People v. Jolliffe
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: William Ernest Jolliffe, a Canadian subject residing in Hongkong, arrived in Manila on December 4, 1953, to collect a debt. He was paid in gold, which he carried under his shirt. Upon attempting to leave the Bay View Hotel towards the runway, he was accosted by a secret service agent, Amanda Arimbay, and was directed to a search room. Procedural History: A search revealed four pieces of gold bullion tied to his body and a $100 travelers check. Jolliffe was arrested. During the arrest, he allegedly offered to settle the case by offering money to the arresting agents. Mr. Manikan, Deputy Collector of Customs, testified that Jolliffe offered him P30,000.00 to settle the case. The trial court accepted Manikan's testimony as the true version, noting that Jolliffe admitted to having the gold bullion when attempting to board a plane on December 7, 1953, valued at P35,305.46. The Petition: Jolliffe appealed his conviction for violating Republic Act No. 256, based on Central Bank Circular No. 21, which imposed a penalty of imprisonment, a fine, and forfeiture of the gold bullion and travelers check. He raised several assignments of error concerning the validity and applicability of the circular and the penal provisions.
Issue(s)
Whether Central Bank Circular No. 21, requiring a license for gold exportation, applies to attempted or frustrated violations. Whether the accused can be held liable for attempted violation of Circular No. 21 if there was no willful violation. Whether mere possession of gold is illegal under Circular No. 21. Whether Circular No. 21 is a valid law, considering its promulgation and compliance with Republic Act No. 265. Whether the forfeiture of the gold bullion and the travelers check was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, with modification regarding the forfeiture of the travelers check. The conviction for violation of Republic Act No. 256, through Central Bank Circular No. 21, was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability to attempted violations: The Court held that Central Bank Circular No. 21, specifically Section 4, explicitly applies to "any person desiring to export gold," thus contemplating the situation prior to the consummation of the exportation. The penal sanction is intended to be effective before the article leaves the Philippines to maintain jurisdiction. Therefore, attempted or frustrated violations are covered. On willful violation and ignorance: The Court found that Jolliffe's claim of ignorance was belied by his actions: carrying the gold under his shirt, objecting to the search, and attempting to bribe the officers. These acts demonstrated an intent to conceal the gold and prevent its discovery, indicating a willful attempt to export without a license. On mere possession of gold: The Court clarified that the conviction was not solely based on the possession of gold but on the appellant's attempt to export it without the requisite license. Therefore, it was unnecessary to rule on whether mere possession of gold bullion is illegal under Circular No. 21. On the validity of Circular No. 21: The Court upheld the validity of Circular No. 21. It presumed that the Monetary Board obtained the necessary presidential approval as required by Section 74 of Republic Act No. 265, in the absence of proof to the contrary, citing the presumption of regularity in the performance of administrative duties. The Court also noted that presidential approval for such circulars need not be in writing unless explicitly required by law. Furthermore, the Court recognized that the circular was issued during an exchange crisis and was intended to combat it, even if its temporary character was not explicitly stated on its face. The Court also found that the publication in the Official Gazette was sufficient and that the grant of authority to the Monetary Board did not constitute an invalid delegation of legislative power, as it provided a reasonable standard for the execution of the law's policy. On forfeiture: The Court affirmed the forfeiture of the four pieces of gold bullion, as they were the instruments and proceeds of the crime. However, it modified the ruling regarding the travelers check, finding that the appellant had no knowledge of its possession and thus no criminal intent, and therefore, it should not be forfeited.
Main Doctrine
The Central Bank, through its Monetary Board, can issue circulars requiring licenses for the export of gold, and violations thereof are punishable, even if the act is merely an attempted exportation, provided the circular is issued in accordance with law and presidential approval is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence.