Cited Laws
Accordingly, the CA issued a freeze order against the Ligots and Yambaos various bank accounts, web accounts and vehicles, valid for a period of 20 days from the date of issuance. On July 26, 2005, the Republic filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of Effectivity of Freeze Order, arguing that if the bank accounts, web accounts and vehicles were not continuously frozen, they could be placed beyond the reach of law enforcement authorities and the governments efforts to recover the proceeds of the Ligots unlawful activities would be frustrated. In support of its motion, it informed the CA that the Ombudsman was presently investigating the following cases involving the Ligots: Case Number Complainant(s) Nature OMB-P-C-05-0523 Wilfredo Garrido Plunder OMB-P-C-05-0003 AGIO Gina Villamor, et al. Perjury OMB-P-C-05-0184 Field Investigation Office Violation of RA No. 3019, Section 3(b); Perjury under Article 183, Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 11 of RA No. 6713; Forfeiture Proceedings in Relation to RA No. 1379 OMB-P-C-05-0352 David Odilao Malicious Mischief; Violation of Section 20, RA No. 7856 Finding merit in the Republics arguments, the CA granted the motion in its September 20, 2005 resolution, extending the freeze order until after all the appropriate proceedings and/or investigations have been terminated . On September 28, 2005, the Ligots filed a motion to lift the extended freeze order, principally arguing that there was no evidence to support the extension of the freeze order. They further argued that the extension not only deprived them of their property without due process; it also punished them before their guilt could be proven. The appellate court subsequently denied this motion in its January 4, 2006 resolution. Meanwhile, on November 15, 2005, the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset Preservation, and Freezing of Monetary Instrument, Property, or Proceeds Representing, Involving, or Relating to an Unlawful Activity or Money Laundering Offense under Republic Act No. 9160, as Amended [23] ( Rule in Civil Forfeiture Cases ) took effect. Under this rule, a freeze order could be extended for a maximum period of six months . On January 31, 2006, the Ligots filed a motion for reconsideration of the CAs January 4, 2006 resolution, insisting that the freeze order should be lifted considering: (a) no predicate crime has been proven to support the freeze orders issuance; (b) the freeze order expired six months after it was issued on July 5, 2005; and (c) the freeze order is provisional in character and not intended to supplant a case for money laundering. When the CA denied this motion in its resolution dated January 12, 2007, the Ligots filed the present petition. THE PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS Lt. Gen. Ligot argues that the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it extended the freeze order issued against him and his family even though no predicate crime