People vs. Jolliffe

Central Bank Circular No. 21 is a valid exercise of the Monetary Board's authority under Republic Act No. 265, and its penal sanction extends to attempted exportation of gold without the requisite license; the Revised Penal Code's provisions on forfeiture of proceeds and instruments of a crime are supplementary to special laws unless the latter specifically provides otherwise.

William Ernest Jolliffe was a Canadian subject born in China and residing permanently in Hong Kong, formerly a Trade Commissioner for Canada in Shanghai and Hong Kong until 1948. He had made several trips to Manila, sometimes on business and on three occasions to meet family members passing through. His most recent trip was motivated by the collection of a debt owed to him by T.Y. Woo, a prominent businessman in Hong Kong. Republic Act No. 265, the Central Bank Act, vested the Monetary Board with authority to subject transactions in gold and foreign exchange to licensing, subject to presidential approval, during exchange crises, in order to protect the international reserve of the Central Bank.

William Ernest Jolliffe, a Canadian subject born in China and permanently residing in Hong Kong, was the son of a former Chancellor of the West China Union University and had served as Trade Commissioner for Canada in Shanghai and Hong Kong until 1948. He had made several trips to Manila, sometimes on business and three times to meet his wife and children passing through the city. On one prior occasion, he had come to collect a debt owed to him by T.Y. Woo, a prominent businessman in Hong Kong.

Jolliffe returned to Manila on December 4, 1953, again to collect the debt owed by Woo. He had no idea how the debt would be paid — whether in pesos or in gold. Woo paid him in gold, which Jolliffe brought by messenger to his room at the Bay View Hotel. At about plane time, he went to his hotel room and carried the gold around his body underneath his shirt.

On December 7, 1953, as Jolliffe was proceeding toward the door leading to the runway to board a Pan American World Airways flight, he was accosted by Amanda Arimbay, a secret service agent, and directed to the search room. He initially objected to being searched. Upon search, four pieces of gold bullion were found tied to his body a few inches above the waist. A $100 traveler's check issued by one R. McGinty was also found in his possession. Jolliffe did not deny that he had no license to export the gold bullion.

While under arrest, Jolliffe made an offer to settle the case. According to Deputy Collector of Customs Manikan, the accused offered P30,000 provided the case be settled and forgotten. Jolliffe claimed that Manikan had told him during the search that the case could have been fixed had he disclosed his desire to export gold beforehand. The trial court accepted Manikan's version, finding his acts above board and the only logical steps an honest official could take. Jolliffe signed a written statement, Exhibit I, certifying to the items found in his possession, including the four pieces of gold bullion. The lower court found that Jolliffe had no knowledge that the traveler's check was in his physical possession and therefore had no criminal intent in connection with it, yet ordered its forfeiture along with the gold bullion.

• Scope of Penal Sanction: Appellant maintained that Central Bank Circular No. 21, being a special law, penalizes only consummated violations and not attempted or frustrated exportation, and therefore the accused cannot be held criminally liable.
• Lack of Willful Violation: Appellant argued that even if attempted violation were punishable, the accused was not criminally liable because there was no willful violation of the circular, claiming ignorance of the necessity of a license.
• Legality of Possession: Appellant contended that mere possession of gold is not made illegal by Circular No. 21, asserting that the circular in fact specially authorizes sales of gold within the Philippines even without a license.
• Invalidity of Circular No. 21 — Presidential Approval: Appellant argued that Circular No. 21 is invalid because it did not comply with Section 74 of Republic Act No. 265, which requires approval by the President of the Philippines.
• Invalidity of Circular No. 21 — Excess of Authority: Appellant maintained that in its promulgation, the Monetary Board exceeded the authority granted by the Central Bank Act, because the context of the circular does not indicate that it was a temporary emergency measure.
• Invalidity of Circular No. 21 — Absence of Emergency: Appellant argued that the circular can only be issued as an emergency measure during a crisis, and as issued has no force and effect because the emergency it seeks to remedy never existed or no longer exists.
• Invalidity of Circular No. 21 — Defective Publication: Appellant contended that publication of the circular (original and amended) in the November 1951 and October 1952 issues of the Official Gazette was not adequate publication required by law, because said publications on their faces showed them to be incomplete and defective.
• Invalidity of Circular No. 21 — Undue Delegation: Appellant argued that even granting the power to promulgate the circular was granted to the Monetary Board and validly exercised, it is still invalid because it constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative power and is therefore unconstitutional and void.
• Impropriety of Forfeiture of Gold: Appellant maintained that Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, authorizing forfeiture of proceeds and instruments of a crime, does not apply because the crime involved is covered by a special law.
• Impropriety of Forfeiture of Traveler's Check: Appellant argued that the forfeiture of the $100 traveler's check was improper, given that the accused was acquitted on the charge of illegal possession of dollars under Circular Nos. 20 and 42.

• Scope of Penal Sanction: Whether Central Bank Circular No. 21 penalizes attempted exportation of gold, or only consummated exportation.
• Willfulness of Violation: Whether the accused's violation of Circular No. 21 was willful, notwithstanding his claimed ignorance of the licensing requirement.
• Legality of Mere Possession: Whether mere possession of gold is illegal under Circular No. 21.
• Validity of Circular No. 21 — Presidential Approval: Whether Circular No. 21 validly obtained the approval of the President of the Philippines as required by Section 74 of Republic Act No. 265.
• Validity of Circular No. 21 — Emergency Measure: Whether Circular No. 21 was validly issued as an emergency measure during an exchange crisis.
• Validity of Circular No. 21 — Publication: Whether publication of Circular No. 21 in the Official Gazette was sufficient to give it the force and effect of law.
• Validity of Circular No. 21 — Delegation of Legislative Power: Whether the grant of authority to the Monetary Board to issue Circular No. 21 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power.
• Applicability of RPC Forfeiture to Special Laws: Whether Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code on forfeiture applies to crimes punished under special laws.
• Forfeiture of Traveler's Check: Whether the forfeiture of the $100 traveler's check was proper given the lower court's finding that the accused had no knowledge of its possession and no criminal intent in connection therewith.

• Scope of Penal Sanction: Yes. Circular No. 21 penalizes attempted exportation, Section 4 thereof expressly applying to "any person desiring to export gold," which contemplates the situation prior to consummation.
• Willfulness of Violation: Yes. The accused's claimed ignorance was belied by his concealment of the gold under his shirt, his initial objection to being searched, and his attempt to bribe the arresting officers.
• Legality of Mere Possession: Not necessary to determine. The conviction was based not on mere possession but on the attempt to export gold without the requisite license.
• Validity of Circular No. 21 — Presidential Approval: Yes. Presidential approval was presumed under the presumption of regularity in the performance of administrative duties, and the practice of the Monetary Board was to obtain such approval before formal promulgation.
• Validity of Circular No. 21 — Emergency Measure: Yes. The circular need not state its temporary character on its face so long as it was issued during an exchange crisis, of which judicial notice was taken, and its period of effectivity was necessarily commensurate with the duration of the crisis.
• Validity of Circular No. 21 — Publication: Yes. Publication in the Official Gazette was sufficient, as Circular No. 20 — which was approved and published with express presidential sanction — authorized the subsequent issuance of further regulations, which were incorporated into Circular No. 21.
• Validity of Circular No. 21 — Delegation of Legislative Power: No undue delegation. Republic Act No. 265 furnished sufficiently concrete and definite standards — protecting the international reserve during an exchange crisis, maintaining monetary stability, and promoting production, employment, and real income — such that the authority delegated was administrative in character, not legislative.
• Applicability of RPC Forfeiture to Special Laws: Yes. Pursuant to Section 10 of the Revised Penal Code, its provisions are supplementary to special laws unless the latter specifically provides otherwise, and Republic Act No. 265 contains no such contrary provision.
• Forfeiture of Traveler's Check: No. The lower court found that the accused had no knowledge that the traveler's check was in his possession and no criminal intent in connection with it, making its forfeiture improper.

• Scope of Penal Sanction: Section 4 of Circular No. 21 expressly applies to "any person desiring to export gold," language that contemplates the situation existing prior to the consummation of exportation. The purpose of the licensing requirement would be defeated if the penal sanction were deferred until after the gold had left the Philippines, because jurisdiction over both the article and the guilty party would be lost. The attempt to export therefore falls within the ambit of the circular's prohibition.

• Willfulness of Violation: The accused's avowed ignorance of the necessity of a license and of the illegality of his act was contradicted by the circumstances: he concealed the gold bullion under his shirt, he initially objected to being searched, and he attempted to bribe the public officers who searched him. These acts demonstrated consciousness of guilt and willfulness, negating the defense of ignorance.

• Legality of Mere Possession: The Court found it unnecessary to determine whether mere possession of gold bullion is illegal under Circular No. 21, because the conviction rested not on possession alone but on the attempt to export the gold without the requisite license. This issue was therefore not reached.

• Validity of Circular No. 21 — Presidential Approval: Section 74 of Republic Act No. 265 requires presidential approval for the Monetary Board's decision to subject transactions in gold and foreign exchange to licensing. The practice of the Monetary Board, as shown by Exhibits S and S-1, was to obtain presidential approval before formal enactment and promulgation of circulars necessitating such sanction. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption of regularity in the performance of administrative duties applies. The Court cited Ykalina vs. Oricio for the proposition that administrative acts of the President need not be made in writing unless the law so requires, and Villena vs. Secretary of the Interior for the principle that the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. Unlike presidential approval of legislative enactments, which the Constitution explicitly requires to be evidenced by the Executive's signature, Republic Act No. 265 contains no similar requirement.

• Validity of Circular No. 21 — Emergency Measure: The temporary character of the circular need not be stated on its face, so long as it was issued during an exchange crisis for the purpose of combating it. Judicial notice was taken of the existence of an exchange crisis in the Philippines at the time of the circular's issuance in 1949 and 1950, and of its continued existence up to the time of the decision. As a measure taken under the police power of the state, the period of effectivity had to be commensurate with the crisis, the duration of which could not be anticipated with reasonable certainty. The Court relied on Rutter vs. Esteban, Commercial Investment vs. Garcia, Salvador vs. Locsin, and Nicolas vs. Matias for the analogous principle that moratorium laws, though not specifying their duration, were valid and effective until the emergency disappeared.

• Validity of Circular No. 21 — Publication: The argument that the published circular did not bear the President's approval was based on a false premise. Circular No. 20, the original circular subjecting all transactions in gold and foreign exchange to licensing, was approved and published with the express statement that it was adopted by the Monetary Board "with the approval of the President of the Philippines." Circular No. 20 further provided that "further regulations in respect to transactions covered by this circular will be issued separately." These further regulations were incorporated into Circular No. 21. Once the President approved the decision to subject transactions to licensing, the details in implementation could be determined by the Monetary Board through regulations promulgated from time to time under Section 14 of Republic Act No. 265, without requiring separate presidential assent for each implementing regulation.

• Validity of Circular No. 21 — Delegation of Legislative Power: While legislative power may not be delegated except to local governments, the distinction lies between delegating the power to determine what the law shall be and delegating the authority to fix details in the execution or enforcement of a policy set out in the law itself. The latter is permissible where the authorizing law furnishes a reasonable standard that sufficiently marks the field within which the administrator is to act. Section 74 of Republic Act No. 265 conferred the power to subject transactions to licensing "in order to protect the international reserve of the Central Bank during an exchange crisis and to give the Monetary Board and the Government time in which to take constructive measures to combat such crisis." Section 70 authorized remedial measures to protect international stability of the peso. Section 2 set the objectives of maintaining monetary stability and promoting production, employment, and real income. These standards were sufficiently concrete and definite to vest the delegated authority with the character of administrative details rather than legislative power, placing the grant beyond the category of undue delegation.

• Applicability of RPC Forfeiture to Special Laws: Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code authorizes forfeiture of the proceeds of a crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed. Appellant argued this provision does not apply because the crime is covered by a special law. However, Section 10 of the Revised Penal Code provides that its provisions shall be supplementary to special laws "unless the latter should specifically provide the contrary." Republic Act No. 265 contains no such contrary provision. The forfeiture of the gold bullion was therefore proper.

• Forfeiture of Traveler's Check: The lower court found that the accused had no knowledge that the traveler's check was in his physical possession and no criminal intent in connection with it. The Court found this point well taken, and the traveler's check should not have been forfeited to the Government.

• Presumption of Regularity in Administrative Acts — When an administrative act has been completed, it is presumed to have been done in the manner prescribed and by an officer authorized by law to do it. This presumption is rebuttable, but the bare allegation of failure to observe statutory requirements is regarded as a mere conclusion of the pleader. Where the administrative order is accompanied by a statement of compliance and there is no showing of fact to the contrary, the presumption of regularity ordinarily suffices to support the official act. The Court applied this presumption to uphold the validity of Circular No. 21, finding that the Monetary Board's practice was to obtain presidential approval before formal promulgation, and no evidence to the contrary was introduced.

• Distinction Between Delegation of Legislative Power and Delegation of Administrative Detail — The power to determine what the law shall be may not be delegated, but the authority to fix details in the execution or enforcement of a policy set out in the law itself may be delegated, provided the authorizing law furnishes a reasonable standard that sufficiently marks the field within which the administrator is to act. The Court found that Republic Act No. 265 provided sufficiently concrete standards — protecting the international reserve during an exchange crisis, maintaining monetary stability, and promoting production, employment, and real income — such that the Monetary Board's authority to issue Circular No. 21 was administrative, not legislative, in character.

• Supplementary Application of the Revised Penal Code to Special Laws — Pursuant to Section 10 of the Revised Penal Code, the provisions of the Code are supplementary to special laws unless the latter specifically provides otherwise. The Court applied this principle to sustain the forfeiture of the gold bullion under Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, notwithstanding that the offense was punished under Republic Act No. 265, a special law containing no provision contrary to the supplementary application of the Code.

• Validity of Emergency Measures Without Specified Duration — Measures adopted under the police power of the state during an emergency need not specify their period of effectivity, so long as their duration is commensurate with the crisis that led to their adoption. Upon termination of the crisis, as determined by competent authority, the measure becomes inoperative. The Court applied this doctrine to Circular No. 21, which did not state its temporary character on its face but was issued during an exchange crisis of which judicial notice was taken.

• "This section explicity applies to 'any person desiring to export gold' and, hence, it contemplates the situation existing prior to the consummation of the exportation. Indeed, its purpose would be deferred if the penal sanction were deferred until after the article in question had left the Philippines, for jurisdiction over it, and over the guilty party, would be lost thereby." — This passage constitutes the ratio decidendi for the holding that Circular No. 21 penalizes attempted, not merely consummated, exportation of gold.

• "one thing is to delegate the power to determine what the law shall be and another thing to delegate the authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of a policy set out in the law itself. Briefly stated, the rule is that the delegated powers fall under the second category, if the law authorizing the delegation furnishes a reasonable standard which 'sufficiently marks the field within which the Administrator is to act so that it may be known whether he has kept within it in compliance with the legislative will.'" — This passage articulates the canonical formulation of the distinction between permissible delegation of administrative detail and impermissible delegation of legislative power, as applied to uphold the validity of the Monetary Board's authority.

• "pursuant to section 10 of the Revised Penal Code, the provisions of said Code shall be 'supplementary' to special laws, 'unless the latter should specifically provide the contrary', and there is no such provision to the contrary in Republic Act No. 265" — This passage establishes the principle that the Revised Penal Code's forfeiture provisions apply to offenses under special laws in the absence of a contrary statutory provision.

• Villena vs. Secretary of the Interior, 67 Phil. 451 — Followed for the proposition that the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive, supporting the presumption that presidential approval of Circular No. 21 was duly obtained.

• Ykalina vs. Oricio, 93 Phil. 1076 — Followed for the principle that administrative acts of the President need not be evidenced in writing unless the law so requires, supporting the validity of presidential approval of Circular No. 21 even absent a written record.

• Rutter vs. Esteban, 49 Off. Gaz. 1807 — Followed, together with Commercial Investment vs. Garcia, Salvador vs. Locsin, and Nicolas vs. Matias, for the doctrine that emergency measures need not specify their duration and remain valid and effective until the emergency has disappeared.

• Yakus vs. United States, 88 L. ed. 848 — Cited for the standard test of permissible delegation: whether the authorizing law furnishes a reasonable standard that sufficiently marks the field within which the administrator is to act.

• U.S. vs. Parrone, 24 Phil. 29 — Followed, together with People vs. Moreno, People vs. Ramayo, and Copiaco vs. Luzon Brokerage, for the proposition that the Revised Penal Code is supplementary to special laws unless the latter specifically provides otherwise.

• People vs. Rosentral, 63 Phil. 328 — Cited among a line of cases upholding delegations of administrative authority where the statute provides sufficiently definite standards, supporting the validity of the Monetary Board's rule-making power.

• Section 4, Central Bank Circular No. 21 — Requires any person desiring to export gold in any form, including jewelry, to obtain a license from the Central Bank. The Court construed the phrase "any person desiring to export" as encompassing attempted exportation, applying the penal sanction prior to consummation.

• Section 74, Republic Act No. 265 — Authorizes the Monetary Board, with the approval of the President of the Philippines, to suspend or restrict sales of exchange and to subject all transactions involving foreign exchange to licensing, in order to protect the international reserve during an exchange crisis. The Court found compliance presumed under the presumption of regularity and the standards therein sufficient to avoid undue delegation.

• Section 14, Republic Act No. 265 — Empowers the Monetary Board to prepare and issue rules and regulations necessary for the effective discharge of its responsibilities. The Court distinguished this rule-making authority from the policy decision requiring presidential approval under Section 74, holding that implementing regulations issued under Section 14 do not require separate presidential assent.

• Section 70, Republic Act No. 265 — Authorizes the Monetary Board to take appropriate remedial measures to protect the international stability of the peso. Cited as part of the statutory framework providing sufficiently definite standards for the delegation of authority.

• Section 2, Republic Act No. 265 — Sets the objectives of the Central Bank, including maintaining monetary stability and promoting production, employment, and real income. Cited as providing concrete standards that rendered the delegation administrative rather than legislative in character.

• Article 45, Revised Penal Code — Authorizes forfeiture of the proceeds of a crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed. Applied to sustain the forfeiture of the gold bullion, as supplementary to Republic Act No. 265.

• Section 10, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to special laws unless the latter specifically provides otherwise. Applied to extend the forfeiture provisions of Article 45 to offenses under Republic Act No. 265, which contains no contrary provision.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista, Angelo, Labrador, and Endencia, JJ., concurred.