Benedicto vs. Court of Appeals

The repeal of a penal statute does not extinguish criminal liability for violations committed prior to the repeal where the repealing law contains a saving clause preserving pending actions, or where the repealing statute simultaneously reenacts the penal provision of the former law.

The case involves the prosecution of close associates of former President Ferdinand Marcos for maintaining undeclared foreign exchange accounts abroad ("dollar-salting") in violation of Central Bank regulations requiring registration and reporting of foreign exchange earnings.

• Filed in RTC: Informations filed in December 1991 and January 1992 (Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101879 to 91-101883, 91-101884 to 91-101892, and 92-101959 to 92-101969) before Branch 26, RTC Manila
• RTC Decision: Denied Motion to Quash (September 6, 1994) and Motion for Reconsideration (October 18, 1994)
• CA: Two separate petitions for certiorari filed (CA-G.R. SP No. 35719 and 35928), consolidated by the CA
• CA Decision: Dismissed petitions and affirmed denial of Motion to Quash (May 23, 1996), except for Criminal Case No. 91-101884 which was dismissed
• SC: Petition for review on certiorari filed; during pendency, Benedicto died (May 15, 2000)

• Petitioners, along with Imelda Marcos, were charged with violating Section 10 of CB Circular No. 960 in relation to Section 34 of R.A. 265 (Central Bank Act)
• Charges stemmed from failure to submit reports/register foreign exchange earnings from investments in Swiss banks (e.g., $50M in Philippine-issued dollar denominated treasury notes through Bank Hofmann AG, Zurich, for the benefit of Avertina Foundation)
• Offenses allegedly committed between 1983-1987
• CB Circular No. 960 was repealed by Circular No. 1318 (effective Jan. 20, 1992) and Circular No. 1353; both contained saving clauses for pending actions
• R.A. 265 was repealed by R.A. 7653 (New Central Bank Act), but Section 36 of R.A. 7653 reenacted the penal provision
• Petitioners entered into a Compromise Agreement with the government on November 3, 1990, granting immunity from prosecution for acts prior to February 25, 1986, but limited to specific listed cases

• Lack of jurisdiction: Cases should be filed in Sandiganbayan as they involve violations of the Anti-Graft Law (R.A. 3019)
• Forum shopping: Prosecution split cases between RTC and Sandiganbayan involving the same acts; violation of Circular No. 960 is an element of prohibited transactions under R.A. 3019 and should be absorbed therein
• Invalid preliminary investigation: Conducted while petitioners were abroad; violated due process
• Extinction of criminal liability: Repeal of CB Circular No. 960 by Circular No. 1353 and repeal of R.A. 265 by R.A. 7653 extinguished liability under Article 22 of the RPC
• Ex post facto law: R.A. 7653 increased penalties (from not more than 5 years to 2-10 years), violating constitutional prohibition
• Prescription: Offenses committed 1983-1987, filed 1991-1992, beyond 8-year prescriptive period under Act No. 3326
• Exemption: Foreign currency accounts covered by R.A. 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposit Act) exempt from reporting under Section 10(q) of Circular No. 960; also protected by Swiss banking secrecy laws
• Absolute immunity: Granted under the November 3, 1990 Compromise Agreement with the government

• Jurisdiction: Determined by law at time of filing; under P.D. 1606, Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over offenses punishable by less than 6 years imprisonment
• No forum shopping: Offenses under Circular No. 960 (failure to report) and R.A. 3019 (prohibited receipt) are distinct and independent; no identity of offenses
• Preliminary investigation waived: By posting bail and entering plea without objection; absence thereof is not a ground to quash
• Repeal did not extinguish liability: Saving clauses in repealing circulars; R.A. 7653 reenacted penal provision of R.A. 265
• No ex post facto application: Penal laws operate prospectively unless favorable to the accused
• Prescription: Period runs from discovery (post-EDSA 1986), not commission, as offenses were concealed during Marcos regime
• No exemption: Accounts were in foreign banks, not Philippine banks under R.A. 6426; Swiss laws not properly pleaded and proved
• Immunity not applicable: Compromise Agreement limited to specific listed cases; dollar-salting cases not included

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the cases
  • Whether the filing of cases constitutes forum shopping
  • Whether the preliminary investigation was invalid for lack of due process
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the repeal of CB Circular No. 960 and R.A. 265 extinguished petitioners' criminal liability
  • Whether R.A. 7653 is an ex post facto law
  • Whether the criminal actions have prescribed
  • Whether petitioners are exempt from reporting requirements under Circular No. 960
  • Whether petitioners are covered by absolute immunity under the Compromise Agreement

• Procedural:
  • Jurisdiction: The RTC had jurisdiction. Under P.D. 1606 (applicable at time of filing), the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment of not more than six years. Violations of Circular No. 960 carry a penalty of not more than five years imprisonment.
  • Forum Shopping: No forum shopping exists. The single act of receiving unreported interest earnings constitutes offenses against two distinct laws (Circular No. 960 and R.A. 3019) defining different acts. No identity of offenses; judgment in one does not constitute res judicata in the other.
  • Preliminary Investigation: Petitioners waived their right to question irregularities in preliminary investigation by posting bail, entering pleas, and participating in pre-trial without simultaneously demanding a preliminary investigation. Absence of preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash under Rule 117.
• Substantive:
  • Effect of Repeal: Repeal did not extinguish criminal liability. Circular No. 1353 contained a saving clause preserving pending actions for violations of Circular No. 960. R.A. 7653 simultaneously repealed and reenacted the penal provision (Section 34 of R.A. 265 became Section 36 of R.A. 7653), continuing the law in force without interruption.
  • Ex Post Facto: R.A. 7653 is not an ex post facto law. Penal laws operate prospectively unless favorable to the accused. There is no indication the increased penalties were intended to operate retroactively.
  • Prescription: The actions have not prescribed. Under Act No. 3326, the 8-year prescriptive period runs from discovery of the offense (February 1986 post-EDSA), not from commission (1983-1987), because the offenses were concealed during the Marcos regime and only discovered after the revolution.
  • Exemption: Petitioners are not exempt. Section 10(q) of Circular No. 960 exempts only foreign currency eligible for deposit under R.A. 6426 (deposits with Philippine banks), not foreign banks. Swiss banking laws were not properly pleaded and proved as required by Rule 132, Section 24 of the Rules of Court.
  • Immunity: The Compromise Agreement does not cover these cases. Applying strict construction of contracts and the parol evidence rule, the Agreement covers only the specific cases listed (Sandiganbayan Civil Cases, etc.) and only acts related to the acquisition of assets treated in the Agreement. The dollar-salting cases are not listed.

• Saving Clause Doctrine — A saving clause in a repealing statute excepts from the effect of the repeal what would otherwise be lost, preserving the right to prosecute and punish offenses committed under the repealed law where cases are pending or under investigation.
• Simultaneous Repeal and Reenactment — Where a penal provision is simultaneously repealed and reenacted in a new statute, there is no effect upon rights and liabilities accrued under the original statute; the reenactment neutralizes the repeal and continues the law in force without interruption.
• Determination of Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases — Jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time the action is instituted, based on the penalty prescribed by law at that time.
• Forum Shopping Test — Requires: (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for; and (c) identity such that judgment in one amounts to res judicata in the other.
• Waiver of Preliminary Investigation — The right to preliminary investigation is statutory, not constitutional, and may be waived expressly or by implication (e.g., by posting bail and entering a plea without objection).
• Prescription of Special Laws — Under Act No. 3326, prescription runs from discovery of the offense if the same be not known at the time of commission.
• Strict Construction of Exceptions — Exceptions to general rules (like reporting requirements) are strictly construed and apply only so far as their language fairly warrants, with doubts resolved in favor of the general proviso.
• Judicial Notice of Foreign Law — Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws; they must be alleged and proved like any other fact under Rule 132, Section 24.
• Strict Construction of Immunity Grants — Grants of immunity from prosecution must be strictly construed; they cover only those offenses expressly mentioned in the agreement and acts related to the specific subject matter of the compromise.

• "As a rule, an absolute repeal of a penal law has the effect of depriving a court of its authority to punish a person charged with violation of the old law prior to its repeal... There are, however, exceptions to the rule. One is the inclusion of a saving clause in the repealing statute... Another exception is where the repealing act reenacts the former statute and punishes the act previously penalized under the old law."
• "Where a clause or provision or a statute for that matter is simultaneously repealed and reenacted, there is no effect, upon the rights and liabilities which have accrued under the original statute, since the reenactment, in effect 'neutralizes' the repeal and continues the law in force without interruption."
• "The rule is that exceptions are strictly construed and apply only so far as their language fairly warrants, with all doubts being resolved in favor of the general proviso rather than the exception."
• "In construing contracts, it is important to ascertain the intent of the parties by looking at the words employed to project their intention... Conformably with Article 1370 of the Civil Code, the Agreement relied upon by petitioners should include only cases specifically mentioned therein."
• "The death of an accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon."

• People v. Concepcion — Cited for the rule that where a repealing act reenacts the former statute and punishes the act previously penalized, pending cases are unaffected.
• Republic v. Sandiganbayan (226 SCRA 314) — Discussed the validity and scope of the Compromise Agreement; held that it covers only specific listed cases.
• Saura v. Saura, Jr. — Cited for the test for forum shopping (identity of parties, rights, and res judicata effect).
• People v. Court of Appeals (242 SCRA 645) — Cited for the doctrine that waiver of preliminary investigation extends to any irregularity therein.
• Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co., Inc. v. PCGG — Judicial notice that Marcos and associates resorted to schemes to hide illicit acquisitions.
• American Bible Society v. City of Manila — Cited for the rule on simultaneous repeal and reenactment neutralizing the repeal.

• P.D. No. 1606, Section 4 — Defined Sandiganbayan jurisdiction at time of filing (offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years).
• R.A. No. 265 (Central Bank Act), Section 34 — Penal provision for violations of CB Circulars (fine not more than P20,000, imprisonment not more than 5 years).
• R.A. No. 7653 (New Central Bank Act), Section 36 — Reenacted penal provision; expanded scope to include violations of other banking laws.
• CB Circular No. 960, Section 10 — Reporting requirements for foreign exchange earners.
• CB Circular No. 1353 — Contained saving clause for pending actions involving violations of Circular No. 960.
• Act No. 3326 — Prescription of offenses under special laws (8 years for offenses punishable by imprisonment of 2-6 years; period runs from discovery if not known at time of commission).
• R.A. No. 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposit Act), Section 2 — Defines foreign currency deposits as those with Philippine banks designated by the Central Bank.
• Rules of Court, Rule 117, Section 3 — Grounds for motion to quash.
• Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 24 — Proof of official records (foreign laws).
• Civil Code, Article 1370 — Interpretation of contracts based on literal meaning of stipulations.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 89 — Extinction of criminal liability by death of accused (before final judgment).