GR L 11061; (December, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-11061, December 29, 1958
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CIPRIANO REVIL Y CUAYSON, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The defendant, Cipriano Revil y Cuayson, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with violating Sections 4(a) and 8 of Central Bank Circular No. 20, in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265, for failing to sell foreign exchange (U.S. dollar checks, money orders, and bills totaling $23,197.77) to authorized Central Bank agents within one business day of receipt. He pleaded guilty. On June 23, 1956, the court convicted and sentenced him to one month imprisonment, a P3,000 fine (with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency), and costs. The court deferred ruling on the defendant’s motion for the return of his seized suitcase, clothing, personal effects, and the dollar instruments. After receiving memoranda and hearing the parties, the court issued an order on July 9, 1956, directing the return of the personal effects and ordering that the seized dollar bills and checks be exchanged for Philippine currency at the Central Bank, with the proceeds delivered to the defendant. It also stated that if the P3,000 fine remained unpaid, a writ of execution should be issued against the Central Bank for that amount. The prosecution appealed this order, insisting the court should have ordered the forfeiture of the dollar instruments to the State. The defendant had begun serving his sentence on June 23, 1956, paid the fine and costs on July 17, 1956, and the prosecution filed its notice of appeal on July 20, 1956.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution’s appeal, which seeks the forfeiture of the U.S. dollar instruments after the trial court ordered their exchange and the proceeds delivered to the defendant, is legally tenable.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecution’s appeal. It ruled that granting the appeal and ordering the forfeiture of the dollar instruments after the trial court’s order for their exchange would place the defendant in double jeopardy. Such forfeiture would constitute an increase in the penalty already imposed upon him. The Court cited its precedent in People vs. Paet y Velasco (53 Off. Gaz. 668) to support this conclusion. Therefore, the appeal was found to be legally untenable.