Benedicto v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Roberto S. Benedicto and Hector T. Rivera, along with Imelda R. Marcos, were indicted in 1991 and 1992 for violations of Central Bank Circular No. 960. This circular prohibited maintaining foreign exchange accounts abroad without prior authorization and required residents habitually earning foreign currencies to report such earnings to the Central Bank. Violations were punishable under Section 34 of the Central Bank Act. The charges stemmed from allegations that the accused failed to submit reports of their foreign exchange earnings from abroad and/or failed to register these earnings with the Central Bank within the mandated period. The specific allegations involved various foreign exchange accounts maintained in foreign banks, with amounts and dates of transactions differing across the numerous informations filed. Procedural History: The criminal cases were consolidated before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 26. Petitioners Benedicto and Rivera moved to quash the informations, citing lack of jurisdiction, forum shopping, extinction of criminal liability due to the repeal of relevant circulars and laws, prescription, exemption from reporting requirements, and grant of absolute immunity under a compromise agreement. The trial court denied their motion. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals, in a consolidated decision, affirmed the denial of the motions to quash, except for one specific criminal case which was dismissed. Petitioners, dissatisfied with this decision, filed the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the informations filed against them were quashable. Their petition raises several grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, forum shopping, absence of a valid preliminary investigation, extinction of criminal liability due to the repeal of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Republic Act No. 265, prescription of the offenses, exemption from reporting requirements, and the grant of absolute immunity under a compromise agreement with the government. They contend that the repeal of the relevant laws and circulars extinguished their criminal liability, that the offenses had prescribed, and that they were either exempt from the reporting requirements or covered by an absolute immunity agreement. The petition also addresses the jurisdiction of the trial court, the validity of the preliminary investigation, and the potential ex post facto application of new penal provisions.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the Motion to Quash for lack of jurisdiction, forum shopping, and absence of a valid preliminary investigation. Whether the repeal of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Republic Act No. 265 extinguished the criminal liability of petitioners. Whether the criminal cases had already prescribed. Whether petitioners were exempted from the application and coverage of Circular No. 960. Whether petitioners’ alleged violations were covered by the absolute immunity granted in a Compromise Agreement.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision with modification. The charges against the deceased petitioner, Roberto S. Benedicto, were ordered dropped, and his criminal and civil liabilities were declared extinguished by reason of his death. The criminal and civil liabilities of the surviving petitioner, Hector T. Rivera, were maintained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction, forum shopping, and preliminary investigation: The Court held that the RTC had jurisdiction because the offenses charged were violations of CB Circular No. 960, punishable by imprisonment of not more than five years, which falls under the jurisdiction of regular trial courts, not the Sandiganbayan. The Court found no forum shopping, as the violation of Circular No. 960 (failure to report) and the violation of R.A. 3019 (prohibited receipt) are distinct offenses, even if arising from the same transaction. Regarding preliminary investigation, the Court ruled that petitioners waived any irregularity by posting bail, entering pleas, and filing various motions without demanding a proper preliminary investigation. On the repeal of penal laws: The Court held that the repeal of CB Circular No. 960 and R.A. 265 did not extinguish petitioners' criminal liability. Both repealing circulars (Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353) contained saving clauses that explicitly exempted pending actions or investigations from the repeal. Furthermore, Section 34 of R.A. 265 was considered simultaneously reenacted in Section 36 of R.A. 7653 (The New Central Bank Act), meaning the penal provision continued in force without interruption, thus preserving pending cases. On prescription: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the offenses had not prescribed. The prescriptive period for violations of Circular No. 960 is eight years, pursuant to Act No. 3326. The Court held that prescription should be counted from the discovery of the offenses, which occurred after the EDSA Revolution in 1986, as the prevailing political climate prevented earlier discovery. The cases were filed in 1991 and 1992, well within the eight-year prescriptive period from the date of discovery. On exemption from reporting requirements: The Court found that petitioners failed to prove their exemption under Section 10(q) of Circular No. 960. This exemption applied to foreign currency eligible for deposit under the Philippine Foreign Exchange Currency Deposit System (R.A. 6426), which requires deposits with Philippine banks. The accounts in question were maintained in foreign banks, rendering the exemption inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court could not take judicial notice of Swiss banking laws, which were not properly pleaded and proven. On absolute immunity under the Compromise Agreement: The Court ruled that the Compromise Agreement did not grant absolute immunity for the violations of Circular No. 960. The Agreement explicitly listed the cases covered, and the charges for dollar-salting were not among them. The immunity granted was limited to acts or omissions committed prior to February 25, 1986, in relation to the acquisition of assets treated, mentioned, or included in the Agreement, which did not encompass the foreign exchange deposit violations.
Main Doctrine
The repeal of penal laws does not extinguish criminal liability for violations committed prior to the repeal, especially when saving clauses are present or when the penal provision is simultaneously reenacted. Furthermore, the right to a preliminary investigation can be waived, and prescription periods are counted from discovery when the offense was not known due to prevailing political realities.