BENEDICTO V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 125359, September 4, 2001
PETITIONERS: Roberto S. Benedicto and Hector T. Rivera
RESPONDENTS: The Court of Appeals (CA); Hon. Guillermo L. Loja, Sr., presiding judge,
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Brach 26; People of the Philippines
NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari of the consolidated decision of the CA to deny
petitioners' respective Motions to Quash the Informations in 25 criminal cases for violation of
Central Bank Circular No. 960
FACTS:
 Mrs. Imelda Marcos, and Messrs. Benedicto and Rivera were indicted for violation of
Section 10 of Circular No. 960, which is punishable as a criminal offense under Section
34 of the Central Bank Act (RA 265, as amended), by the RTC Manila.
 Circular No. 960 prohibits a natural and juridical person from maintaining foreign
exchange accounts abroad without prior authorization from the Central Bank. It also
requires all residents of the Philippines who habitually earn or receive foreign currencies
from invisibles, either locally or abroad, to report such earnings or receipts to the Central
Bank.
 A total of 25 criminal cases were filed from December 27, 1991 to January 3, 1992. All
were similarly worded except for (a) the days when the offenses were committed, (b) the
name/s of the alleged dummy/ies, (c) the amounts in the foreign exchange accounts
maintained, and (d) the names of the foreign banks where such accounts were held by the
accused. All cases were consolidated before the Branch 26 of RTC Manila.
 On January 3, 1992, the Central Bank issued Circular No. 1318 which revised the rules
governing non-trade foreign exchange transactions. It took effect on January 20, 1992.
 On August 24, 1992, the Central Bank issued Circular No. 1353, which amended Circular
No. 1318. The former deleted the requirement of prior Central Bank approval for foreign
exchange-funded expenditures obtained from the banking system.
 However, both circulars contained a saving clause. Excluded from their coverage are
pending criminal actions involving violations of (a) Circular No. 960 for Circular No.
1318, and (b) Circular No. 960 and Circular No. 1318 for Circular No. 1353.
 Marcos and petitioners, Benedicto and Rivera, filed Motions to Quash all the
Informations filed against them. These were all denied, as well as the Motions for
Reconsideration that they consequently filed.
 They respectively filed two separate petitions for cetiorari and prohibition, with similar
prayers for TROs and/or writs of preliminary injunction. The CA consolidated the two
cases as they both involved violations of Central Bank Circular No. 960. It was
dismissed.
 Dissatisfied, petitioners filed the instant petition.
ISSUE: The issues of the resolution were:
1. WON the CA erred in denying the Motion to Quash for (a) lack of jurisdiction on the part
of the RTC, (b) forum shopping by the prosecution, and (c) absence of a valid
preliminary investigation
2. WON the repeal of (a) Central Bank Circular No. 960 by Circular No. 1353, and (b) RA
265 by RA 7653 extinguish the criminal liability of petitioners
3. WON the criminal cases in violation of Circular No. 960 had already prescribed
4. WON petitioners were exempted from the application and coverage of Circular No. 960
5. WON petitioners' alleged violations of Circular No. 960 were covered by the absolute
immunity granted in the Compromise Agreement of November 3, 1990
HELD: The petition was dismissed. The consolidated decision of the CA was affirmed, however,
with modification that the charges against deceased petitioner, Benedicto, were ordered dropped.
Any criminal and civil liability that might be attributable to him were also declared extinguished
by reason of his death on May 15, 2000.
First Issue:
a. Lack of jurisdiction
 Petitioners contended that the charges filed against them were violations of RA
3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft Law, and the Sandiganbayan has
original and exclusive jurisdiction over their cases.
 Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to try criminal cases in which the imposable
penalty is less than 6 years of imprisonment. The case against the petitioners for
violations of Circular No. 960, which is punishable by imprisonment of not more
than five years and a fine of not more than P20,000.00. Hence, it is cognizable by
the Court.
b. Forum shopping
 Petitioners argued that the prosecution, in an attempt to seek a favorable verdict
from more than one tribunal, filed separate cases involving virtually the same
offenses before the regular trial courts and the Sandiganbayan.
 Circular No. 960 and RA 3019 define distinct offenses, penalize different acts,
and can be applied independently. Therefore, the prosecution was at no fault for
having instituted separate cases before separate tribunals involving the same
subject matter.
c. Absence of a valid preliminary investigation
 Petitioners contended that the preliminary investigation by the Department of
Justice was invalid and in violation of their rights to due process.
 Petitioners expressly waived their right to question any supposed irregularity in
the preliminary investigation or to ask for a new preliminary investigation.
Second Issue:
 “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.”
 Circular No. 960 by Circular No. 1353: The latest circular retained the same reportorial
requirement and contains a saving clause.
 RA 265 by RA 7653
o The repeal (Section 34) removed the applicability of any penal sanction for
violations of any non-trade foreign exchange transactions previously penalized by
Circular No. 960. Section 36 of RA 7653 also neither retained nor reinstated the
34 of RA 265.
o A comparison of the old Central Bank Act and the new Bangko Sentral's charter
repealing the former show that both the repealed law and the repealing statute
contain a penal clause which sought to penalize violations of the law, as well as
orders, instructions, rules, or regulations issued by the Monetary Board. In other
words, while Section 34 was repealed, it was simultaneously reenacted in Section
36; hence the former is still in force without interruption.
o Petitioners pointed out Section 36, in reenacting Section 34 increased the penalty;
thus giving RA 7653 and ex post facto application, violating the Bill of Rights.
o Penal laws cannot be given retroactive effect, except when they are favorable to
the accused. RA 7653 does not indicate that the increased penalties provided
therein were intended to operate retroactively.
Third Issue:
 Petitioners asserted that the dollar interest earnings subject of the criminal cases instituted
against them were remitted to foreign banks from 1983 to 1987. Hence, given the lapse of
time between the commission of the offenses to the institution of the criminal actions in
1991 and 1992, the State's right to prosecute them had already prescribed.
 Pursuant to Act No. 3326, which mandates the periods of prescription for violations of
special laws, the prescriptive period for violations of Circular No. 960 is eight 8 years.
 The violations were discovered only after February 1968. The tolling of the prescriptive
period should be counted from the dates of discovery of their commission. Thus, the
criminal actions that were filed in 1991 and 1992, or well within the eight-year
prescriptive period counted from February 1986.
Fourth Issue:
 Petitioners claimed that they incurred no criminal liability for violations of Circular No.
960 as they were exempted from its coverage.
 Section 10(q) of Circular No. 960 exempts from the reporting requirement foreign
currency eligible for deposit under the Philippine Foreign Exchange Currency Deposit
System, pursuant to RA 6426, as amended.
 The criminal cases involved foreign currency accounts maintained in foreign banks
(Switzerland), not Philippine banks. Hence, petitioners were not able to claim exemption
under Section 10(q).
 Petitioners also invoked that Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.
First, however, laws of foreign jurisdictions must be alleged and proved. Petitioners
failed to prove the Swiss law relied upon.
Fifth Issue:
 Petitioners insisted that the government granted them absolute immunity under the
Compromise Agreement they entered into with the government on November 3, 1990.
 The criminal cases were not mentioned in the Compromise Agreement. Therefore, it
cannot be construed to include matters distinct from those with respect to which the
parties intended to contract.