GR L 12091 92; (January, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12091 and L-12092; January 28, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LIM HO alias SIA SUAN TEE and RAFAEL KOA alias GAO AH alias LI CHIAN, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
On November 15, 1954, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received confidential information that a large amount of U.S. dollar currency was to be smuggled out of the country on a Philippine Air Lines flight to Hong Kong. NBI agents delayed the flight’s departure. The agents observed appellants Lim Ho and Rafael Koa acting suspiciously at the Manila International Airport. An informer identified a specific luggage (Exhibit “B”) tagged in Lim Ho’s name on the plane. The luggage was retrieved and opened in the presence of customs officials, revealing hidden U.S. currency. Lim Ho, who appeared pale and nervous, was taken to the NBI office. A full examination of the luggage’s false sides, conducted in the presence of representatives from the Department of Finance, Central Bank, Bureau of Customs, and the NBI, yielded four gold bars (weighing 740.614 grams) and various U.S. dollar checks and currency totaling $52,769.15. Rafael Koa was apprehended later that day as he hurriedly left the airport. Initially denying involvement, he later admitted knowing Lim Ho and delivering the luggage to her. Two separate amended informations were filed: one (Criminal Case No. 5161) charged them with attempting to export gold without the required Central Bank license under Republic Act No. 265 and its Circulars; the other (Criminal Case No. 5162) charged them with attempting to export foreign exchange without declaring it and without the required Central Bank license. After a joint trial, the Court of First Instance of Rizal found them guilty on both counts and imposed separate penalties, including imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture of the seized items. Both defendants appealed.
ISSUE
1. Whether Circulars Nos. 20, 21, 42, and 55 of the Central Bank were validly promulgated.
2. Whether the appellants committed one complex crime or two separate offenses.
3. Whether the forfeiture of the seized gold bars and foreign exchange was proper.
RULING
1. On the validity of the Central Bank Circulars: The Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ contention. Citing previous decisions (People vs. Jollife, People vs. Henderson, People vs. Koh), the Court held that Circular No. 20 was approved by the President of the Philippines. The subsequent circulars (Nos. 21, 42, and 55) were merely implementations of Circular No. 20, and therefore, separate presidential approval was not necessary. The Court also found no merit in the claim that approval from the International Monetary Fund or the President of the United States was required.
2. On the nature of the offenses: The Court ruled that the appellants committed two distinct offenses, not one complex crime. The offense in Criminal Case No. 5161 (attempted exportation of gold without a license) is punishable under Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265 in connection with Circulars Nos. 20 and 21. The offense in Criminal Case No. 5162 (attempted exportation of foreign exchange without declaration and a license) is punishable under the same Act in connection with Circulars Nos. 20, 42, and 55. One act was not a necessary means to commit the other. Therefore, separate prosecutions and penalties for each offense were proper.
3. On the forfeiture: The Court noted the Solicitor General’s observation that the gold bars and U.S. securities had been seized by the Bureau of Customs under a seizure proceeding (Seizure Identification No. 2194) on November 15, 1954, which was prior to the filing of the criminal cases in the Court of First Instance on November 16, 1954. Since the Collector of Customs had acquired prior jurisdiction over the items as part of a seizure case, the parts of the trial court’s judgments ordering their forfeiture in these criminal proceedings were ordered stricken out.
DISPOSITIVE:
With the modification that the orders for the forfeiture of the gold bars and foreign exchange in the criminal cases were set aside (without prejudice to the customs seizure proceedings), the judgments of conviction were affirmed in all other respects. Costs were imposed on the appellants.