Provisos, Exceptions, and Saving Clauses

PROVISOS, EXCEPTIONS, AND SAVING CLAUSES
Provisos, Exceptions and Saving Clauses have the same effect. They qualify the
effects of laws.
The general rule is that the office of a proviso is to qualify or modify only the
phrase immediately preceding it or restrain or limit the generality of the clause that
it immediately follows. Thus, it has been held that a proviso is to be construed with
reference to the immediately preceding part of the provision to which it is attached,
and not to the statute itself or to other sections thereof. The only exception to this
rule is where the clear legislative intent is to restrain or qualify not only the phrase
immediately preceding it (the proviso) but also earlier provisions of the statute or
even the statute itself as a whole.
ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. CA, GR No. 125359, 2001-09-04

Facts:
On December 27, 1991, Mrs. Imelda Marcos and Messrs. Benedicto and Rivera were
indicted for violation of Section 10 of Circular No. 960[1] in relation to Section
34[2] of the Central Bank Act (Republic Act No. 265, as amended) in five
Informations filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
That same day, nine additional Informations charging Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto
with the same offense, but involving different accounts,... l
On January 3, 1992, eleven more Informations accusing Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto
of the same offense, again in relation to different accounts, were filed with the
same court
On the same day that Criminal Cases Nos. 92-101959 to 92-101969 were filed, the
Central Bank issued Circular No. 1318[5] which revised the rules governing non-
trade foreign exchange transactions. It took effect on January 20, 1992.
On September 19, 1993, 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.
On February 28, 1994, 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.
On August 11, 1994, petitioners moved to quash all the Informations filed against
them
On September 6, 1994, the trial court denied petitioners' motion.
On November 21, 1994, petitioners moved for leave to file a second motion for
reconsideration. The trial court, in its order of November 23, 1994, denied
petitioners' motion and set the consolidated cases for trial on January 5, 1995.
The assailed
September 6, 1994 Order, in so far as it denied the Motion to Quash Criminal Case
No. 91-101884 is hereby nullified and set aside, and said case is hereby dismissed.
Costs against petitioners.
1. Allowed to return to the Philippines on September 19, 1993...on the condition
that he face the criminal charges pending in courts, petitioner-appellant
Benedicto, joined by his co-petitioner Rivera, lost no time in attending to the
pending criminal charges by... posting bail in the above-mentioned cases.
2. Not having been afforded a real opportunity of attending the preliminary
investigation because of their forced absence from the Philippines then,
petitioners-appellants invoked their right to due process thru motions for
preliminary investigation
3. Thus, instead of remanding the Informations to the Department of
Justice...respondent Judge set the case for pre-trial in order to afford all the
accused access to the records of the prosecution.
In the instant case, it must be noted that despite the repeal of Circular No. 960,
Circular No. 1353 retained the same reportorial requirement for residents receiving
earnings or profits from non-trade foreign exchange transactions.[26]
In the instant case, it must be noted that despite the repeal of Circular No. 960,
Circular No. 1353 retained the same reportorial requirement for residents receiving
earnings or profits from non-trade foreign exchange transactions.[26] Second, even
the... most cursory glance at the repealing circulars, Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353
shows that both contain a saving clause, expressly providing that the repeal of
Circular No. 960 shall have no effect on pending actions for violation of the latter
Circular.
Issues:
the charge sheets alleged that the trio 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 Circular No. 960.
On the first issue, petitioners assail the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
They aver that the dollar-salting charges filed against them were violations of the
Anti-Graft Law or Republic Act No. 3019, and the Sandiganbayan has original and
exclusive... jurisdiction over their cases.
first issue, petitioners next contend that the filing of the cases for violations of
Circular No. 960 before the RTC of Manila constitutes forum shopping.
With respect to the RTC cases, the receipt of the interest earnings violate Circular
No. 960 in relation to Republic Act No. 265 because the same was unreported to
the Central Bank. The act to be penalized here is the failure to report the interest
earnings from the foreign... exchange accounts to the proper authority.
on the first issue, petitioners contend that the preliminary investigation by the
Department of Justice was invalid and in violation of their rights to due process.
5. On the basis of disclosures at the pre-trial, the petitioners-appellants

Benedicto and Rivera moved for the quashing of the informations/cases...
On the second issue, petitioners contend that they are being prosecuted for acts
punishable under laws that have already been repealed.
Petitioners, however, insist that the repeal of Republic Act No. 265, particularly
Section 34,[29] by Republic Act No. 7653, removed the applicability of any penal
sanction for violations of any non-trade foreign exchange transactions previously
penalized... by Circular No. 960.
Petitioners, however, point out that Section 36 of Republic Act No. 7653, in
reenacting Section 34 of the old Central Act, increased the penalty for violations of
rules and regulations issued by the Monetary Board. They claim that such increase
in the penalty would give Republic
Act No. 7653 an ex post facto application, violating the Bill of Rights.[
On the third issue, petitioners ask us to note that the dollar interest earnings
subject of the criminal cases instituted against them were remitted to foreign banks
on various dates between 1983 to 1987.
The fourth issue involves petitioners' claim that they incurred no criminal liability for
violations of Circular No. 960 since they were exempted from its coverage.
Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.[53] Laws of foreign
jurisdictions must be alleged and proved.
Anent the fifth issue, petitioners insist that the government granted them absolute
immunity under the Compromise Agreement they entered into with the government
on November 3, 1990.
Ruling:
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.
Penal laws cannot be given retroactive effect, except when they are favorable to
the accused.[39] Nowhere in Republic Act No. 7653, and in... particular Section 36,
is there any indication that the increased penalties provided therein were intended
to operate retroactively. There is, therefore, no ex post facto law in this case.
The offenses for which petitioners are charged are penalized by Section 34 of
Republic Act No. 265 "by a fine of not more than Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00) and by imprisonment of not more than five years."
During the pendency of this petition, counsel for petitioner Roberto S. Benedicto
gave formal notice to the Court that said petitioner died on May 15, 2000. The
death of an accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability as well
as the... civil liability based solely thereon.
Principles:
A comparison of the old Central Bank Act and the new Bangko Sentral's charter
repealing the former show that in consonance with the general objective of the old
law and the new law "to maintain internal and external monetary stability in the
Philippines and preserve the... international value of the peso
In construing contracts, it is important to ascertain the intent of the parties by
looking at the words employed to project their intention.

Provisos, Exceptions, and Saving Clauses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Provisos, Exceptions, and Saving Clauses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Provisos, Exceptions, and Saving Clauses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROVISOS, EXCEPTIONS, AND SAVING CLAUSES

ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. CA, GR No. 125359, 2001-09-04

5. On the basis of disclosures at the pre-trial, the petitioners-appellants

You might also like