People v. Capistrano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Caridad Capistrano was charged with violating Central Bank Circular No. 37, as implemented by Circular No. 60, Section 1 (b), in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265. The information alleged that on March 31, 1955, at the Manila International Airport, Capistrano, an outgoing Philippine resident, had in her possession and control, concealed in a sanitary pad, P5,000.00 worth of Philippine currency. Procedural History: A motion to quash was denied, and the accused pleaded not guilty. She later admitted the act but argued it did not constitute a public offense. Without further evidence, the lower court found her guilty and sentenced her to one month imprisonment, a P200.00 fine, and subsidiary imprisonment. She appealed directly to the Supreme Court on questions of law. The Petition: The accused argued that Circular No. 60 was null and void on several grounds, including lack of presidential approval, unauthorized exercise of power by the Monetary Board during non-exchange crisis periods, unconstitutional delegation of power, and the circular being ultra vires as it dealt with currency importation/exportation instead of foreign exchange.
Issue(s)
Whether the information sufficiently alleges facts constituting a violation of Central Bank Circular No. 60. Whether Central Bank Circular No. 60 is null and void.
Ruling
The decision of the lower court is reversed. The appellant is acquitted, and the confiscated sum of P5,000.00 is ordered returned to her.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the information: The Court found the information to be fatally defective. Section 1 (b) of Circular No. 60 prohibits the export of Philippine currency without a license, except for specific exemptions. The circular explicitly states that such export is prohibited "without the necessary license issued by the Central Bank." Therefore, to constitute a violation, the information must allege that the accused acted "without the necessary license issued by the Central Bank." The information in this case failed to include this essential averment. The Court reiterated the principle that a complaint in a criminal case must state every fact necessary to constitute an offense, and if it does not charge any offense at all, it does not exist in contemplation of law. The omission of the element of acting "without the necessary license" rendered the charge insufficient to sustain a conviction. On the validity of Circular No. 60: While the Court acknowledged that there were good reasons to uphold the validity of Circular No. 60, it deemed it unnecessary to delve into a meticulous discussion of the accused's arguments. The Court found that the fatal defect in the information was sufficient ground to reverse the conviction. Therefore, the Court did not definitively rule on the constitutionality or validity of the circular itself, focusing instead on the procedural insufficiency of the charge.
Main Doctrine
An information charging a violation of Central Bank Circular No. 60 is fatally defective if it fails to allege that the accused acted without the necessary license from the Central Bank, which is an indispensable element for constituting a violation of the circular.