Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13567-68)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Rosario B. de Leon, G.R. Nos. L-13567-68, September 30, 1960, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.On August 5, 1957 two informations were filed in the Court of First Instance of Pasay City charging Rosario B. de Leon with violations of Central Bank circulars implementing Republic Act No. 265: Criminal Case No. 4100-P (violation of Circular No. 37 as implemented by Circular No. 60, sec. 1(6), in relation to sec. 34, R.A. No. 265) and Criminal Case No. 4101-P (violation of Circular No. 42, sec. 3(a), as amended by Circular No. 55, in relation to sec. 34, R.A. No. 265). De Leon pleaded not guilty and the two cases were tried jointly.
The prosecution established that De Leon was a booked outgoing passenger on August 3, 1957. After the customs inspection and her declaration at the Central Bank counter, agent Socorro de Guzman questioned her and discovered, behind the passport cover, P700.00 and one $100.00 bill; further inspection in a restroom and by another agent revealed additional Philippine peso bills concealed in her garments and breast paddings. It was also shown that De Leon had not secured the required permit from the Central Bank to carry the excess currency found on her.
After the prosecution rested, De Leon moved to dismiss; the trial court denied the motion and, on February 27, 1958, convicted her in both cases. In No. 4100-P the court sentenced her to three months imprisonment, a fine of P3,000, and ordered forfeiture of specified peso bills; in No. 4101-P it imposed three months imprisonment, a fine of P300, and forfeiture of the one-hundred-dollar bill. De Leon appealed to the Supreme Court, raising five main contentions: (1) Circular No. 42 is void for lack of presidential approval and absence of a stated period of operation; (2) the circulars contravene the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund; (3) they were issued without approval of the President of the United States under a bilateral trade agreement; (4)...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is Circular No. 42 (as implemented) null and void for lack of presidential approval or because it contained no express period of operation?
- Do Circulars Nos. 20/42 and related Central Bank measures contravene the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund?
- Were the circulars invalid for want of approval by the President of the United States under the agreement between the Philippines and the United States concerning trade and related matters?
- Were Circulars Nos. 42 and 37 legally promulgated under Sections 74 and 14 (and related provisions) of R.A. No. 265?
- Does the information in Criminal Case No. 4100-P fail to state an offense because it omits an allegat...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)