Title
People vs. Jolliffe
Case
G.R. No. L-9553
Decision Date
May 13, 1959
A Canadian national, William Jolliffe, was convicted for attempting to export gold bullion from Manila without a license, violating Central Bank Circular No. 21. His actions, including concealing gold and attempting to bribe officials, demonstrated intent. The court upheld the circular's validity and forfeited the gold but reversed the traveler's check forfeiture due to lack of intent.
export gold bullion
license violation
attempted violations

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-9553)

Factual Background

The accused, a Canadian subject residing permanently in Hong Kong, had traveled to Manila to collect a debt and on December 7, 1953 attempted to board a Pan American airplane with four pieces of gold bullion concealed about his person and a travelers' check for $100. While proceeding toward the runway he was accosted by a secret service agent, taken to a search room and found to have the gold bullions tied to his body a few inches above the waist. During the incident he offered to settle with the arresting agents. Conflicting testimony arose as to whether the accused offered money to the officers or whether a deputy collector, Mr. Manikan, had offered to fix the case for P30,000; the trial court accepted Mr. Manikan's testimony as to the latter. The accused admitted that he had the four pieces of gold bullion of approximately P35,305.46 on December 7, 1953 and acknowledged that he had no export license for the gold.

Trial Court Proceedings and Sentence

The Court of First Instance of Rizal convicted the accused of a violation of Republic Act No. 265 as implemented by Central Bank regulations and sentenced him to one year imprisonment, a fine of P2,000 and costs, and ordered forfeiture to the Government of the four pieces of gold bullion valued at P35,305.46 and of the $100 travelers' check.

Issues on Appeal

The accused raised multiple assignments of error, summarized as follows: (1) that Central Bank Circular No. 21 was the controlling law and, being a special law, penalized only consummated exports and not attempted or frustrated attempts; (2) that, even if attempts were punishable, the accused lacked wilful intent; (3) that mere possession of gold was not prohibited because the circular permits domestic sales; (4) that Circular No. 21 was invalid as a penal rule because it allegedly failed to comply with section 74 of Republic Act No. 265 (no presidential approval, exceeded authority, required emergency or crisis that did not exist, inadequate Official Gazette publication, and unconstitutional delegation of legislative power); (5) that forfeiture of the four packages of gold was improper; and (6) that forfeiture of the travelers' check was improper because the accused had been acquitted of illegal possession of dollars.

Appellant's Contentions

The accused conceded absence of an export license but contended that Circular No. 21 and section 34 of Republic Act No. 265 penalized only consummated exportation and not attempts; that he was unaware of the need for a license and therefore lacked criminal intent; that Circular No. 21 in effect authorized certain domestic transactions in gold and thus did not outlaw mere possession; and that Circular No. 21 was void for lack of presidential approval, for transcending the Monetary Board's authority, for being an emergency measure without the requisite emergency, for defective Official Gazette publication, and for constituting an invalid delegation of legislative power. He also maintained that Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code did not authorize forfeiture because the offense arose under a special law.

Trial Court Findings Adopted on Appeal

The trial court had found the material facts essentially undisputed: the accused carried four pieces of gold bullion concealed on his person and a $100 travelers' check; he resisted being searched and attempted to influence the arresting officers. The trial court accepted Mr. Manikan's testimony over the accused's account and concluded that the only real question was one of law, not fact. The conviction rested on the absence of an export license in circumstances demonstrating knowledge and culpable conduct.

Interpretation and Applicability of Circular No. 21

The Supreme Court held that Central Bank Circular No. 21 applied to "any person desiring to export gold" and therefore reached conduct prior to consummation of exportation. Section 4 of the circular required an export license and thus contemplated the pre-export situation. The Court observed that to postpone penal sanction until after the goods had left the Philippines would defeat the regulatory purpose and risk loss of jurisdiction. The Court found the accused's conduct—concealment of the bullion, resistance to search, and the attempt to bribe officers—fatal to any claim of ignorance or absence of willful violation; possession alone was not the basis of conviction, but the attempt to export without the requisite license supported criminal liability.

Validity of Circular No. 21 and Alleged Lack of Presidential Approval

Addressing the contention that Circular No. 21 lacked the presidential approval required by section 74 of Republic Act No. 265, the Court applied the presumption of regularity to administrative acts and found the accused's assertion untenable in the absence of contrary proof. The Court noted that Circular No. 20, the original circular subjecting "all transactions in gold and foreign exchange" to licensing, expressly stated that it had been adopted "by the Monetary Board, by unanimous vote and with the approval of the President of the Philippines" and that it provided that "further regulations" would be issued separately. The Court therefore concluded that Circular No. 21, as a further regulation implementing the decision already approved by the President, bore the imprimatur of presidential sanction even though the President's approval was not reiterated on the face of the later circular. The Court also held that presidential approval of the policy decision did not require that every implementing regulation bear the President's formal signature.

Emergency Character, Duration, and Publication

The Court rejected the argument that Circular No. 21 was invalid because it was not expressly temporary or because no exchange crisis existed. The Court reasoned that the circular need not state its temporary character on its face so long as it was issued in the context of an exchange crisis; in the absence of evidence to the contrary the Court presumed compliance with section 74 and took judicial cognizance that an exchange crisis had existed and continued. The Court analogized to prior decisions upholding temporary measures enacted without a fixed duration where the emergency continued to exist.

Delegation of Legislative Power and Authority of the Monetary Board

The Court rejected the claim of an improper delegation of legislative power. It distinguished between delegating the making of law and conferring authority to fix details for the enforcement of a legislative policy. The Court found that Republic Act No.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms