Case Summary (G.R. No. 125359)
Absence of Forum Shopping
Petitioners claimed concurrent proceedings in the Sandiganbayan and RTC amounted to forum shopping. The Court rejected this, explaining that failure to report foreign‐exchange earnings violates Circular 960/RA 265, whereas unlawful receipt of the same earnings may independently contravene RA 3019. Distinct offenses under separate statutes justify parallel prosecutions.
Waiver of Preliminary Investigation
Petitioners argued that flight restrictions prevented attendance at the DOJ preliminary investigation, rendering it invalid. The Court found that preliminary investigation is a statutory right that may be waived. By posting bail, pleading in RTC, and litigating motions without demanding reinvestigation, petitioners impliedly waived any defect, so no due‐process violation warranted quashing the Informations.
Effect of Repeal of Circular 960 and RA 265
Petitioners contended that Circular 960 was repealed by CB Circulars 1318 and 1353, and RA 265 by RA 7653, thereby extinguishing criminal liability under Art. 22, RPC. The SC noted that both repealing circulars contain explicit saving clauses preserving pending actions for violations of Circular 960, and that RA 7653 reenacted Section 34’s penal provisions in Section 36. Repeal coupled with reenactment does not interrupt liability.
Ex Post Facto and Penalty Increase
Challenging the increased penalty under RA 7653 as ex post facto, petitioners relied on Article III, Section 22 of the Constitution. The Court held that no retroactive application was intended, and increased penalties did not strip petitioners of rights vital to life or liberty. Accordingly, no ex post facto violation occurred.
Prescription and Date of Discovery
Under Act No. 3326, offenses punishable by over two but less than six years prescribe in eight years, running from commission or—if unknown—discovery. Given the Marcos regime’s concealment, violations weren’t discovered until post‐EDSA investigations in 1986. The 1991–1992 filings thus fell within the eight‐year period.
No Exemption from Reporting Requirements
Petitioners claimed exemption under Section 10(q), Circular 960, by using the Central Bank’s Securities Servicing Department and Swiss bank secrecy laws (RA 6426). The Court held that Section 10(q) applies only to eligible foreign‐currency deposits with designated Philippine banks, not foreign accounts. Swiss laws were not properly proved; Philippine courts cannot judicially notice them.
Inapplicability of Absolute Immunity
Relying on a 1990 compromise agreement granting absolute immunity
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 125359)
Facts
- On December 27, 1991, Imelda R. Marcos, Roberto S. Benedicto, and Hector T. Rivera were charged under Section 10 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 in relation to Section 34 of the Central Bank Act for failing to report and register foreign exchange accounts abroad.
- The initial five informations were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101879 to 91-101883, alleging unreported earnings and interests from a US$50 million (later US$25 million) investment in Philippine-issued dollar-denominated treasury notes held in Bank Hofmann AG, Zurich, for Avertina Foundation.
- Nine additional informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101884 to 91-101892) and eleven more (Criminal Cases Nos. 92-101959 to 92-101969) followed, each involving different accounts, dates, dummy nominees, amounts, and foreign banks.
- All twenty-five cases were consolidated before RTC Manila, Branch 26.
Regulatory Developments
- January 3, 1992: Central Bank Circular No. 1318 was issued, repealing Circular No. 960 but containing a saving clause for pending investigations or actions.
- January 20, 1992: Circular No. 1318 took effect.
- August 24, 1992: Circular No. 1353 amended Circular No. 1318, further liberalizing foreign exchange transactions but retaining a saving clause preserving pending violations of Circular No. 960.
Procedural History
- September 19, 1993: Benedicto and Rivera returned to the Philippines on condition of facing pending charges and posted bail.
- February 12–28, 1994: Petitioners were arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
- August 11, 1994: Petitioners moved to quash all twenty-five informations on grounds including lack of jurisdiction, forum shopping, repeal, prescription, exemption, and immunity.
- September 6, 1994: RTC denied the motion to quash; Mrs. Marcos’s separate motion was similarly denied on June 9, 1994.
- October 18, 1994: Motion for reconsideration denied; November 23, 1994: RTC set cases for trial.
- Late 1994: Certiorari petitions filed with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP Nos. 35719 and 35928), later consolidated.
- May 23, 1996: Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of motions to quash except it dismissed Criminal Case No. 91-101884 for lack of merit.
Issues
- Jurisdiction of RTC, alleged for