CA stops AMLC bid to forfeit P.5M seized from ‘terror financing’ convicts

The Court of Appeals (CA) has prevented the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) from forfeiting over half a million pesos seized from community journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio and church worker Marielle Domequil accused of supporting communist insurgents during a crackdown on activists in 2020.

Citing lack of merit, the appellate court’s Third Division again denied the petition filed by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to seek the reversal of the court’s October 2025 ruling that found no factual and legal basis to forfeit the P557,360 confiscated by authorities from the two women during their arrest in Tacloban City.

Cumpio and Domequil were among five activists, collectively known as the “Tacloban 5,” who were arrested in simultaneous raids on Feb. 7, 2020, in Tacloban.

The Tacloban Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 45 last month affirmed its conviction of Cumpio and Domequil on charges of financing terrorism after finding no reversible error or compelling reason to overturn its Jan. 22, 2025, decision.

The trial court relied on the prosecution’s witnesses who the court said had provided “credible” testimonies on the supposed provision of funds and supplies to communist New People’s Army (NPA) rebels.

The charge stemmed from allegations from the police that Cumpio and Domequil traveled to Catbalogan City, Samar, on March 29, 2019, where they allegedly gave cash and ammunition to the rebels.

Proper designation

The CA ruling upholds its October 2025 decision, which overturned the 2022 decision of the Manila RTC ordering the forfeiture of the money confiscated from Cumpio and Domequil when they were arrested.

In its motion for reconsideration, the AMLC told the CA that the bid for civil forfeiture was governed by the provisions of Republic Act No. 10168, or the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012—not the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020.

The council argued that the 2012 law does not require that the individuals in a civil forfeiture case be designated as terrorists.

But in its five-page decision promulgated on April 13, the CA pointed out that the petition for civil forfeiture was filed in December 2020, or five months after the ATA law took effect.

This means that the pleading was covered by the ATA’s provision on properly designating terrorists, which is necessary before the government could take over their assets in relation to antiterrorism laws.

“The court, as discussed in the assailed decision, is of the view that a prior and proper designation, or judicial proscription is indispensable to any forfeiture action that is filed in relation to antiterrorism laws,” read the ruling penned by Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas Jr.

“Without a proper designation or proscription, the state has no business meddling with the assets of a private individual who is not shown to be connected to any terrorist activity, as defined under the ATA,” it added.

Not on terror list

The appellate court also said that it found “no proof” that Cumpio and Domequil were involved in “any suspicious financial activity.”

See Also

Artemis crew flying home to thrilled Nasa

The names of the two activists, the CA noted, are not included in any lists designating them as terrorists under Presidential Proclamation No. 374, which the AMLC cited in its appeal.

The lawyers for the two women could not immediately be reached to comment on whether the CA ruling would affect their conviction of terrorism financing.

Then President Rodrigo Duterte issued the proclamation, which tagged the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing, the NPA, as terrorists in 2017.

The testimonies of the petitioner’s witnesses, Lex Bustillo and Jason Rafalles, were given little weight by the CA because they were “uncorroborated,” and thus, could not be regarded as an appropriate designation of the activists as supposed terrorists, the appellate court said.

The testimonies of the witnesses “do not meet the strict requirements under the ATA and ATA-IRR (implementing rules and regulations),” the CA said.

The assertions and narrations of both witnesses, who claimed to have personal knowledge of the alleged involvement of Cumpio and Domequil, should be treated with “extreme caution,” it said.