People v. Exconde
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Pedro R. Exconde, was convicted for violating Central Bank Circular No. 37, which limits the amount of Philippine currency an outgoing passenger can carry to P100. Exconde was found with P5,090 in Philippine currency and other foreign currency and instruments while boarding a vessel bound for Japan. His possession of the P5,000 was unlicensed. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted Exconde, sentencing him to four months imprisonment and a fine of P100, but refused to order the confiscation of the P5,000. The Petition: Two appeals were filed: one by Exconde challenging the validity of Circular No. 37, and another by the Government seeking the confiscation of the P5,000.
Issue(s)
Whether Central Bank Circular No. 37 is a valid exercise of regulatory power. Whether violations of Central Bank Circular No. 37 are punishable under Section 34 of the Central Bank Act. Whether Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, concerning confiscation, applies to violations of Central Bank Circular No. 37.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is modified by ordering the confiscation of the unlicensed money found in the possession of appellant Exconde. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Central Bank Circular No. 37: The Court held that Central Bank Circular No. 37 is a valid exercise of the regulatory power delegated by the Central Bank Act (Republic Act No. 265). The Court rejected Exconde's argument that Section 34 of the Act only applied to regulations under Article IV, Chapter B, finding the first paragraph of Section 34 to be broad enough to cover all violations of the Act and legally issued regulations. The Court also found that Section 14 of the Central Bank Law, which grants the Monetary Board authority to issue rules and regulations, provides adequate standards such as maintaining monetary stability and preserving the international value of the peso. The Court cited established jurisprudence on the constitutionality of delegating legislative power to administrative bodies, provided the regulations are germane to the law's objectives and conform to prescribed standards. The Court concluded that the Circular was in harmony with the objectives of the Central Bank Act, particularly controlling money supply and preserving the peso's value, as unchecked currency exportation would depress its international value. On the punishability of violations: The Court affirmed that violations of Circular No. 37 are punishable under the penal sanctions of the Central Bank Act. It reiterated the principle that a violation of a rule or regulation validly issued under legislative authority constitutes an offense punishable under the authorizing statute. The Court cited U.S. vs. Bailey and U.S. vs. Eaton, emphasizing that while the legislature cannot delegate the power to define crimes, it can authorize administrative officers to prescribe duties on which the law may operate to impose penalties and effectuate legislative purpose. The Court noted that courts sustain the enforcement of penalties for violations of administrative rules when the rule is reasonable and the legislature, not the agency, made the action penal. On the applicability of Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code for confiscation: The Court ruled that Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for the confiscation or forfeiture of instruments or tools employed in the commission of a crime, applies to violations of special laws, including the Central Bank Act, in the absence of a contrary provision. The Court referenced Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, stating that offenses punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the Code, but the Code is supplementary unless otherwise provided. The Court cited previous cases where Article 45 was applied to violations of special laws, such as the Opium Law and usury laws. The Court distinguished the present case from People vs. Paet and People vs. Sanchez, where the government's appeal for forfeiture was denied due to double jeopardy concerns when the accused did not appeal. In Exconde's case, his own appeal opened the door for review and correction of the penalty, including the imposition of confiscation.
Main Doctrine
Central Bank Circular No. 37, issued by the Monetary Board, is a valid exercise of regulatory power delegated by the Central Bank Act. Violations are punishable under Section 34 of the Act, and Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code applies for confiscation of unlicensed currency.