CA junks forfeiture case vs former NBI official linked to ‘pastillas’ scam

The Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed the forfeiture case filed by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) against a former high-ranking official of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and several others over their alleged involvement in the controversial “pastillas” scam.

The case involved nine bank accounts under the name of a former NBI Legal Assistance Section chief, his brother which is a former immigration officer and other family members.

The forfeiture case was initially filed before the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City in 2023, three years after the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed criminal charges for robbery, extortion, and graft against the Capiral brothers. The brothers were accused of extorting money from immigration personnel allegedly involved in the pastillas scheme in exchange for clearing their names.

In 2020, they were arrested by agents of the NBI during an entrapment operation while receiving marked money amounting to P200,000.

However, in January 2022, the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 18 dismissed the graft charges against the brothers for lack of evidence. The court also dismissed the robbery and extortion cases filed against them.

Despite this, the AMLC pursued the forfeiture case, claiming it found probable cause to believe that the bank accounts received proceeds from money laundering activities. The agency pointed to significant deposits and withdrawals, ranging from over P14 million to more than P2 million between 2016 and 2020.

According to the AMLC, transactions in the bank accounts showed criminal activity because they involved large, unexplained sums of money that did not correspond to their declared incomes.

In a decision issued on 17 March 2023, the Muntinlupa RTC ruled in favor of AMLC and ordered the forfeiture of the remaining P138,835 in the subject bank accounts. The court held that the transactions were beyond the declared sources of income of the suspects, who worked as an NBI lawyer and an immigration officer.

The brothers elevated the case to the CA, seeking the reversal of the RTC’s decision. They argued that the forfeiture case could not stand after the criminal charges against them were dismissed. They further contended that the inquiry into their bank accounts from 2016 to 2020 had no legal basis, considering that the government had admitted that the pastillas scheme started only in September 2020.

In reversing the Muntinlupa RTC ruling, the CA held that the AMLC failed to present sufficient evidence to support its claim that the brothers were engaged in unlawful activity or money laundering.

“It was not established by preponderance of evidence that the appellants participated in any unlawful activity or a money laundering offense in relation to the so-called pastillas scheme,” the CA said.

The appellate court explained that while the amounts involved were disproportionate to the brothers incomes, the AMLC still failed to establish a clear link between the funds and any unlawful activity.

“The deficiencies in the investigation compel this Court to make unwarranted leaps of logic, rely on presumptions, and construct inferences upon other inferences merely to fill the evidentiary gaps in the Republic’s case to justify the deprivation or restriction in the property rights of the appellants,” the CA stated.

“It bears repeating that there is no preponderance of evidence established by the Republic in the case at bench to warrant the forfeiture of the amounts in the subject bank accounts of the appellants in favor of the State,” it added.