Case Digest (G.R. No. 125359)
Facts:
Roberto S. Benedicto and Hector T. Rivera, petitioners, filed a petition under G.R. No. 125359; the decision was promulgated on February 10, 2003 by the Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The petition assails the Court of Appeals’ consolidated decision dated May 23, 1996 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 35928 and CA‑G.R. SP No. 35719, which largely affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 26, in denying petitioners’ Motions to Quash informations in twenty‑five criminal cases for alleged violations of Central Bank Circular No. 960.On December 27, 1991 five informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 91‑101879 to 91‑101883) were filed charging petitioners and Imelda R. Marcos with violating Circular No. 960 (failure to report/ register foreign exchange accounts), in relation to Section 34 of the Central Bank Act (Republic Act No. 265). On the same day nine additional informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 91‑101884 to 91‑101892) were filed against Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto involving other accounts; on January 3, 1992 eleven more informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 92‑101959 to 92‑101969) followed. The cases were consolidated before Branch 26.
While the RTC proceedings were pending, the Central Bank issued Circular No. 1318 (January 3, 1992; eff. Jan. 20, 1992) and later Circular No. 1353 (August 24, 1992), liberalizing non‑trade foreign exchange rules; both circulars contained saving clauses excepting pending criminal actions for violations of Circular No. 960. Petitioners were allowed to return to the Philippines on September 19, 1993 on condition they face charges; they posted bail and were arraigned (petitioners arraigned February 28, 1994; Mrs. Marcos earlier arraigned February 12, 1992) and pleaded not guilty.
On August 11, 1994 petitioners moved to quash all informations on grounds including lack of jurisdiction/forum shopping/no valid preliminary investigation, repeal/extinction of liability by subsequent circulars/statutes, prescription, exemption from reporting, and absolute immunity under a November 3, 1990 Compromise Agreement with the government. The RTC denied the motion on September 6, 1994 and denied reconsideration on October 18, 1994; after further procedural steps, the Court of Appeals consolidated two petitions for certiorari/prohibition and on May 23, 1996 dismissed the petitions except that it nullified and dismissed Criminal Case No. 91‑101884. Petitioners then filed the instant petition for review with the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court lack jurisdiction, and/or was there forum shopping or an invalid preliminary investigation such that the Motions to Quash should have been granted?
- Did the repeal of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and of Republic Act No. 265 (by Circular No. 1353 and Republic Act No. 7653, respectively) extinguish petitioners’ criminal liability?
- Had the criminal actions for violations of Circular No. 960 already prescribed?
- Were petitioners exempt from the reporting requirement of Circular No. 960 (e.g., under Section 10(q) or by operation of the Foreign Currency Deposit Act and foreign bank secrecy)?
- Were the dollar‑salting charges covered by ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)