REPUBLIC ACT 9160
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT 9194
DEFINITION OF TERMS
(a) “Covered Institution” refers to:
(1) Banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, and all other institutions and their subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
(2) Insurance companies and all other institutions supervised or regulated by the Insurance Commission; and
(3) Securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses and other similar entities managing securities or rendering services as investment agent, advisor, or consultant, (ii) mutual funds, close and investment companies, common trust funds, pre-need companies and other similar entities, (iii) foreign exchange corporations, money changers, money payment, remittance, and transfer companies and other similar entities, and (iv) other entities administering or otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives based thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes and other similar monetary instruments or property supervised or regulated by Securities and Exchange Commission.(Sec. 3-a, RA 9160)
(b) Covered Transaction – is a transaction in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument involving a total amount in excess of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 500,000.00) within one banking day. (Sec. 3(b) of RA 9160, as amended by RA 9194)
(c) Suspicious Transaction – are transactions with covered institutions, regardless of the amounts involved, where any of the following circumstances exist:
- There is no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification;
- The client is not properly identified;
- The amount involved is not commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the client;
- Taking into account all known circumstances, it may be perceived that the client’s transaction is structured in order to avoid being the subject of
- reporting requirements under the Act;
- Any circumstances relating to the transaction which is observed to deviate from the profile of the client and/or the client’s past transactions with the covered institution;
- The transactions is in any way related to an unlawful activity or offense under this Act that is about to be, is being or has been committed; or
- 8. Any transactions that is similar or analogous to any of the foregoing. (Sec. b-1, RA 9160 as amended by RA 9194)
(d) Unlawful activity – refers to any act or omission or series or combination thereof involving or having direct relation to following:
(1) Kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, as amended;
(2) Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002;
(3) Section 3 paragraphs B, C, E, G, H and I of republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
(4) Plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended;
(5) Robbery and extortion under Articles 294, 295, 296, 299, 300, 301 and 302 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;
(6) Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal gambling under Presidential Decree No. 1602;
(7) Piracy on the high seas under the Revised Penal Code, as amended and Presidential under the Revised Penal Code, as amended and Presidential Decree No. 532;
(8) Qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised penal Code, as amended;
(9) Swindling under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;
(10) Smuggling under Republic Act Nos. 455 and 1937;
(11) Violations under Republic Act No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000;
(12) Hijacking and other violations under Republic Act No. 6235; destructive arson and murder, as defined under the Revised Penal Code, as amended, including those perpetrated by terrorists against non-combatant persons and similar targets;
(13) Fraudulent practices and other violations under Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the Securities Regulation Code of 2000;
(14) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature that are punishable under the penal laws of other countries. (Sec. I of RA 9160, as amended by RA 9194)
(e) Money Laundering Offense. — Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity as herein defined are transacted, theeby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is committed by the following:
(a) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transact said monetary instrument or property.
(b) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property involves the proceeds of any unlawful activit, performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraph (a) above.
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property is required under this Act to be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so.” (Sec. 4 of RA 9160, as amended by RA 9194)
P.D. 533 OR ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW
Definition
Cattle-rustling is the taking away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent of the owner or raiser, of any cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass or other domesticated member of the bovine family, whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things; and it includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner or raiser. (Pil-Ey vs. People, G.R. No. 154941, July 9, 2007)
Violation of Anti-Cattle Rustling Law; Elements
- Large cattle is taken
- It belongs to another
- The taking is done without the consent of the owner or raiser
- The taking is done by any means, method or scheme
- The taking is done with or without intent to gain
- The taking is accomplished with or without violence or intimidation against person or force upon things. (Pil-Ey vs. People, G.R. No. 154941, July 9, 2007)
DEEMED AS AN AMENDMENT OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
However, as we have declared in Canta, the computation of the penalty should be in accordance with our discussion in People v. Macatanda (195 SCRA 604), which we quote herein for emphasis, thus:
We do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. No. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribed in the Revised Penal Code, which is not for penalties as are ordinarily imposed in special laws, the intent seems clear that P.D. 533 shall be deemed as an amendment of the Revised Penal Code, with respect to the offense of theft of large cattle (Art. 310), or otherwise to be subject to applicable provisions thereof such as Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code on civil liability of the offender, a provision which is not found in the decree, but which could not have been intended to be discarded or eliminated by the decree. Article 64 of the same Code should, likewise, be applicable x x x.
Hence, in the instant case, considering that neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as maximum. We, thus, modify the minimum penalty imposed by the trial court to be four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional. (Pil-Ey vs. People, G.R. No. 154941, July 9, 2007)
R.A. 7080: AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER
JURISPRUDENCE:
In the case of DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and REPUBLIC it was held by the Supreme Court that “The action of forfeiture arises when a “public officer or employee [acquires] during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion of his salary x x x and to his other lawful income x x x.” Such amount of property is then presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. Thus, “if the respondent [public official] is unable to show to the satisfaction of he court hat he has lawfully acquired the property in question, then the court shall declare such property forfeited in favor of the State, and by virtue of such judgment the property aforesaid shall become property forfeited in favor of the Stat.”
FRATERNITIES, SORORITIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFORE.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8049.
Purpose:
Its purpose is to prevent the increasing number of deaths due to hazing and other forms of initiation rites.
CONDITIONS OF A LEGAL HAZING OR INTITIATION RITES:
No hazing or initiation rites in any form or manner by a fraternity, sorority or organization seven (7) days before the conduct of such initiations. The written notice shall indicate the period of the initiation activities which shall not exceed three (3) days, shall include the names of those to be subjected to such activities, and shall further contain an undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites.
DECREE PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES (P.D. 1829)
Purpose:
As stated in the law, its purpose is to discourage public indifference or apathy towards the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders, it is necessary to penalize acts which obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct or frustrate the successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders.
Agpalo Legal Ethics, UP Law Center, 1980 Edition. Pp.405-406)
Acts which amount to obstruction in the administration of justice may take many forms. They include such acts as instructing a complaining witness in a criminal action not to appear at the scheduled hearing so that the case against the client, the accused, would be dismissed. (Cantorne vs. Ducasin supra) asking a client to plead guilty to a crime which the lawyer knows his client did not commit, (Nueno v. Santos, 58 Phil. 557 [1933]) advising a client who is detained for a crime to escape from prison, (Cf. Medina v. Yan, G.R. No. 30978, Sept. 30, 1974), employing dilatory tactics to frustrate satisfaction of clearly valid claims, Pajares vs. Abad Santos, G.R. No. 29543, Nove. 20, 1969, 30 SCRA 748) prosecuting clearly frivolous cases as appeals to drain the resources of the other party and compel him to submit out of exhaustion (Samar Mining Co. vs. Arnado, GR No. 22304, July 30, 1968) and finding multiple petitions or complaints for cause that has been previously rejected in the false expectation of getting favorable action. (Gabriel vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 43757, July 30, 1976, 72 SCRA 173; Ramos vs. Potenciano, G.R. No. 27104, Dec. 20, 1976, 74 SCRA 345; Macias v. Uy Kim, G.R. No. 31174, May 30, 1972, 45 SCRA 251) Acts of this or similar nature are grounds for disciplinary action.”
JURISPRUDENCE:
Posadas vs. Ombudsman, (GR No. 131492, 29 September 2000)
In this case, certain officials of the University of the Philippines (UP) were charged for violating PD 1829. The UP officers objected to the warrantless arrest of certain students by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). According to the Supreme Court, the police had no ground for the warrantless arrest. The UP Officers, therefore, had a right to prevent the arrest of the students at the time because their attempted arrest was illegal. The “need to enforce the law cannot be justified by sacrificing constitutional rights.”
Enrile vs. Hon. Amin, (G.R. No. 93335, Sept. 13, 1990)
In this case, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile was charged under PD 1829, for allegedly accommodating Col. Gregorio Honasan by giving him food and comfort on 1 December 1989 in his house. “Knowing that Colonel Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen. Enrile allegedly did not do anything to have Honasan arrested or apprehended.” The Supreme Court ruled that Sen. Enrile could not be separately charged under PD 1829, as this is absorbed in the charge of rebellion already filed against Sen. Enrile.
