GR L 12724; (January, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12724; January 31, 1958
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Caridad Capistrano was charged in the Court of First Instance of Rizal with violating Central Bank Circular No. 37, as implemented by Circular No. 60, Section 1(b), in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265 . The information alleged that on or about March 31, 1955, at the Manila International Airport, Pasay City, she, an outgoing Philippine resident booked to leave for Hong Kong, willfully and unlawfully had in her possession and control, concealed in a sanitary pad, one hundred pieces of P50.00 bills totaling P5,000.00. After her motion to quash was denied and she pleaded not guilty, she admitted the act during trial but contended it did not constitute a public offense. Without further evidence, the lower court found her guilty, sentencing her to one month imprisonment, a P200.00 fine with subsidiary imprisonment, and costs. She appealed directly to the Supreme Court on purely legal questions.
ISSUE
Whether the information filed against Caridad Capistrano sufficiently charges a public offense for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 60, Section 1(b).
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision and acquitted the appellant. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the constitutional and statutory validity of Circular No. 60, as raised by the appellant. Instead, it held that, even assuming the circular’s validity, the information suffered from a fatal defect. Section 1(b) of Circular No. 60 prohibits outgoing residents from taking Philippine coins and notes exceeding P100 (with coins not exceeding P5) without a necessary license from the Central Bank. For an offense to be constituted, the information must allege that the accused took or was about to take out of the Philippines currency in excess of the exempted amount without the required license. The information against Capistrano contained no such averment; it only alleged possession and control of the currency concealed on her person. This omission meant the information did not state every fact necessary to constitute the offense, and thus charged no offense at all. Consequently, the confiscated sum of P5,000 was ordered returned to her.