Case Summary (G.R. No. L-13567-68)
Factual Background
The evidence established that De Leon was a booked outgoing passenger on a Philippine Air Lines flight identified as Plane No. P1-770, scheduled to depart from Manila International Airport, Pasay City, for Hongkong at 12:30 p.m. on August 3, 1957. After customs inspection of her luggage and after she declared the money she had in her possession at the Central Bank counter, she went to the area reserved for departing passengers.
There, she was approached by agent Socorro de Guzman, who asked how much money she was carrying. De Leon answered that she had P100.00 only. Agent De Guzman inspected her handbag and found the declared P100.00. She then examined De Leon’s passport wallet and discovered behind its cover P700.00 and one $100.00 bill. Agent De Guzman again asked whether those were all the amounts De Leon had, and De Leon answered affirmatively. Agent De Guzman then invited De Leon to the ladies’ room for further inspection, where she found P700.00 sewn at the bottom of De Leon’s panties and P1000.00 in each of De Leon’s breast paddings.
After those discoveries, agent De Guzman took De Leon to agent Beleno for further investigation. De Leon thereafter made a voluntary statement admitting that agent De Guzman had seized from her person the items and amounts described. The prosecution also proved that De Leon failed to secure the necessary permit from the Central Bank to carry the excess money found in her possession.
Trial Court Proceedings and Conviction
After the prosecution presented its evidence, De Leon filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that if it was denied, the cases should be deemed submitted for decision. The trial court denied the motion and rendered judgment on February 27, 1958, finding De Leon guilty in both cases.
In Criminal Case No. 4100-P, De Leon was sentenced to suffer three (3) months of imprisonment, to pay a fine of Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs. The court also ordered the forfeiture in favor of the government of the specific marked bills: twenty pieces of one-hundred-peso bills (exhibits F and F-1 to F-19) and twenty-eight pieces of fifty-peso bills (exhibits F-20 to F-47).
In Criminal Case No. 4101-P, De Leon was sentenced to suffer three (3) months of imprisonment, to pay a fine of Three Hundred (P300.00) Pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs. The trial court declared forfeited in favor of the government the one hundred dollar bill (exhibit E).
The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal
On appeal, De Leon challenged the judgment and sought acquittal on five grounds, namely: (one) that Circular No. 42, allegedly issued as an implementation of Circular No. 20 without required Presidential approval and without a limiting period of enforcement, was null and void; (two) that the circulars as amended contravened the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund to which the Philippines was a signatory; (three) that the circulars were issued without the approval of the President of the United States pursuant to an agreement between the United States and the Philippines concerning trade and related matters; (four) that Circulars Nos. 42 and 37, as amended, could not be legally based on Sections 74 and 14 of Republic Act No. 265; and (five) that the Information in Criminal Case No. 4100-P failed to allege that De Leon did not have the requisite license to carry the money found in her possession, and therefore failed to state facts sufficient to constitute the charged crime.
Supreme Court’s Treatment of the First Four Issues
The Supreme Court treated the first four issues as not novel and as already resolved in earlier cases. It noted that, in several prior decisions, the Court had held that Circular No. 20, implemented by Circular No. 42, was in fact approved by the President of the Philippines. It further held that because the circulars were issued to combat an exchange crisis, their period of operation need not be expressly stated and is deemed co-extensive with the duration of the exchange crisis, which the Court treated as still existing at the time of those decisions, citing People vs. Jolliffe, People vs. Henderson, People vs. Koh, People vs. Lim Ho, and People vs. Tan.
On the argument that the circulars violated International Monetary Fund obligations and were passed without U.S. Presidential approval, the Court relied on People vs. Koh, which stated that it was not incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the circulars complied with all international agreements binding on the Government. The Court in that line of cases reasoned that the Central Bank and the President certify compliance and that such certification is presumed; consequently, it is for the defense to show actual conflict between the circular and international commitments. The Supreme Court also referenced that it had considered the lack of criticism by the International Monetary Fund in its annual reports and relied on an official statement attributed to the American Embassy in Manila indicating that the United States would concur in temporary measures by the Philippine Government safeguarding dollar reserves.
With respect to the fourth issue, the Court reiterated that Circular No. 42, as amended, was legally issued pursuant to the authority granted by Section 74 of Republic Act No. 265, and that Circular No. 37, as amended, was issued under Section 14, in relation to Sections 2 and 64 of the same Act. The Court justified the issuance as aimed at conserving the dwindling dollar reserve and preserving the international value of the peso.
Defect in the Information: Fifth Issue and Applicable Doctrine
While the Supreme Court rejected the first four grounds, it found merit in the fifth issue. It held that the Information in Criminal Case No. 4100-P failed to state that De Leon did not have the necessary license to carry the money that was seized. The Court emphasized that, for a conviction based on infringement of the relevant circular provision, it was necessary to allege the element that the accused had taken or was about to take out amounts beyond the exempted limits without the required license issued by the Central Bank.
To support this requirement, the Court cited People vs. Capistrano, where the Court declared that omission of the allegation regarding the absence of the required Central Bank license renders the charge insufficient to constitute an offense. Applying that doctrine, the Supreme Court ruled that the omission in the Information was a fatal defect that prevented the charge from standing for purposes of conviction in Criminal Case No. 4100-P.
Disposition of the Appeal
The Supreme Court granted modification of the judgment only to the extent of correcting the defect in the Information for Criminal Case No. 4100-P.
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-13567-68)
- The case arose from two informations filed on August 5, 1957 before the Court of First Instance of Pasay City charging Rosario B. De Leon with violations of Central Bank Circulars implemented in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265.
- The trial court tried the two cases jointly after the accused pleaded not guilty.
- The trial court convicted the accused in both cases on February 27, 1958, and the accused appealed.
Charges and Informations
- Criminal Case No. 4100-P charged the accused with violating Circular 37, as implemented by Circular 60, Section 1(6) of the Central Bank, in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265.
- Criminal Case No. 4101-P charged the accused with violating Circular No. 42, Section 3(a), as amended by Circular No. 55 of the Central Bank, in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265.
- The informations were both centered on the accused’s outgoing departure and the money found in her possession without the required Central Bank permit.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The People of the Philippines served as plaintiff and appellee.
- Rosario B. De Leon served as defendant and appellant.
- The appeal challenged the trial court’s refusal to acquit and sought modification of the judgments.
Key Factual Circumstances
- The prosecution established that the accused was a booked outgoing passenger on Philippine Air Lines Plane No. P1-770, scheduled to depart for Hongkong from Manila International Airport, Pasay City, at 12:30 p.m. on August 3, 1957.
- After customs inspection and the accused’s declaration at the Central Bank counter of the money she carried, the accused proceeded to the area reserved for departing passengers.
- The accused was approached by agent Socorro de Guzman, who asked how much money she carried, and the accused answered that she carried P100.00 only.
- Agent De Guzman examined the accused’s handbag and found the P100.00 that the accused had declared.
- Agent De Guzman then examined the accused’s passport wallet and found behind its cover P700.00 and one $100.00 bill.
- Upon inquiry, the accused affirmed that this was all the money she had, and the agent invited the accused to the ladies’ room for further inspection.
- In the ladies’ room, Agent De Guzman found P700.00 sewed at the bottom of the accused’s panties and P100.00 in each breast padding.
- The agents took the accused to agent Beleno, who further investigated the accused.
- The accused made a voluntary statement admitting that Agent De Guzman had seized the articles and amounts described.
- The prosecution also established that the accused failed to secure the necessary permit from the Central Bank to carry the excess money found in her possession.
Trial Court Rulings
- After the prosecution presented its evidence, the accused filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that if denied the cases would be deemed submitted for decision.
- The trial court denied the motion and rendered judgment on February 27, 1958 finding the accused guilty in both cases.
- In Criminal Case No. 4100-P, the trial court imposed three (3) months imprisonment, a fine of Three Thousand (₱3,000.00) Pesos, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs, and it ordered the forfeiture of the seized Philippine currency bills described in the decision.
- In Criminal Case No. 4101-P, the trial court imposed three (3) months imprisonment, a fine of Three Hundred (₱300.00) Pesos, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs, and it ordered the forfeiture of the seized one hundred dollar bill.
Appellant’s Assignments of Error
- The accused argued that Circular No. 42, allegedly issued as an implementation of Circular No. 20 without President of the Philippines approval and without a stated period of operation, was null and void.
- The accused argued that Circulars Nos. 20 and 42, as amended, contravened the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund, to which the Philippines had signed.
- The accused argued that the circulars were issued without the approval of the President of the United States under an alleged agreement on trade and related matters between the United States and the Philippines.
- The accused argued that the issuance of Circulars Nos. 42 and 37, as amended, could not be legally based on Sections 74 and 14 of Republic Act No. 265.
- The accused argued that in Criminal Case No