Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7240) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In G.R. No. L-6791 decided on March 29, 1954 at Manila, The People of the Philippines charged Que Po Lay with violating Central Bank Circular No. 20, issued pursuant to section 34 of Republic Act No. 265, for failing to sell U.S. dollars, U.S. checks, and U.S. money orders totaling about $7,000 to the Central Bank through its agents within one day of receipt. The Court of First Instance of Manila found the appellant guilty, sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, imposed a ₱1,000 fine with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and awarded costs. On appeal, Que Po Lay argued that Circular No. 20 had not been published in the Official Gazette at the time of the alleged offense and thus lacked legal force.Issues:
Was Central Bank Circular No. 20 enforceable against Que Po Lay at the time of the alleged violation despite its non-publication in the Offic... Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7240) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Procedural History
- The People of the Philippines (plaintiff and appellee) charged Que Po Lay (defendant and appellant) with violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in connection with Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265.
- The Court of First Instance of Manila found Que Po Lay guilty, sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, a ₱1,000 fine with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs.
- Underlying Conduct and Applicable Regulation
- Appellant was in possession of foreign exchange—U.S. dollars, U.S. checks, and U.S. money orders—totaling about $7,000.
- Central Bank Circular No. 20 required any person receiving foreign exchange to sell it to the Central Bank through its agents within one day of receipt.
- Basis of the Appeal
- Appellant contended that Circular No. 20 was not published in the Official Gazette before the alleged violation, rendering it ineffective and non-binding.
- He argued that Commonwealth Act No. 638 and Act No. 2930 mandate publication in the Official Gazette for any order or notice of general applicability.
Issues:
- Whether Central Bank Circular No. 20 was published and thus legally binding at the time of appellant’s alleged violation.
- Whether the question of non-publication of the circular, not raised at trial, may be raised for the first time on appeal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)