G.R. No. L-9553; May 13, 1959
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILLIAM ERNEST JOLLIFFE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, William Ernest Jolliffe, a Canadian subject residing in Hong Kong, arrived in Manila to collect a debt. On December 7, 1953, while about to board a plane at the Manila International Airport, he was searched by secret service agents. Four pieces of gold bullion valued at P35,305.46 were found tied to his body underneath his shirt. A $100 traveler’s check was also found in his possession. He had no license from the Central Bank to export the gold. During the incident, he attempted to bribe the arresting officers. The Court of First Instance of Rizal convicted him of violating Republic Act No. 256 (in relation to Central Bank Circular No. 21), sentencing him to one year imprisonment, a P2,000 fine, and ordering the forfeiture of the gold bullion and the traveler’s check to the government.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by the appellant were:
1. Whether Circular No. 21 penalizes only consummated exportation or also attempted violation.
2. Whether there was a willful violation of the circular.
3. Whether mere possession of gold is illegal under the circular.
4. Whether Circular No. 21 is a valid law, specifically challenging its approval by the President, its nature as an emergency measure, its publication, and whether it constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative power.
5. Whether the forfeiture of the gold bullion was proper.
6. Whether the forfeiture of the traveler’s check was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification regarding the forfeiture of the traveler’s check.
1. On the Nature of the Violation: The Court ruled that Section 4 of Central Bank Circular No. 21 applies to “any person desiring to export gold,” which necessarily includes acts prior to consummation. The purpose of the law would be defeated if the penalty applied only after the gold had left the country.
2. On Willful Violation: The Court found that the appellant’s actions—concealing the gold on his person, objecting to the search, and attempting to bribe officers—belied his claim of ignorance and established a willful violation.
3. On Mere Possession: The Court held that the conviction was based not on mere possession but on the attempt to export the gold without the required license.
4. On the Validity of Circular No. 21: The Court rejected all challenges to the circular’s validity.
* Presidential Approval: It was presumed, in the absence of contrary proof, that the Monetary Board regularly performed its duty and obtained the required presidential approval.
* Emergency Measure and Delegation of Power: The Court cited the presumption of regularity in the performance of administrative duties and upheld the circular as a valid exercise of delegated authority under Republic Act No. 265 (The Central Bank Act).
* Publication: The publication in the Official Gazette was deemed sufficient.
5. On Forfeiture of Gold Bullion: The Court upheld the forfeiture, applying Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code supplementally, as Republic Act No. 265 does not specifically provide otherwise.
6. On Forfeiture of Traveler’s Check: The Court modified the decision, ruling that the forfeiture of the $100 traveler’s check was improper. The lower court had found the appellant had no knowledge of its possession and no criminal intent regarding it.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
With the modification that the order of forfeiture of the $100 traveler’s check is set aside, the decision of the lower court is affirmed in all other respects.