G.R. No. L-9820; August 30, 1957.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PEDRO R. EXCONDE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Pedro R. Exconde, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila for violating Central Bank Circular No. 37, dated September 25, 1952. The circular limited an outgoing passenger’s possession of Philippine currency to P100. On May 5, 1954, Exconde, a passenger on the s.s. President Wilson bound for Japan, was found by a supervising agent of the Department of Finance to have in his possession P5,090 in Philippine currency, U.S. $50 in cash, travelers’ checks for $100, and a Bank of America remitter’s receipt for $350. It was undisputed that his possession of the P5,090 was unlicensed and violated the circular. He was sentenced to four months imprisonment and a fine of P100. Both Exconde and the Government appealed. Exconde argued the circular was invalid, while the Government appealed the trial court’s refusal to order the confiscation of the P5,000.

ISSUE

1. Whether Central Bank Circular No. 37 is a valid exercise of regulatory power under the Central Bank Act ( Republic Act No. 265 ).
2. Whether violations of the circular are punishable as criminal offenses under Section 34 of the Central Bank Act.
3. Whether the unlicensed money found in Exconde’s possession should be confiscated.

RULING

1. Yes, Circular No. 37 is valid. The Supreme Court held that Section 14(a) of the Central Bank Act constitutionally delegated to the Monetary Board the authority to issue rules and regulations to effectively discharge its responsibilities and powers. The Court rejected Exconde’s argument that Section 34’s penal sanctions applied only to regulations concerning banking institution supervision. It ruled that the first paragraph of Section 34 broadly established penalties for violations of the Act or any legally issued Monetary Board regulation. The circular, which limited currency export to maintain monetary stability and the peso’s international value, was germane to the Bank’s objectives under Sections 2 and 64 of the Act and was a valid implementation of the law, not an invalid delegation of legislative power.
2. Yes, violations are punishable. The Court ruled that violations of Circular No. 37 are punishable under the first paragraph of Section 34 of the Central Bank Act, which prescribes penalties for willful violations of the Act or any legally issued Monetary Board order, instruction, rule, or regulation.
3. Yes, the money should be confiscated. The Court modified the trial court’s judgment, ordering the forfeiture of the unlicensed P5,000 to the Government. It held that Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, concerning confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of a crime, applies to violations of the Central Bank Act or its valid regulations pursuant to Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code. Since Exconde himself had appealed, the Government’s appeal for confiscation was permissible, as it did not place him in double jeopardy; the review could correct the penalty, including increasing it.
The appealed judgment was affirmed in all other respects. Costs were imposed on Exconde.