[ G.R. No. 224945.

October 11, 2022 ]

GIRLIE J. LINGAD, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

LEONEN, SAJ.:

Doctrine: Money laundering is committed when the proceeds of an unlawful activity expressly
listed under the Anti-Money Laundering Act are transacted, transferred, or moved, and are made
to appear as though they originated from legitimate sources. The prosecution for the money
laundering offense can proceed independently of the prosecution of the related unlawful activity,
but particular elements of that unlawful activity must still be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts: Lingad was employed in UCPB from 1994 until 2004. Before she left UCPB, she was a
marketing associate and branch marketing officer trainee. She handled the opening, terminating,
and withdrawing of client accounts and placements. Her position gave her access to the bank's
computer system. In 2004, Lingad went on absence without official leave. Later, UCPB requested
the Anti-Money Laundering Council to conduct a fact-finding investigation on her transactions.
The Council discovered that Lingad had processed four anomalous transactions and left for the
United States. The anomalous transactions consisted of unauthorized withdrawals and
preterminations of money market placements with the money transferred to accounts in the
names of MV2 Telecoms and Lingad's brother.

2006, an Information was filed against Lingad charging her with a violation of Section 4(a) of
Republic Act No. 9160 alleging that she committed the offense of money laundering by means of
pre-terminating various accounts of clients without the knowledge and consent of the latter and
thereafter crediting the proceeds thereof to fictitious accounts or using the proceeds of pre
terminated accounts to fund maturing accounts earlier pre-terminated without clients' knowledge
and consent. the Anti-Money Laundering Council's investigation revealed that Lingad issued
several manager's checks with no sufficient funds and processed unauthorized withdrawals or
preterminations of money market and similar placements.

RTC: found Lingad guilty of violating Section 4(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act by committing
qualified theft and transacting some of its proceeds to make them appear to have come from
legitimate sources.

CA: affirmed the RTC’s Decision.

Lingad filed the Petition for Review on Certiorari arguing that the prosecution failed to prove that
she is guilty of violating Section 4(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act. She claims that she is not
the culprit as she was not an officer and could not unilaterally approve any transaction. All
transactions she processed were reviewed by a superior, adding that her User and Teller IDs
could have been used by another employee. On the other hand the People of the Philippines,
argues that all the elements of qualified theft and money laundering were proven when it was
shown that petitioner had preterminated and withdrawn funds from the accounts of UCPB's clients
without their knowledge. Respondent notes that as a marketing associate, she had access and
authority to effect transactions under clients' accounts; her claims on who actually did it are
unfounded. Respondent also argues that petitioner's other acts further establish her guilt: placing
a sticky substance on the terminals of her office desktop and deleting relevant data to cover her
tracks, going on absence without leave, flying abroad without settling her accountabilities, and
being extradited from the United States.

Issue: WON petitioner Girlie J. Lingad is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4(a)
of the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

Ruling: The court affirms the conviction. At the time petitioner was tried for the offense in 2006,
money laundering pertained to the transacting of proceeds of an unlawful activity to make it
appear to have originated from legitimate sources.

Money laundering generally involves a predicate offense. A predicate offense is a crime that is a
component of another offense. In money laundering, the predicate offense is usually an unlawful
activity that generates proceeds of money or property. In this case, for instance, the predicate
offense was qualified theft.

However, the predicate offense in money laundering is distinct from the offense of money
laundering, such that the two offenses may be prosecuted in separate criminal actions. This Court
takes this occasion to clarify the distinction between the money laundering offense and the
unlawful activity from which the proceeds come.

Republic Act No. 10365, which amended the Anti-Money Laundering Act in 2013, explicitly states
that the prosecution of the money laundering offense shall proceed independently of any action
relating to the unlawful activity:

SECTION 5. Section 6 (a) of [Republic Act No. 9160 is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 6. Prosecution of Money Laundering. —

(a) Any person may be charged with and convicted of both the offense of money
laundering and the unlawful activity as herein defined.

(b) The prosecution of any offense or violation under this Act shall proceed
independently of any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity. (Emphasis
supplied)
The elements of each offense are distinct. Thus, the "elements of the unlawful activity, including
the identity of the perpetrators and the details of the commission of the unlawful activity, need not
be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt in the case for [money laundering]":

SECTION 4. Prosecution of Money Laundering Cases. —

4.1. Independent Proceedings.

The prosecutions of ML and the associated unlawful activity shall proceed independently.
Any person may be charged with and convicted of both ML and the associated unlawful
activity.

4.2. Separate and Distinct Elements.

The elements of ML are separate and distinct from the elements of the associated unlawful
activity. The elements of the unlawful activity, including the identity of the perpetrators and
the details of the commission of the unlawful activity, need not be established by proof
beyond reasonable doubt in the case for ML.

4.3. Knowledge.

The element of knowledge may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. The

However, the unlawful activity involved and the money laundering itself may or may not involve
the same perpetrators. To recall, what is punished as an offense under the Anti-Money Laundering
Act is the act of laundering the proceeds of an unlawful activity. These predicate or related crimes
are offenses that involve proceeds—any amount or type of money or property—that can be
laundered. Section 3(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act defines proceeds as "an amount
derived or realized from an unlawful activity." In turn, Section 4 of the law only provides that one
commits money laundering when they transact the proceeds knowing that this came from an
unlawful activity. It does not require that the money launderer should have committed the unlawful
activity. It only states that the money launderer should have known that the proceeds came from
an unlawful activity. The offense likewise does not require the identity of the persons who commit
the unlawful activity; it only requires that the proceeds come from such activity.

A reading of the listed unlawful activities and the nature of money laundering reveals that money
laundering may involve a situation where the predicate unlawful activity is not necessarily
committed by the money launderer. The unlawful activity may be a separate crime, possibly
committed by a different person.

Nonetheless, this Court highlights that an element of the money laundering offense is that the
money or property involved constitutes proceeds from an unlawful activity. Necessarily, it must
still be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the money or property forms proceeds from an
unlawful activity.
Thus, while the criminal action for the unlawful activity may proceed independently of the money
laundering charge, and the guilt of the person who committed the unlawful activity need not be
determined first, it must still be proven that the money or property in the money laundering offense
is proceeds from an unlawful activity. This entails proving beyond reasonable doubt particular
elements of that unlawful activity.

The predicate offenses in money laundering differ from the predicate offenses of other crimes,
such as plunder or terrorism. Here, petitioner is only being prosecuted for the offense of money
laundering. While the lower courts found that petitioner also committed the separate predicate
offense of qualified theft, petitioner shall only be convicted for the offense of money laundering.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.