benedicto v ca.docx

Glazyle Gamy Y. Aragon 2016 (1-Wigmore) G.R. No. 125359 September 4, 2001 ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO and HECTOR T. RIVERA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GUILLERMO L. LOJA, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 26, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Statement of the case: Assailed in this petition is the consolidated decision rendered on May 23, 1996, by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 35928 and CA-G.R. SP No. 35719. CA-G.R. SP No. 35928 had affirmed the order dated September 6, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 26, insofar as it denied petitioners’ respective Motions to Quash the Informations in twenty-five (25) criminal cases for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960. Therein included were informations involving: (a) consolidated Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101879 to 91-101883 filed against Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, Roberto S. Benedicto, and Hector T. Rivera; (b) consolidated Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101884 to 91-101892 filed against Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto; and (c) Criminal Cases Nos. 92101959 to 92-101969 also against Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto. Note, however, that the Court of Appeals already dismissed Criminal Case No. 91-101884. Statement of the facts: On December 27, 1991, Mrs. Imelda Marcos and Messrs. Benedicto and Rivera were indicted for violation of Section 10 of Circular No. 960 1 in relation to Section 34 of the Central Bank Act (Republic Act No. 265, as amended) in five Informations filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101879 to 91-101883, the charge sheets alleged that the trio failed to submit reports of their foreign exchange earnings from abroad and/or failed to register with the Foreign Exchange Department of the Central Bank within the period mandated by Circular No. 960. Said Circular prohibited natural and juridical persons from maintaining foreign exchange accounts abroad without prior authorization from the Central Bank. On August 11, 1994, petitioners moved to quash all the Informations filed against them in Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101879 to 91-101883; 91101884 to 91-101892, and 91-101959 to 91-101969. Their motion was grounded on lack of jurisdiction, forum shopping, absence of a preliminary investigation and extinction of criminal liability with the repeal of Circular No. 960.On September 6, 1994, the trial court denied petitioners' motion. A similar motion filed on May 23, 1994 by Mrs. Marcos seeking to dismiss the dollar-salting cases against her due to the repeal of Circular No. 960 had earlier been denied by the trial court in its order dated June 9,1994. Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration, but the trial court likewise denied this motion on October 18, 1994.. ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in denying the Motion to Quash for absence of a valid preliminary investigation. 2. Whether or not the repeal of Central Bank Circular No. 960 a n d R e p u b l i c Ac t N o . 2 6 5 b y Circular No. 1353 and Republic Act No. 7653 respectively, extinguish the criminal liability of petitioners. HELD: 1. NO. P r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s n o t p a r t o f t h e d u e p r o c e s s g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e Constitution. It is an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof. Instead, the right to a preliminary investigation is personal. It is afforded to the accused by statute, and can be waived, either expressly or by implication. When the records of the case were disclosed to them, in opting to enter their respective pleas to the charges, and filed various motions

and pleadings, they are deemed to have made an express waiver of their right to have a preliminary investigation. 2. NO. In the instant case, it must be noted that despite the repeal of Circular No. 960,Circular No. 1353 retained the same reportorial requirement for residents receiving earnings or profits from non-trade foreign exchange transactions. Even the most cursory glance at the repealing circulars, Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353 shows that both contain a saving clause, expressly providing that the repeal of Circular No. 960 shall have no effect on pending actions for violation of the latter Circular. A saving clause operates to except from the effect of the repealing law what would otherwise be lost under the new law. In the present case, the respective saving clauses of Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353 clearly manifest the intent to reserve the right of the State to prosecute and punish offenses for violations of the repealed Circular No. 960, where the cases are either pending or under investigation DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The assailed consolidated Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 23, 1996, in CA-G.R. SP No. 35928 and CA G.R. SP No. 35719, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that the charges against deceased petitioner, Roberto S. Benedicto, particularly in Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101879 to 91-101883, 91-101884 to 101892, and 92-101959 to 92101969, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 26, are ordered dropped and that any criminal as well as civil liability ex delicto that might be attributable to him in the aforesaid cases are declared extinguished by reason of his death on May 15, 2000. No pronouncement as to costs.