Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9553)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. William Ernest Jolliffe, G.R. No. L-9553, May 13, 1959, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.
The accused-appellant, William Ernest Jolliffe, a Canadian national resident in Hong Kong, was arrested at the Pan American World Airways terminal in Manila on December 7, 1953, after secret-service and customs agents discovered four pieces of gold bullion tied to his person and a $100 travelers’ check. The Court of First Instance of Rizal found that Jolliffe had come from Hong Kong to collect a debt, had been paid in gold, brought the gold to his hotel room, and later carried it beneath his shirt toward the runway; during the encounter he offered to settle with the arresting agents and resisted search initially. The trial court convicted him of violating Republic Act No. 265, sentenced him to one year imprisonment, fined him P2,000 plus costs, and ordered forfeiture to the Government of the four pieces of gold (valued at P35,305.46) and the $100 travelers’ check.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, Jolliffe raised multiple assignments of error: that Central Bank Circular No. 21 (and the penal sanction in section 34 of Republic Act No. 265) did not criminalize attempted or frustrated exportation; that he lacked willful intent; that Circular No. 21 did not prohibit mere possession of gold; that Circular No. 21 was invalid for want of presidential approval under section 74 of R.A. 265, for exceeding the Monetary Board’s authority, for not being strictly temporary/emergency in form, for defective publication, and as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power; and that forfeiture of the gold and the travelers’ check was improper (he had been acquitted of illegal possession of dollars).
The Supreme Court reviewed the trial court record and the legal questions raised directly on appeal from the trial court decision (no intermediate appellate disposition is recorded). The Court examined the text and purpose of Circular No. 21, the statutory scheme of R.A. 265 (including sections 14, 70 and 74), precedents concerning administrat...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Central Bank Circular No. 21, read with section 34 of Republic Act No. 265, penalize attempted or frustrated exportation of gold so that appellant may be criminally liable prior to consummation of export?
- Was appellant criminally liable under the requisite mens rea — did he willfully violate Circular No. 21?
- Is Circular No. 21 invalid for lack of presidential approval under section 74 of R.A. 265, for being beyond the Monetary Board’s authority, for not being expressly temporary/emergency in form, for defective publication, or for constituting an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?
- Was the forfeiture of the four pieces of gold and the $100 travelers’ check proper under the applicable forfeiture rules (Article 45, Rev...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)