ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT (RA 9160), AS AMENDED BY RA 9194 (a) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument

hat any monetary instrument or property represents,

involves, or relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts
Approved on September 29, 2001 to transacts said monetary instrument or property. No case for money laundering may be filed against and no assets shall be frozen,
attached or forfeited to the prejudice of a candidate for an electoral office during an
election period.

What is the purpose of this Act?
To protect and preserve the integrity and confidentiality of bank accounts and to
ensure that the Philippines shall not be used as a money laundering site for the
proceeds of any unlawful activity. Consistent with its foreign policy, the State shall
extend cooperation in transnational investigations and prosecutions of persons
involved in money laundering activities wherever committed.
What is a Money Laundering offense?
It is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity as herein defined are
transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate
sources.
What are Unlawful Activities?
Any act or omission or series or combination thereof involving or having direct
relation to following:
(1) Kidnapping for ransom
(2) Violations under the Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002
(3) Violations under Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
(4) Plunder
(b) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property involves the
proceeds of any unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act as a result of
which he falicitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraph (a) What will govern the restitution for the aggrieved party?
above.
The provisions of the New Civil Code.
(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), Penalty:
fails to do so.
(a) Penalties for the Crime of Money Laundering. - The penalty of imprisonment
ranging from seven (7) to fourteen (14) years and a fine of not less than Three
Million Philippine pesos (PhP3,000,000.00) but not more than twice the value of the
What court has competent jurisdiction over a money laundering offense? monetary instrument or property involved in the offense, shall be imposed upon a
person convicted under Section 4(a) of this Act.
The regional trial courts shall have jurisdiction to try all cases on money laundering.
Those committed by public officers and private persons who are in conspiracy with
such public officers shall be under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
The penalty of imprisonment from four (4) to seven (7) years and a fine of not less
than One million five hundred thousand Philippine pesos (PhP1,500,000.00) but
not more than Three million Philippine pesos (PhP3,000,000.00), shall be imposed
May a person be charged with and convicted of both the offense of money upon a person convicted under Section 4(b) of this Act.
laundering and the unlawful activity as herein defined?
Yes.
The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) months to four (4) years or a fine of not
less than One hundred thousand Philippine pesos (PhP100,000.00) but not more
than Five hundred thousand Philippine pesos (PhP500,000.00), or both, shall be
Suppose that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to imposed on a person convicted under Section 4(c) of this Act.
an unlawful activity?

(5) Robbery and extortion The Court of Appeals, upon application ex parte by the AMLC and after
determination that probable cause exists may issue a freeze order which shall be (b) Penalties for Failure to Keep Records. - The penalty of imprisonment from six
(6) Jueteng and Masiao effective immediately. The freeze order shall be for a period of 20 days unless (6) months to one (1) year or a fine of not less than One hundred thousand
extended by the court. Philippine pesos (PhP100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand
(7) Piracy on the high seas Philippine pesos (PhP500,000.00), or both, shall be imposed on a person
convicted under Section 9(b) of this Act.
(8) Qualified theft
May the AMLC inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment?
(9) Swindling
Yes. But only upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act, (c) Malicious Reporting. - Any person who, with malice, or in bad faith, reports or
(10) Smuggling when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or files a completely unwarranted or false information relative to money laundering
investments are related to an unlawful activities or a money laundering offense. transaction against any person shall be subject to a penalty of six (6) months to four
(11) Violations under the E-Commerce Act of 2000;
(4) years imprisonment and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand
Exceptions: Unlawful activities defined in numbers (1), (2) and (12). Philippine pesos (PhP100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand
(12) Hijacking and other violations under Republic Act No. 6235; destructive arson
Philippine pesos (PhP500,000.00), at the discretion of the court: Provided, That the
and murder, including those perpetrated by terrorists against non-combatant
offender is not entitled to avail the benefits of the Probation Law.
persons and similar targets;
May the BSP do the same inquiry and examination of any deposit or
(13) Fraudulent practices and other violations under Securities Regulation Code of investment?
2000
If the offender is a corporation, association, partnership or any juridical person, the
Yes. When the examination is made in the course of a periodic or special penalty shall be imposed upon the responsible officers, as the case may be, who
(14) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature that are punishable under the penal examination, in accordance with the rules of examination of the BSP. participated in the commission of the crime or who shall have knowingly permitted
laws of other countries.
or failed to prevent its commission. If the offender is a juridical person, the court
may suspend or revoke its license. If the offender is an alien, he shall, in addition to
the penalties herein prescribed, be deported without further proceedings after
May this Act be used as a means of political harassment?
Who can be guilty of money laundering offense? serving the penalties herein prescribed. If the offender is a public official or
employee, he shall, in addition to the penalties prescribed herein, suffer perpetual
Of course not. This Act shall not be used for political persecution or harassment or
or temporary absolute disqualification from office, as the case may be.
as an instrument to hamper competition in trade and commerce.

Any public official or employee who is called upon to testify and refuses to do the
same or purposely fails to testify shall suffer the same penalties prescribed herein.
(d) Breach of Confidentiality. - The punishment of imprisonment ranging from three
(3) to eight (8) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand Philippine
pesos (PhP500,000.00) but not more than One million Philippine pesos
(PhP1,000,000.00), shall be imposed on a person convicted for a violation under
Section 9(c).
PLUNDER (RA 7080)
Approved on July 12, 1991
Who can be guilty of Plunder?
1) 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 criminal acts in the aggregate amount or total value
of at least P50 million.
2) Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an
offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such
offense.
What is Ill-gotten wealth?
Any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person,
acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents,
subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of specific
or similar criminal means or schemes.
How is ill-gotten wealth acquired?
1) Misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation : Public funds or raids on
the public treasury
2) Receive (directly or indirectly) in connection with any government contract or
project or by reason of the office or position : Commission, gift, share, percentage,
kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity
3) Illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition : Assets of the Government or any
of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or GOCCs and their subsidiaries
4) Obtaining, receiving or accepting (directly or indirectly) in any business
enterprise or undertaking : Shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or
participation including promise of future employment
5) Establishing the ff. to benefit particular persons or special interests : Agricultural,
industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation
of decrees and orders
6) Taking undue advantage of the ff. to unjustly enrich himself at the expense and
to the damage and prejudice of the country and its citizens : Official position,
authority, relationship, connection or influence
What must be the total value or aggregate amount of ill-gotten wealth?
At least P50 Million.
What is the penalty?
Reclusion perpetua to death.
How is the penalty determined?
In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of
mitigating circumstances shall be considered by the court.
What shall happen to the ill-gotten wealth?
Any or all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets
including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or
investment thereof shall be forfeited in favor of the State.
Who is a Public Officer?
Any person holding any public office in the Philippine Government by virtue of an
appointment, election or contract.
What is the scope of the Government?
It includes the National Government, and any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities, including GOCCs and their subsidiaries.
What is a Person?
It includes any natural or juridical person, unless the context indicates otherwise.
Which court has competent jurisdiction over plunder cases?
The Sandiganbayan in its original jurisdiction, until otherwise provided by law.
How is the crime of plunder established by means of evidence?
It shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused.
It is sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal
acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.
Will the public officer accused of plunder be suspended from office?
Yes. Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid
information under this Act in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation,
is pending in court, shall be suspended from office.
What happens if he is convicted by final judgment?
He shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law.
If acquitted?
He shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and other benefits which he
failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime, administrative
proceedings have been filed against him.
Is plunder prescriptible?
Yes. It shall prescribe in 20 years. However, the right of the State to recover
properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or from their nominees
or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
BP.22 DOES NOT COVER MANAGER’S CHECK AND CASHIER’S CHECK. It is
as good as the money it represents and is therefore deemed as cash.
BP.22 COVERS ACCOMODATION OR GUARANTEE CHECK.
BP.22 COVERS CROSSED CHECK since it is a negotiable instrument. It falls
within the coverage of BP. 22.
The Supreme Court ruled that BP. 22 considers the mere act of issuing an
unfunded check as an offense not only against property but also against public
order to stem the harm caused by these bouncing checks to the community. (Mitra
vs. People, July 05, 2010)
THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSPIRACY UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE IS
APPLICABLE IN BP.22 WHICH IS A SPECIAL LAW.
A. WAYS BY WHICH VIOLATION OF BP. 22 ARE COMMITTED.
The gravamen of the offense punished by Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 is the act
of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its
presentation for payment – It is not the nonpayment of the obligation which the law
punishes. The mere act of issuing a worthless check – whether as a deposit, as a
guarantee or even as evidence of pre-existing debt – is malum prohibitum.
THE ELEMENTS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1 OF BP.22 ARE
AS FOLLOWS:
1. The accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to account or for value;
2. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have
sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in
full upon its presentment .
There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds when the
check was presented within 90 days from the date appearing on the check and was
dishonored unless:
a. such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon within 5
banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the
drawee, or
b. makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within (5)
banking days after receiving notice of non-payment.
Is the 90 day-period to deposit the check an element of BP 22?
No. That the check must be deposited within ninety (90) days is simply one of the
conditions for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds to arise,
but it is not an element of the offense, and neither does it discharge the accused
from his duty to maintain sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time
thereof. (Nagrarnpa vs. People, 386 SCRA 412).
The notice of dishonor of a check may be sent to the drawer or maker, by the
drawee bank, the
holder of the check, or the offended party. (Ambito vs. People, 579 SCRA 68,
February 13, 2009)
ELEMENTS OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1 OF BP.22.
This way of violating B.P.22 suggests that at the time the check was issued, the
issuer had sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank. However, the check
was dishonored when presented for payment within 90 days from its date for failure
to maintain sufficient funds or credit to cover the amount. The elements are as
follows:
a) any person, makes or draws and issues a check;
b) such person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank;
c) failure to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of
the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date
appearing thereon;
d) for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
COMPARISON OF VIOLATION OF BP 22 FROM ESTAFA UNDER PAR. 2 [D],
ARTICLE 315, OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
First, the elements of estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the RPC are (1)
the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the
time the check was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
(3) damage to the payee. (Cajigas vs. People, 580 SCRA 54, February 23, 2009)
For violation of the “Bouncing Check Law”, deceit and damage are not essential or
required. The essential element of the offense is knowledge on the part of the
maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his funds. The gravamen of the
offense is the issuance of a bad check, not the non-payment of an obligation.
Second, Article 315, Par.2 (d) is a crime against property because the issuance of
the check is used as a means to obtain a valuable consideration from the payee.
On the other hand, in BP. 22, the mere act of issuing an unfunded check is an
offense against public order to stem the harm caused by these bouncing checks to
the community. (Mitra vs. People, July 05, 2010).
Third, in estafa, the failure of the drawer to deposit the amount necessary to secure
payment of the check within 3 days from receipt of notice from the bank and or the
payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of
funds is prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
In B.P. 22, the failure of the drawer to pay in full the payee or holder within 5
banking days after receiving notice that the check has been rejected by the drawee
bank gives rise to presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit.
Fourth, in estafa, the check is issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation to
defraud the creditor.
In B.P. 22, the check is issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation.
Fifth, in estafa, an endorser who is with knowledge that the check is worthless and
had acted with deceit is liable.
In B.P. 22, the persons liable are the maker, drawer and the issuer but not an
endorser.
Lastly, since estafa is mala in se, good faith is a proper defense.
B.P. 22 is mala prohibitum, it is punished by a special law and therefore, good faith
is not a defense.
“SIMULTANEOUS OBLIGATION” FROM “PRE-EXISTING” OBLIGATION.
“Simultaneous obligation” as an element of estafa connotes that the issuance of a
check is used as a means to obtain valuable consideration from the payee. Deceit
is the efficient cause for defraudation. To defraud is to deprive some right, interest,
or property by deceitful devise. (People vs.Quesada, 60 Phil. 515)
In the issuance of a check in payment of a “pre-existing obligation”, the drawer
derives no material benefit in return as its consideration had long been delivered to
him before the check was issued. Since an obligation has already been contracted,
the accused in this case obtain nothing when he issued the check, his debt for the
payment thereof had been contracted prior to its issuance.
There is deceit when one is misled -- by guile, trickery or by other means - to
believe as true what is really false. (Dy vs. People, 571 SCRA 59, November 14,
2008)
Damage as an element of estafa may consist in (1) the offended party being
deprived of his money or property as a result of the defraudation; (2) disturbance in
property right; or (3) temporary prejudice. (Nagrampa vs. People, 386 SCRA 412).
To constitute estafa, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of
obligation must be the efficient cause of defraudation and, as such, it should be
either prior to, or simultaneous with, the act of fraud. (Nagrampa vs. People, 386
SCRA 412)
A PERSON MAY BE BOTH LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF B.P. 22 AND ANOTHER
PROVISION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
The filing of a criminal case under B.P. 22 shall not prejudice any liability arising
from a felony committed under the Revised Penal Code.
B. DEFENSES IN BP. 22
WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE DEFENSES IN B.P. 22?
1. The presentation of the registry card, with an unauthorized signature, does not
meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner received such
noticed, especially considering that he denied receiving it. (Suarez v. People 555,
SCRA 238, June 19, 2008)
2. Presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds is not conclusive as it may be
rebutted by full payment. (Tan vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank 552
SCRA 532, April 23, 2008)
3. Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued
a check that was subsequently dishonored. It must also establish that the accused
was actually notified that the check was dishonored, and that he or she failed,
within five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice, to pay the holder of the check
the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment.
4. Prescription is a proper defense. The prescriptive period is 4 years reckoned
from the lapse of the five (5) banking days from notice of dishonor within which to
make good the check.
5. Forgery of the signature appearing on the check (Ilusorio vs. Court of Appeals,
353 SCRA 89)
An agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the
prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. (Dreamwork Construction,
Inc. v. Janiola 591 SCRA 466, June 30, 2009)
LACK OF VALUABLE CONSIDERATION is not A PROPER DEFENSE IN 1. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an alternative
VIOLATION OF B.P. 22. penalty for violations of B.P. Blg. 22;

(Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiola 591 SCRA 466, June 30, 2009)
NOVATION is not A PROPER DEFENSE IN B.P. 22.
IS “STOP PAYMENT” A PROPER DEFENSE IN BP. 22?
PAYMENT” or countermand, yet if it was clear from the statement of account that
the check bounced due to insufficiency of funds, the drawer of the check is still
liable.Chang vs. IAC, 146 SCRA 46 BAR Q. [2002]
2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into
consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether the
imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or whether
forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the
offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the
imperatives of justice;
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine, there is
no to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary
imprisonment.

C. CORPORATION IN RELATION TO BP. 22

Section 1 of the law provides: “Where the check is drawn by a corporation,

company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of
such drawer shall be liable

The officer who is accused of signing the check must receive the notice of dishonor.
Constructive

notice to the corporation, who has a separate personality from its officer, is not
enough.

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000 refers to the imposition of penalties

for violation of B.P. 22. It provides:

Court has not decriminalized B.P. 22 violations, nor have removed imprisonment
as an alternative penalty.

Needless to say, the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the

imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the judge. Should the judge decide that
imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000
ought not to be deemed a hindrance. (Lunaria vs. People, 5701 SCRA 572,
November 11, 2008).

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13-2001 is a circular addressed to all judges

which clarifies Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 on the penalty for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. It provides:

The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 is not to
remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference
in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22.

The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the possibility of
imprisonment for violations of B.P. 22. Neither does it defeat the legislative intent
behind the law.

Thus, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference in the

application of the penal provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such that where the
circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a
clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone
should be considered as the more appropriate penalty.

It is, therefore, understood that: