People v. Que Po Lay
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case involves Que Po Lay, who was charged with violating Central Bank Circular No. 20, in conjunction with section 34 of Republic Act No. 265. The alleged violation stemmed from his possession of foreign exchange, including U.S. dollars, checks, and money orders totaling approximately $7,000, which he failed to sell to the Central Bank or its agents within the stipulated one-day period following receipt, as mandated by the circular. 2. Procedural History: Que Po Lay was found guilty of the charge by the Court of First Instance of Manila. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment, a fine of P1,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The conviction was based on his failure to comply with Central Bank Circular No. 20 regarding the sale of foreign exchange. 3. The Petition: The appeal to the Supreme Court is predicated on the argument that Central Bank Circular No. 20 lacked legal force and effect at the time of the alleged offense because it had not been published in the Official Gazette. Appellant contends that Commonwealth Act No. 638 and Act 2930 necessitate such publication for circulars of general applicability. The Solicitor General, however, argues that these acts do not require publication for such implementing circulars to be binding. Furthermore, the Solicitor General raised the issue that the non-publication argument was being raised for the first time on appeal, which is generally impermissible.
Issue(s)
Whether Central Bank Circular No. 20, which prescribes a penalty for its violation, is binding and effective without prior publication in the Official Gazette. Whether the appellant can be held liable for violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 if it was not published prior to the commission of the alleged offense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, acquitting the appellant. The Court held that Central Bank Circular No. 20, particularly its penal provision, did not have legal effect and could not bind anyone until its publication in the Official Gazette. Consequently, the appellant could not be held liable for its violation as it was not binding at the time of the alleged offense.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of publication and effectivity of Central Bank Circular No. 20: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that Commonwealth Act No. 638 and Act 2930 do not explicitly require the publication of circulars, regulations, and notices issued for the implementation of a law to have force and effect. These acts merely enumerate what should be published in the Official Gazette. However, the Court emphasized that Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code and Article 2 of the Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386) provide that statutes take effect after fifteen days following their publication in the Official Gazette, unless otherwise provided. While Circular No. 20 is not a statute, it has the force and effect of law when issued for the implementation of an authorizing law, according to settled jurisprudence. Furthermore, as a general rule, circulars and regulations, especially those prescribing penalties, must be published before becoming effective. This is based on the principle that the public must be officially and specifically informed of the contents and penalties of a law, regulation, or circular before they can be bound by it. The Court cited Manresa's commentary on the Spanish Civil Code, which opines that the term "laws" includes regulations and circulars, and a Supreme Court ruling interpreting Article 1 of the Old Civil Code to this effect. The Court noted that Circular No. 20 was issued in 1949 but not published until November 1951, which was about three months after the appellant's conviction. Therefore, the circular, particularly its penal provision, had no legal effect and bound no one until its publication. The appellant could not be held liable for its violation because it was not binding at the time he was found to have failed to sell the foreign exchange in his possession. On the issue of raising non-publication for the first time on appeal: The Court acknowledged that ordinarily, a question not raised in the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. However, it clarified that the question of non-publication is fundamental and decisive. If the circular was indeed not published as required by law before its violation, then, in the eyes of the law, there was no such circular to be violated, and consequently, the appellant committed no offense. In such a situation, the trial court may be considered to have lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, this fundamental question can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, whether or not it was raised in the court below.
Main Doctrine
A circular or regulation, particularly one prescribing a penalty for its violation, must be published in the Official Gazette to have the force and effect of law and to bind the public. Non-publication renders the circular ineffective and precludes liability for its violation.