People v. Revil
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Cipriano Revil y Cuayson was charged with violating sections 4(a) and 8 of Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank, in connection with section 34 of Republic Act No. 265, for failing to sell foreign exchange, consisting of United States dollar checks, money orders, and bills totaling $23,197.77, to authorized agents of the Central Bank within one business day of receipt. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of guilty. The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted him and sentenced him to one month imprisonment, a P3,000 fine, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs. The court reserved judgment on the accused's petition for the return of seized items, including the foreign exchange. Subsequently, the court ordered the return of personal effects and that the seized dollar bills and checks be exchanged for Philippine currency, with the value to be delivered to the accused. The prosecution appealed this order, insisting on the forfeiture of the foreign exchange. The Petition: The prosecution appealed the order of the Court of First Instance, arguing that the seized foreign exchange should have been forfeited in favor of the State.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution may appeal an order to return the value of seized foreign exchange to the accused for the purpose of seeking its forfeiture after the accused has already commenced serving his sentence and paid the fine.
Ruling
The appeal taken by the prosecution is dismissed. The Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance regarding the return of personal effects and the exchange of seized foreign currency for Philippine pesos to be delivered to the accused. The forfeiture of the foreign exchange was denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's appeal is legally untenable because it violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The Court emphasized that the defendant had already commenced serving his sentence on June 23, 1956, and had fully paid the fine and costs by July 17, 1956, before the prosecution filed its appeal. To grant the prosecution's request for forfeiture at this stage would result in an increase of the penalty already imposed by the trial court. Citing the precedent in People vs. Paet y Velasco, the Court reiterated that any modification of a final judgment that results in a heavier penalty for the accused, after the judgment has become final or its execution has begun, is barred. Since forfeiture is essentially a part of the penalty for the violation of Central Bank Circular No. 20, its imposition after the original sentence was partially satisfied would constitute a second jeopardy for the same offense. Consequently, the appellate court cannot entertain a plea to augment the punishment once the trial court's judgment has reached the stage of execution.
Main Doctrine
The forfeiture of assets, in addition to the penalties imposed for a violation of foreign exchange regulations, would constitute double jeopardy if the forfeiture would increase the penalty already imposed upon the accused.