Benedicto Vs Ca

BENEDICTO vs CA
GR. No. 125359; September 4, 2001
FACTS: Imelda Marcos, Benedicto and Rivera were indicted for violation of Sec. 10 of Circular no. 960 in
relation to Sec. 34 of the Central Bank Act (RA 265 as amended) in five informations filed with RTC. It was
alleged that they failed to submit reports of their foreign exchange earnings from abroad and/or failed to
register with the Foreign Exchange Department of the Central Bank within the period mandated by the
Circular no 960. Said Circular prohibited natural and juridical persons from maintaining foreign exchange
accounts abroad without prior authorization from the Central Bank. It also required all residents of the
Philippines who habitually earned or received foreign currencies from invisibles, either locally or abroad, to
report such earnings or receipts to the Central Bank. On the same day, nine additional informations charging
Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto with the same offense involving different accounts were filed with RTC. Eleven
more Informations accusing Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto of the same offense, in relation to different accounts,
were filed. On the same day these were filed, the Central Bank issued Circular No. 1318 which revised the
rules governing non-trade foreign exchange transactions. It took effect on January 20, 1992.
On August 24, 1992, the Central Bank issued Circular No. 1358 which amended Circular 1318 deleting the
requirement of prior Central Bank approval for foreign exchange-funded expenditures obtained from the
banking system. However, the aforementioned circulars contained a saving clause, excepting from their
coverage pending criminal actions involving violations of Circular No. 960 and, in the case of Circular No. 1353,
violations of both Circular No. 960 and Circular No. 1318. The government allowed petitioners Benedicto and
Rivera to return to the Philippines, on condition that they face the various criminal charges instituted against
them, including the dollar-salting cases. Petitioners posted bail in the latter cases. Petitioners Benedicto and
Rivera were arraigned. Both pleaded not guilty to the charges of violating Central Bank Circular No. 960. Mrs.
Marcos had earlier entered a similar plea during her arraignment for the same offense on February 12, 1992.
Petitioners moved to quash all the Informations filed against them grounded on lack of jurisdiction, forum
shopping, extinction of criminal liability with the repeal of Circular No. 960, prescription, exemption from the
Central Bank’s reporting requirement, and the grant of absolute immunity as a result of a compromise
agreement entered into with the government. The trial court denied petitioners’ motion. Petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration was likewise been denied. Petitioners filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition before
the Court of Appeals which were consequently dismissed. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the repeal of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Republic Act No. 265 by Circular No.
1353 and Republic Act No. 7653 respectively, extinguish the criminal liability of petitioners in this case.
RULING: NO. As a rule, an absolute repeal of a penal law has the effect of depriving a court of its authority to
punish a person charged with violation of the old law prior to its repeal. This is because an unqualified repeal
of a penal law constitutes a legislative act of rendering legal what had been previously declared as illegal, such
that the offense no longer exists and it is as if the person who committed it never did so. There are, however,
exceptions to the rule. One is the inclusion of a saving clause in the repealing statute that provides that the
repeal shall have no effect on pending actions. Another exception is where the repealing act reenacts the
former statute and punishes the act previously penalized under the old law. In such instance, the act
committed before the reenactment continues to be an offense in the statute books and pending cases are not
affected, regardless of whether the new penalty to be imposed is more favorable to the accused.

Benedicto Vs Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benedicto Vs Ca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benedicto Vs Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BENEDICTO vs CA

GR. No. 125359; September 4, 2001

You might also like