Roberto Benedicto and Hector Rivera v. Court of Appeals, Hon.

Guillermo L Loja
(presiding judge RTF Mnl) and Ppl. Of the Philippines.
G.R. No. 125359. September 4, 2001
Quisumbing, J:
FACTS:
On December 27, 1991 Mrs Imelda Marcos and Messrs. Benedicto and Rivera were
indicted for violation of Section 10 of Circular No. 960 in relation to Section 34 of the
Central Bank Act (RA no. 265) in five informations filed with the RTC of Manila. It
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. 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. Violations of the Circular were punishable as a criminal offense under
Section 34 of the Central Bank Act. A total of 25 informations were filed. Petitioners
posted bail, entered pleas and filed various motions and pleadings. On November 3,
1990, petitioners entered into a compromise agreement with the government
regarding Sandiganbayan Civil Cases Nos. 9, 24 and 34, Tanodbayan (PhilAsia), and
PCGG I.S. No. 1. Meanwhile, CB Circular No. 1318 revised the rules governing nontrade foreign exchange transactions and Circular No. 1353 deleted the requirement
of prior Central Bank approval for foreign exchange-funded expenditures obtained
from the banking system. Both circulars contained a saving clause exempting from
its coverage pending criminal actions involving violations of Circular No. 960 and
Circular No. 1318, respectively. Motions to quash were then filed on grounds of lack
of jurisdiction, forum shopping, irregular conduct of preliminary investigation,
extinction of criminal liability and the grant of absolute immunity as a result of the
compromise agreement. It was alleged that the dollar-salting charges were
violations of the Anti-Graft Law (R.A. 3019) falling under the original jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan and that the act of receiving interest earnings on Treasury Notes
is an element of the offense of prohibited transactions. On certiorari, the Court of
Appeals dismissed the same for lack of merit, hence, the present recourse.
Meanwhile, petitioner Benedicto passed away.
ISSUES:
1. WON the RTC lacks jurisdiction?
2. WON there was forum shopping?
3. WON the repeal of the CB circular no 960 and RA no 265 by Circular no 1353
and RA 7653 respectively extinguish the criminal liability?
4. WON the criminal cases in violation of Circular no. 960 already prescribed?
5. WON the alleged violation of Circular No. 960 was covered by the absolute
immunity granted in the Compromise Agreement of November 3, 1990.
HELD:

1. There is Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by

the law in force at the time the action is instituted. The cases filed against
petitioners were punishable by imprisonment of not more than six years. Under P.D.
No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over cases where the imposable
penalty is less than six (6) years. The RTC has jurisdiction on the motion to quash .
2. Forum Shopping/Res Judicata Abesnt: There is no forum shopping where the acts
sought to be penalized (failure to report the interest earning from foreign exchange
accounts in Circular No. 960 and receipt of said interest earning in R.A. 3019) refer
to two distinct offenses. The prosecution under one law is not an obstacle under the
other law.
3. Crime not extinguished by repeal: The rule that 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 is subject to exceptions, one of which is
the inclusion of a saving clause in the repealing law, which is present in the case at
bar. Thus, the pending cases of petitioners are not affected by the repeal.
4. Havent prescribed yet: The period of recovery of ill-gotten wealth, pursuant to
the explicit command of the Provisional Constitution, commenced to run only after
the EDSA Revolution of February, 1986. The criminal actions against petitioners
were filed in 1991-92, a period well within the eight (8)-year prescriptive period.
5. Violation not included from immunity: The compromise agreement entered into
by petitioner with the government refers only to cases specifically mentioned
therein. There was no mention of the criminal cases for violations of Circular No.
960. It does not include violations of Circular No. 960. 6. Extinguished by the death:
The death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon |||