The Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed a forfeiture case filed against the bank accounts and properties of a veterinarian accused of plotting against then-President Rodrigo Duterte.

In a 22-page decision penned by Associate Justice Mary Charlene Hernandez-Azura, the CA’s Seventh Division also nullified the asset preservation order (APO) issued by the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) on 20 December 2021.

The lower court’s order covered 26 bank accounts and six real properties belonging to Bryan Constantino Ta-ala and several others who were allegedly recipients of money laundering proceeds.

The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) filed the civil forfeiture case before the Makati RTC after Ta-ala was arrested in 2016 for gun smuggling along with another suspect, Wilfred Palma.

The Department of Justice later charged Ta-ala with violating Section 28 of Republic Act 10591 (illegal possession of a small firearm) before the Bacolod RTC, and Section 33 of the same law (arms smuggling).

In 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed the criminal cases against him.

In their CA petition, Ta-ala and his co-respondents argued that the Makati RTC committed grave abuse of discretion and lacked jurisdiction for failing to dismiss the civil forfeiture case due to improper venue and defective verification.

They claimed that since all the bank accounts were located in Bacolod City, the case should have been filed there. The government countered that the venue was proper in Makati City, where the banks’ head offices are based.

The petitioners also said the trial court erred in issuing the APO and in disregarding the Supreme Court ruling that cleared Ta-ala of the criminal charges.

In siding with the petitioners, the CA stressed that under the Rules of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, such petitions must be filed in a regional trial court where the assets are located.

Section 3 of the rules states that venue lies “in any regional trial court of the judicial region where the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds representing, involving, or relating to an unlawful activity or to a money laundering offense are located.”

The CA noted that the Supreme Court, in Republic v. Glasgow, ruled that “location” refers to the place where “the account sought to be forfeited is situated.”

“Therefore, the proper venue of the petition for civil forfeiture is any RTC within the judicial region covering Bacolod City where the subject bank accounts are located,” the court declared.

It added that the Makati RTC’s “blatant” disregard of the rule’s definition of “located” constituted grave abuse of discretion, justifying the petition’s grant.