G.R. No. 125359 September 4, 2001
ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO and HECTOR T. RIVERAvs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GUILLERMO L. LOJA, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 26, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS

Petitioners Roberto S. Benedicto and Hector T. Rivera, along with Imelda Marcos, were charged with multiple counts of violating Central Bank Circular No. 960 for allegedly failing to report foreign exchange earnings and register foreign currency accounts with the Central Bank. The Informations alleged they maintained accounts abroad through dummy foundations and received interest from investments in foreign-issued treasury notes without complying with mandatory reporting requirements. Petitioners moved to quash the Informations, arguing the charges did not constitute an offense because the funds involved were allegedly owned by the foreign foundations named in the accounts, not by the petitioners personally. The trial court denied their motions, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly denied the petitioners’ Motion to Quash the Informations on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the rulings of the lower courts. The legal logic is that in a motion to quash based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the court examines only the allegations in the Information. The test is whether these allegations, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense defined by law, without considering the truth of the allegations or the validity of possible defenses. The Informations in this case clearly alleged that the petitioners, as residents who habitually earned foreign exchange, failed to report these earnings and register the accounts as required by Circular No. 960. These allegations, taken as true, sufficiently charge a violation of the circular. The petitioners’ contention—that the funds belonged to the foundations and thus they had no duty to report—is a matter of defense relating to the ownership of the funds. This is a factual issue requiring evidence that must be ventilated during a full trial on the merits, not resolved in a motion to quash. A motion to quash cannot be used as a vehicle for a premature presentation of evidence or for determining factual matters like ownership, which are evidentiary in nature. Consequently, the trial court committed no error in denying the motion and proceeding to trial where such defenses could be properly raised and proved.