G.R. No. L-13567-68; September 30, 1960
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rosario B. de Leon, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On August 5, 1957, two informations were filed against Rosario B. de Leon in the Court of First Instance of Pasay. The charges were: (1) 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 (Criminal Case No. 4100-P); and (2) violating Central Bank Circular No. 42, Section 3(a), as amended by Circular No. 55, in relation to Section 34 of the same Act (Criminal Case No. 4101-P). The accused pleaded not guilty, and the cases were tried jointly.
The established facts are: On August 3, 1957, Rosario B. de Leon was a booked outgoing passenger on a Philippine Air Lines flight to Hong Kong from Manila International Airport. After customs inspection and her declaration at the Central Bank counter of the money she possessed, she proceeded to the area for departing passengers. There, she was accosted by agent Socorro de Guzman, who asked about the money she was carrying. De Leon stated she had only P100.00. De Guzman examined her handbag and found the declared P100.00. Upon examining De Leon’s passport wallet, De Guzman found P700.00 and one $100.00 bill behind its cover. After De Leon affirmed that was all the money she had, De Guzman invited her to the ladies’ room for further inspection, where she found P700.00 sewed at the bottom of De Leon’s panties and P1,000.00 in each of her breast paddings. De Guzman then took De Leon to agent Belemo, who also investigated her. De Leon made a voluntary statement admitting the seizure of the articles and amounts. It was proven that De Leon failed to secure the necessary permit from the Central Bank to carry the excess money found in her possession.
After the prosecution presented its evidence, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. The court rendered a decision on February 27, 1958, finding De Leon guilty in both cases. In Criminal Case No. 4100-P, she was sentenced to three months imprisonment, a P3,000.00 fine with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, costs, and forfeiture of the seized Philippine currency (twenty P100-peso bills and twenty-eight P50-peso bills) in favor of the government. In Criminal Case No. 4101-P, she was sentenced to three months imprisonment, a P300.00 fine with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, costs, and forfeiture of the one hundred dollar bill in favor of the government.

ISSUE

The appellant contends the trial court erred in not acquitting her on the following grounds: (1) Circular No. 42, as an implementation of Circular No. 20 (which was allegedly issued without Presidential approval and lacks a provision limiting its period of operation), is null and void; (2) Circulars Nos. 20 and 42, as amended, contravene the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund; (3) said circulars were issued without the approval of the President of the United States pursuant to the Philippine-U.S. agreement on trade and related matters; (4) the issuance of Circulars Nos. 42 and 37, as amended, cannot be legally based on Sections 74 and 14 of Republic Act No. 265; and (5) the information in Criminal Case No. 4100-P fails to state facts sufficient to constitute the crime charged because it does not allege that the accused did not have the requisite license to carry the money.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the first four issues not new, having been previously passed upon in several cases. The Court held: (1) Circular No. 20 was in fact approved by the President of the Philippines; (2) its period of operation need not be expressly stated but is deemed co-extensive with the exchange crisis, which still existed; (3) the circulars do not contravene the International Monetary Fund Agreement, as the Central Bank and the President certified their accordance, and the defense failed to show conflict; and (4) the United States Government, through an official statement, did not object to and even approved the imposition of such exchange restrictions. Furthermore, Circular No. 42, as amended, was legally issued under the authority of Section 74 of Republic Act No. 265, and Circular No. 37, as amended, under Section 14 in relation to Sections 2 and 64 of the same Act, to conserve the country’s dollar reserve and preserve the peso’s international value.
However, the Court found merit in the fifth issue. The information in Criminal Case No. 4100-P fatally failed to allege that the accused did not have the necessary license from the Central Bank to carry the excess Philippine currency. Following the precedent in People vs. Capistrano, this omission renders the charge insufficient to constitute an offense.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision is modified. The information filed in Criminal Case No. 4100-P (G.R. No. L-13567) is dismissed without prejudice. The rest of the decision is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.