Case Summary (G.R. No. L-9553)
Key Dates
Incident: December 7, 1953 (appellant detained while attempting to board a plane with gold).
Decision on appeal: May 13, 1959 (applicable constitutional framework: the 1935 Constitution).
Applicable Law
- Republic Act No. 265 (Central Bank Act): sections invoked include section 14 (rulemaking authority of the Monetary Board), section 70 (remedial measures to protect international stability of the peso), and section 74 (power to subject transactions in gold and foreign exchange to license during an exchange crisis).
- Central Bank Circulars: Circular No. 20 (subjecting transactions in gold and foreign exchange to licensing; expressly approved by the President) and Circular No. 21 (further regulations, including requirement of a license to export gold). Section 4 of Circular No. 21 requires a Central Bank export license for any person desiring to export gold.
- Penal provisions: section 34 of Republic Act No. 265 (penalty for violations of the licensing provisions), Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code (forfeiture of proceeds/instruments used in crime), and section 10 of the Revised Penal Code (supplementary application of the Code to special laws unless the latter provides otherwise).
- Constitutional context: principles on executive and administrative acts under the 1935 Constitution (cited by the Court in assessing presidential approval and the presumption of regularity).
Facts Found by the Trial Court
Appellant arrived in Manila December 4, 1953 and was paid in gold; on December 7, while about to board, he carried four pieces of gold bullion concealed under his clothing and a $100 traveller’s check. A secret service agent intercepted him and, upon search, discovered the gold and the traveller’s check. During arrest he attempted to offer money to the arresting agents to effect a settlement; there were contradictory accounts about an offer to bribe from or to a Deputy Collector of Customs (Manikan), but the trial court accepted Manikan’s testimony. Appellant admitted the presence of the four gold pieces on his person when arrested.
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought on Appeal
The Court of First Instance of Rizal convicted appellant of violating Republic Act No. 265, sentenced him to one year imprisonment, fined him P2,000 and costs, and ordered forfeiture to the Government of the four pieces of gold valued at P35,305.46 and the traveller’s check for $100. Appellant appealed raising six assignments of error challenging (1) interpretation of Circular 21 as only punishing consummated exportation, (2) absence of wilful intent, (3) alleged authorization of internal sales of gold by Circular 21, (4) invalidity of Circular 21 for various procedural and constitutional reasons, (5) impropriety of forfeiture of the gold, and (6) impropriety of forfeiture of the traveller’s check.
Issue 1 — Does Circular 21 (and section 34, RA 265) penalize only consummated exportation or also attempted/frustrated exportation?
The Court held that Circular 21 applies to any person “desiring to export gold,” and thus contemplates acts prior to consummation of exportation. Section 4 of Circular 21 requires a license for any person desiring to export gold; construing the regulation to punish only consummated exportation would defeat its purpose because the State would lose jurisdiction and the ability to prevent the outflow of gold once the export were consummated. Therefore attempted or frustrated export without the requisite license is punishable.
Issue 2 — Was there absence of wilful violation or lack of criminal intent?
The Court rejected appellant’s claim of ignorance or lack of willfulness. The factual findings—concealment of gold under his shirt, resistance to search, and attempts to bribe public officers—demonstrate knowledge of the illicit character of his conduct and a willful attempt to export gold without a license. Those circumstances supported the trial court’s conclusion that appellant acted with criminal intent.
Issue 3 — Whether mere possession of gold was being criminalized under Circular 21
The Court did not need to resolve whether mere possession of gold is per se illegal under Circular 21 because appellant’s conviction rested on his attempt to export gold without the required license. The conviction was based on the attempt to export rather than on bare possession.
Issue 4 — Validity of Circular 21 (multiple sub-arguments)
- Presidential Approval (section 74, RA 265): The Court concluded that the Monetary Board’s practice, as reflected in the record (Exhibits S and S‑1) and particularly Circular No. 20 (which expressly stated adoption by the Monetary Board with the President’s approval), supported a presumption that the President had approved the policy under which Circular 21 was issued. In absence of contrary proof, the presumption of regularity in administrative acts was sufficient. The Court noted that presidential acts need not always be in writing to be validly performed and cited authorities supporting the presumption that executive functions performed through departmental organization are, presumptively, acts of the Chief Executive.
- Temporary or Emergency Nature: The Court held it was unnecessary that Circular 21 state on its face that it was temporary; so long as it was issued during an exchange crisis for the purpose of combating that crisis, it was valid. The Court accepted judicial notice that an exchange crisis existed at issuance and continued thereafter, and observed that emergency measures need not specify duration when the crisis’ duration cannot be reasonably anticipated. The Court analogized to moratorium laws that were valid until the emergency ended.
- Adequacy of Publication: Circular 20 was published with an explicit statement of presidential approval and a provision that further regulations would follow; Circular 21 was one of those further regulations. Thus the trial court’s finding that the statutory requirements were satisfied was upheld.
- Delegation of Legislative Power: The Court rejected appellant’s argument that section 74 and the Board’s issuance of Circular 21 constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. It distinguished between delegating the authority to make substantive law and delegating authority to fil
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-9553)
Citation and Judges
- Reported at 105 Phil. 677; G.R. No. L-9553; decided May 13, 1959.
- Decision written by Concepcion, J.
- Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Procedural Posture
- Appeal from the Court of First Instance of Rizal by defendant-appellant William Ernest Jolliffe.
- Trial court conviction for violation of Republic Act No. 265.
- Trial court sentence: imprisonment for one (1) year; fine of P2,000 and costs; forfeiture to the Government of four pieces of gold bullion valued at P35,305.46 and a traveler’s check in the sum of $100.00.
- Appellate disposition: conviction affirmed in all respects except modification that the traveler’s check should not be forfeited; costs against defendant-appellant.
Facts as Found by Trial Court (Uncontested Main Facts)
- Appellant is William Ernest Jolliffe, a Canadian subject, born in China and residing permanently in Hongkong; son of a former Chancellor of the West China Union University; former Trade Commissioner for Canada in Shanghai and Hongkong until 1948; of reputable family and known in Hongkong.
- Jolliffe made several trips to Manila for business and to meet wife and children; returned to Manila on December 4, 1953 to attempt collection of a debt owed by T. W. (or T. Y.) Woo and was paid in gold.
- The gold was brought to his Bay View Hotel room by messenger; at plane time appellant carried gold around his body underneath his shirt.
- While approaching the runway door he was accosted by Amada Arimbay, a secret service agent, and told to go to the search room.
- When searched, four pieces of gold bullion were found tied to his body a few inches above the waist; a $100.00 traveler’s check issued by R. McGinty was found in his possession.
- While under arrest he made an offer to settle the case by offering to pay the arresting agents; there is a disputed account whether appellant offered or was offered P30,000 to settle; the court accepted Deputy Collector Manikan’s testimony and found Manikan’s acts above board.
- Appellant admitted that on December 7, 1953 when about to board a Pan American flight he had four pieces of gold bullion of approximate value P35,305.46.
- The court regarded the primary question as one of law given the admitted fact of possession and attempted export.
Charge and Statutory Framework Relied Upon
- Conviction rested on violation of Republic Act No. 265 and Central Bank Circular(s) requiring license for transactions in gold and foreign exchange.
- Central Bank Circular No. 21: “Any person desiring to export gold in any form, including jewelry, whether for refining abroad or otherwise, must obtain a license from the Central Bank. Applicants for export licenses must present satisfactory evidence that the import of the gold into the country of the importer will not be in violation of the rules and regulations of such country.”
- Circular No. 20 previously subjected “all transactions in gold and foreign exchange” to licensing and stated it was adopted “by the Monetary Board, by unanimous vote and with the approval of the President of the Philippines”; Circular No. 20 provided that “further regulations in respect to transactions covered by this circular will be issued separately.”
- Relevant statutory provisions and principles discussed in the decision include section 34 and section 74 of Republic Act No. 265, section 14 of RA 265 (rulemaking by Monetary Board), section 70 of RA 265 (authority to take remedial measures), section 2 (objectives of Central Bank), Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code (forfeiture of proceeds and instruments), and section 10 of the Revised Penal Code (supplementation by the Code to special laws).
Assignments of Error Raised by Appellant
- Appellant’s principal assignments (as presented in argument form):
- Circular 21 is the only law in point and, being a special law, penalizes only consummated violations, not attempts or frustrated violations; thus accused cannot be held liable.
- Even if attempts are punishable, accused lacked willful violation of the circular (ignorance).
- Trial court erred in ruling that mere possession of gold is illegal under Circular 21; appellant contends Circular 21 authorizes sales of gold within the Philippines even without license.
- Circular 21 is not a valid penal law because it allegedly failed to comply with section 74 of RA 265: (a) not approved by the President; (b) Monetary Board exceeded authority because circular not temporary emergency measure; (c) circular only issuable as emergency or crisis measure but the emergency did not exist or no longer exists; (d) publications in Official Gazette were incomplete and defective and thus inadequate; (e) even if authority existed, it was an invalid delegation of legislative power and therefore unconstitutional.
- Trial court erred in ordering forfeiture of the four gold packages in favor of the Government.
- Trial court erred in ordering forfeiture of the $100 traveler’s check despite acquittal on illegal possession of dollars under Circulars 20 and 42.
Appellant’s Conduct and Trial Court’s Credibility Findings
- Appellant did not deny lack of license to export the gold.
- Trial court accepted Deputy Collector Manikan’s testimony over appellant’s account where they differed; stated Manikan’s acts were “above board” and intended to give accused opportunity to explain but not for illegitimate purpose.
- Court highlighted circumstances suggestive of consciousness of guilt: gold tied to body under shirt, initial objection to being searched, attempt or offer to bribe arresting agents.
- Appellant admitted having the four pieces of gold bullion on December 7, 1953, when about to board Pan American aircraft.
Legal Issues Framed by the Court
- Whether Circular 21 and section 34 of RA 265 penalize attempted or frustrated exportation or only consummated exportation.
- Whether appellant acted with willful violation or culpable intent.
- Whether mere possession of gold bullions is made illegal by Circular 21.
- Whether Circular