G.R. No. 225669 - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Rodas

Procedural Antecedents
On December 27, 1991, five informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101879 to 91-101883) were filed with RTC Manila, Branch 26, charging Imelda R. Marcos, Roberto S. Benedicto and Hector T. Rivera with violating Section 10 of CB Circular No. 960 in relation to Section 34 of RA 265 for failure to report foreign exchange earnings.
On the same day, nine more informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101884 to 91-101892) were filed against Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto; the Court of Appeals later dismissed Case No. 91-101884.
On January 3, 1992, eleven additional informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 92-101959 to 92-101969) were filed against Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto for similar failures to report other foreign accounts. All twenty-five cases were consolidated before RTC Manila, Branch 26.

Regulatory Changes and Pre-trial Events
January 3, 1992: CB Circular No. 1318 repealed inconsistent provisions of Circulars 363, 960 and 1028 but contained a saving clause preserving pending actions under the old Circular 960; took effect January 20, 1992.
August 24, 1992: CB Circular No. 1353 amended Circular 1318, liberalizing non-trade foreign-exchange transactions but again saving pending violations of Circular 960 and 1318.
September 19, 1993: Benedicto and Rivera returned to the Philippines on condition of facing all pending charges; they posted bail and were arraigned (Marcos had pleaded not guilty earlier on February 12, 1992).
August 11, 1994: Petitioners filed motions to quash all informations, alleging lack of jurisdiction, forum shopping, invalid preliminary investigation, repeal of Circular 960 and RA 265, prescription, exemption from reporting, and claimed absolute immunity under a 1990 Compromise Agreement.
September 6, 1994: The RTC denied the motions to quash; motion for reconsideration was denied on October 18, 1994; a second motion for reconsideration was denied on November 23, 1994, and trial was set for January 5, 1995.
Two petitions for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 35719 and 35928) were filed in the Court of Appeals, which on May 23, 1996 consolidated them and denied relief except as to Case No. 91-101884 (dismissed for lack of merit).
May 15, 2000: Roberto S. Benedicto died, extinguishing his criminal and civil liability ex delicto prior to final judgment.

Jurisdiction and Procedural Defects
Did the RTC of Manila lack jurisdiction and should the cases have been filed with the Sandiganbayan?
Did the prosecution commit forum shopping by filing separate cases for the same acts?
Was the preliminary investigation invalid, warranting quashal?

Effect of Repeal and Saving Clauses
Did CB Circular No. 960’s repeal by Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353 and RA 265’s repeal by RA 7653 extinguish petitioners’ criminal liability or violate the ex post facto clause?

Prescription
Had the right to prosecute prescribed, given that the alleged violations occurred from 1983–1987 and the cases were filed in 1991–1992?

Exemption from Reporting Requirements
Were petitioners exempt from Circular 960 under RA 6426’s foreign-currency deposit scheme or by virtue of Swiss banking secrecy laws?

Absolute Immunity
Did the 1990 Compromise Agreement grant petitioners absolute immunity covering the Circular 960 violations?