The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the asset preservation order (APO) issued by the Manila trial court against the P15.5 million in bank accounts of a husband and wife and their two firms which were allegedly being used as “pass-through” accounts for proceeds in illegal drugs operation.

In a 13-page decision written by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin made public last May 26, affirmed by the CA was the APO issued by the Manila regional trial court (RTC) against spouses Annie Faustino Co and Jacky Mateo Ty, and Crystalline Trading (CT) and CRS Foreign Exchange (CRS).

The RTC had denied the spouses motion to lift the APO in a resolution issued on April 22, 2024. They elevated the case before the CA.

On Dec. 14, 2011, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) filed a civil forfeiture case with a plea for the issuance of APO against 39 respondents, the spouses and the two firms included.

The AMLC case was filed for alleged violations of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

The council told the RTC that the bank accounts were being used as “pass-through” accounts to funnel the proceeds from the manufacturing and illegal trading of dangerous drugs.

The spouses denied the allegations. They told the trial court that Annie is the sole proprietor of CT and CRS which were issued registrations and licenses to operate by appropriate government agencies.

Despite the spouses’ protests, the Manila RTC issued on Jan. 5, 2012 an APO which directed them to refrain from transacting or disposing any account from the identified bank accounts.

In their CA petition, the spouses told the appellate court that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion. They said that more than a decade had passed since the civil case was filed and the government had not pursued it diligently.

At the same time, they told the CA that their bank accounts were not used or related to any unlawful activity.

Representing the trial court and the AMLC, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) told the CA that the spouses and their two firms “failed to overturn the finding of probable cause that the accounts subject of the civil forfeiture case are related in any way to illegal drug activities and/or money laundering inasmuch as they did not present any evidence to explain how their bank accounts became involved in the criminal cases….”

Also, the OSG said that the spouses failed to validate or submit proof to show that “the billions of transfers made through their bank accounts were pursuant to legitimate or ordinary business transactions.”

In resolving the issue, the CA said: “Here, petitioners argue that the material allegations are false, and that their properties are not in any manner connected with the alleged unlawful activity. On the other hand, the OSG claims that the AMLC provided sufficient evidence to support the finding of probable cause that the accounts and other properties subject of the civil forfeiture proceedings are connected in any way to illegal drug activities and/or money laundering.”

At the same time, the CA said: “Further, the issuance of an APO is only to secure the funds contained in the subject accounts which have a total balance of P15,592,911.76 and $501.04. The amount is minuscule considering the money involved in the alleged illegal activities and/or money laundering amounting to billions of pesos, or a total of P3,168,487,831.”

The CA ruled: “With respect to the lifting of the APO, the Supreme Court has already ruled that once the same has been issued, the burden shifts to herein petitioners to prove that the bank accounts are not related to money laundering and/or illegal activities.

“Here, petitioners admitted that while it received its last correspondence in January 2013, they waited for 10 years before they requested to check the records of the case then filed an Omnibus Motion to Discharge Asset Preservation Order on 09 June 2023, without previously filing any motion to expedite proceedings. “

“Finding that the RTC correctly denied petitioners’ Omnibus Motion to Discharge Asset Preservation Order for their failure to prove that the transactions came from legitimate sources, the allegation that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction has no merit.

“Wherefore, the instant Petition for Certiorari is dismissed. The Orders dated 05 October 2023 and dated 22 April 2024 issued by the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 46, Manila City in AMLA Case No. 11-006-22 are Affirmed.”