People v. De Leon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rosario B. de Leon was an outgoing passenger scheduled to depart for Hongkong. During inspection, she declared P100.00. However, agent Socorro de Guzman found P700.00 hidden in her passport wallet, P700.00 sewn into her panties, and P1,000.00 in each breast padding. De Leon admitted to agent De Guzman that these amounts were seized from her person. It was also proven that she failed to secure the necessary permit from the Central Bank to carry the excess money. Procedural History: Two informations were filed against De Leon for violating Central Bank Circulars 37 and 42, as implemented by other circulars, in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265. The cases were tried jointly. The trial court denied De Leon's motion to dismiss and subsequently found her guilty in both cases, sentencing her to imprisonment and fines, with forfeiture of the seized currency. The Petition: De Leon appealed the decision, contending that the circulars were null and void, contravened international agreements, were not properly based on Republic Act No. 265, and that the information in one case was fatally defective for failing to allege the lack of a license.
Issue(s)
Whether Central Bank Circulars 20, 37, and 42 are null and void for lack of Presidential approval, lack of temporal limits, or contravention of international agreements. Whether the Information in Criminal Case No. 4100-P is fatally defective for failing to allege the absence of a Central Bank license.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. It affirmed the conviction in Criminal Case No. 4101-P but ordered the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 4100-P without prejudice due to a fatally defective information. The rest of the decision was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the challenges to the validity of the Central Bank Circulars were meritless. Reaffirming the rulings in People v. Koh and People v. Lim Ho, the Court established that Circular No. 20 (implemented by Circular 42) was indeed approved by the President of the Philippines. Its duration is co-extensive with the exchange crisis it was designed to combat, meaning no specific expiration date is required. Regarding international commitments, the Court ruled that the Central Bank and the President are presumed to have performed their duties properly, and the burden is on the defense to show a conflict with international agreements like the IMF or United States-Philippine trade agreements. The Court noted that the U.S. Embassy had expressed concurrence with such measures to safeguard dollar reserves. Therefore, the circulars were legally promulgated by the Monetary Board under the authority of RA No. 265 to conserve the international value of the peso. On Issue 2: The Court found merit in the appellant's contention regarding the insufficiency of the Information in the peso-related case. Applying the doctrine in People v. Capistrano, the Court ruled that for an Information to properly charge a violation of the currency export circulars, it must explicitly allege that the accused took or attempted to take out Philippine currency "without the necessary license issued by the Central Bank." Because the Information in Criminal Case No. 4100-P omitted this essential element, it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute an offense. This omission makes the charge insufficient to support a conviction, necessitating the dismissal of that specific case without prejudice to its re-filing.
Main Doctrine
An information for illegal export of currency must allege that the accused did not have the necessary license from the Central Bank to carry the money seized, otherwise, it is fatally defective for failing to state facts sufficient to constitute an offense.