefor).

The investigation also looked into Mrs. Ligot’s younger brother, Edgardo Tecson Yambao, and it was found
that Yambao acted as a dummy of the Ligot spouses, and all the properties registered in Yambao’s name
actually belong to the Ligot family.

Compliance and Investigation Staff (CIS) of the AMLC conducted a financial investigation, which revealed
the existence of the Ligots’ various bank accounts with several financial institutions. The Ombudsman for
the Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers issued a resolution holding that probable cause exists
that Lt. Gen. Ligot violated Section 8, in relation to Section 11, of RA No. 6713, as well as Article 183 of the
RPC.

On 25 May 2005, AMLC issued Resolution No. 52, directing the Executive Director of the AMLC Secretariat
to file an application for a freeze order against the properties of Lt. Gen. Ligot and the members of his
family with the CA. Subsequently, on 27 June 2005, Republic filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Application with the
appellate court for the issuance of a Freeze Order against the properties of the Ligots and Yambao.

The appellate court granted the application, ruling that probable cause existed that an unlawful activity
and/or money laundering offense had been committed by Ligot and his family, including Yambao, and
that the properties sought to be frozen are related to the unlawful activity or money laundering offense.
CA issued a freeze order against the Ligots’ and Yambao’s various bank accounts, web accounts and
vehicles, valid for a period of 20 days from the date of issuance.

On 26 July 2005, Republic filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of Effectivity of Freeze Order, arguing that
if the bank accounts, web accounts and vehicles were not continuously frozen, they could be placed
beyond the reach of law enforcement authorities and the government’s efforts to recover the proceeds
of the Ligots’ unlawful activities would be frustrated. In support of its motion, it informed the CA that the
Ombudsman was presently investigating cases involving the Ligots.

Finding merit in the Republic’s arguments, CA granted the motion extending the freeze order until after
all the appropriate proceedings and/or investigations have been terminated.

The Ligots filed a motion to lift the extended freeze order and further argued that the extension not only
deprived them of their property without due process; it also punished them before their guilt could be
proven. The motion was denied.

Meanwhile on 15 November 2005, the "Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset Preservation,
and Freezing of Monetary Instrument, Property, or Proceeds Representing, Involving, or Relating to an
Unlawful Activity or Money Laundering Offense under Republic Act No. 9160, as Amended" (Rule in Civil
Forfeiture Cases) took effect. Under this rule, a freeze order could be extended for a maximum period of
six months.

The Ligots filed a motion for reconsideration, insisting that the freeze order should be lifted considering:

(a) no predicate crime has been proven to support the freeze order’s issuance;

(b) the freeze order expired six months after it was issued on July 5, 2005; and

(c) the freeze order is provisional in character and not intended to supplant a case for money laundering.
This motion was also denied.

Ligot filed for certiorari arguing that the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it extended the freeze order issued against him and his family even
though no predicate crime had been duly proven or established to support the allegation of money
laundering. He also maintains that the freeze order issued against them ceased to be effective in view of
the 6-month extension limit of freeze orders provided under the Rule in Civil Forfeiture Cases. The CA, in
extending the freeze order, not only unduly deprived him and his family of their property, in violation of
due process, but also penalized them before they had been convicted of the crimes they stand accused
of.

ISSUE #1:

WON petition for certiorari is the proper remedy in assailing the said freeze order.

RULING:

(Generally) NO. Certiorari not proper remedy to assail freeze order.

Section 57. Appeal. - Any party aggrieved by the decision or ruling of the court may appeal
to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. The appeal shall not stay the enforcement of the subject decision or final order
unless the Supreme Court directs otherwise.

From this provision, it is apparent that the petitioners should have filed a petition for review on certiorari,
and not a petition for certiorari, to assail the CA resolution which extended the effectivity period of the
freeze order over their properties.

Even assuming that a petition for certiorari is available to the petitioners, a review of their petition shows
that the issues they raise (i.e., existence of probable cause to support the freeze order; the applicability
of the 6-month limit to the extension of freeze orders embodied in the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil
Forfeiture) pertain to errors of judgment allegedly committed by the CA, which fall outside the Court’s
limited jurisdiction when resolving certiorari petitions. As held in People v. Court of Appeals:

In a petition for certiorari, the jurisdiction of the court is narrow in scope. It is limited to resolving only
errors of jurisdiction. It is not to stray at will and resolve questions or issues beyond its competence such
as errors of judgment. Errors of judgment of the trial court are to be resolved by the appellate court in
the appeal by and of error or via a petition for review on certiorari in this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction. It is not a remedy to correct errors of
judgment. An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction,
and which error is reversible only by an appeal. Error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of
was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the
extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by the trial court in its
appreciation of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its
conclusions of law. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the
exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an
appeal or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.25 (citations omitted; italics supplied)

EXCEPTION: However, considering the issue of due process squarely brought before us in the face of an
apparent conflict between Section 10 of RA No. 9160, as amended, and Section 53(b) of the Rule in Civil
Forfeiture Cases, this Court finds it imperative to relax the application of the rules of procedure and
resolve this case on the merits in the interest of justice

ISSUE #2:

WON probable cause exists to support the issuance of a freeze order.

RULING:

No.
The Ligots’ argument is founded on a flawed understanding of probable cause in the context of a civil
forfeiture proceeding or freeze order application.

Based on Section 10 of RA 9160, amended by RA 9194, there are only two requisites for the issuance of a
freeze order:

(1) the application ex parte by the AMLC and

(2) the determination of probable cause by the CA.

The probable cause required for the issuance of a freeze order differs from the probable cause required for
the institution of a criminal action, and the latter was not an issue before the CA nor is it an issue before
us in this case.

The CA’s statutorily-guided determination’s focus is not on the probable commission of an unlawful
activity (or money laundering) that the Office of the Ombudsman has already determined to exist, but on
whether the bank accounts, assets, or other monetary instruments sought to be frozen are in any way
related to any of the illegal activities enumerated under RA No. 9160, as amended. Otherwise stated,
probable cause refers to the sufficiency of the relation between an unlawful activity and the property or
monetary instrument which is the focal point of Section 10 of RA No. 9160, as amended.

A freeze order can be issued upon the AMLC’s ex parte application further emphasizes the law’s
consideration of how critical time is in these proceedings. As we previously noted in Republic v. Eugenio,
Jr., "to make such freeze order anteceded by a judicial proceeding with notice to the account holder would
allow for or lead to the dissipation of such funds even before the order could be issued."

It should be noted that the existence of an unlawful activity that would justify the issuance and the
extension of the freeze order has likewise been established in this case.

From the ex parte application and the Ombudsman’s complaint, we glean that Lt. Gen. Ligot himself
admitted that his income came from his salary as an officer of the AFP. Yet, the Ombudsman’s
investigation revealed that the bank accounts, investments and properties in the name of Lt. Gen. Ligot
and his family amount to more than Fifty-Four Million Pesos (₱54,000,000.00). Since these assets are
grossly disproportionate to Lt. Gen. Ligot’s income, as well as the lack of any evidence that the Ligots have
other sources of income, the CA properly found that probable cause exists that these funds have been
illegally acquired. On the other hand, the AMLC’s verified allegations in its ex parte application, based on
the complaint filed by the Ombudsman against Ligot and his family for violations of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, clearly sustain the CA’s finding that probable cause exists that the monetary
instruments subject of the freeze order are related to, or are the product of, an unlawful activity.

A freeze order, however, cannot be issued for an indefinite period.

A freeze order is an extraordinary and interim relief issued by the CA to prevent the dissipation, removal,
or disposal of properties that are suspected to be the proceeds of, or related to, unlawful activities as
defined in Section 3(i) of RA No. 9160, as amended. The primary objective of a freeze order is to
temporarily preserve monetary instruments or property that are in any way related to an unlawful activity
or money laundering, by preventing the owner from utilizing them during the duration of the freeze order.
The relief is pre-emptive in character, meant to prevent the owner from disposing his property and
thwarting the State’s effort in building its case and eventually filing civil forfeiture proceedings and/or
prosecuting the owner.

To otherwise leave the grant of the extension to the sole discretion of the CA, which may extend a freeze
order indefinitely or to an unreasonable amount of time – carries serious implications on an individual’s
substantive right to due process. This right demands that no person be denied his right to property or be
subjected to any governmental action that amounts to a denial. The right to due process, under these
terms, requires a limitation or at least an inquiry on whether sufficient justification for the governmental
action.

As a rule, the effectivity of a freeze order may be extended by the CA for a period not exceeding six
months. Before or upon the lapse of this period, ideally, the Republic should have already filed a case for
civil forfeiture against the property owner with the proper courts and accordingly secure an asset
preservation order or it should have filed the necessary information. Otherwise, the property owner
should already be able to fully enjoy his property without any legal process affecting it. However, should
it become completely necessary for the Republic to further extend the duration of the freeze order, it
should file the necessary motion before the expiration of the six-month period and explain the reason or
reasons for its failure to file an appropriate case and justify the period of extension sought. The freeze
order should remain effective prior to the resolution by the CA, which is hereby directed to resolve this
kind of motion for extension with reasonable dispatch.