CASE DIGEST : ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO and HECTOR T. RIVERA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 125359 September 4, 2001

FACTS : Between December 1991 and January 1992, Imelda Marcos, Roberto Benedicto, and Bienvenido Rivera were charged in numerous criminal cases for violating Section 10 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265 (Central Bank Act). The Informations alleged that they maintained and earned income from unauthorized foreign exchange accounts abroad through foreign banks and dummy foundations, but failed to report or register these foreign exchange earnings with the Central Bank as required by Circular No. 960. The cases involved several foreign accounts, large sums of money, and were consolidated before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

While the cases were pending, the Central Bank issued Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353, which liberalized foreign exchange regulations and effectively repealed many of the restrictions under Circular No. 960. However, both circulars expressly contained saving clauses preserving pending criminal cases for violations of Circular No. 960. After arraignment, the accused moved to quash the Informations, arguing, among others, lack of jurisdiction, prescription, repeal of Circular No. 960 resulting in the extinction of criminal liability, exemption from the reporting requirement, and immunity under a compromise agreement with the government. The trial court denied the motions, prompting the accused to file petitions for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s rulings and dismissed the petitions, except for Criminal Case No. 91-101884, which it ordered dismissed.

ISSUE : WON the CA is correct

HELD : The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s jurisdiction over the criminal cases, holding that under P.D. No. 1606, offenses punishable by imprisonment of not more than five years, such as violations of Central Bank Circular No. 960 in relation to Section 34 of R.A. No. 265 (Central Bank Act), fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan. The Court also ruled that forum shopping did not exist because the RTC cases involved failure to report foreign exchange earnings under Circular No. 960, while the Sandiganbayan cases involved prohibited transactions under R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)—distinct offenses arising from the same facts but punishable under different laws. Petitioners likewise waived any defect in the preliminary investigation by posting bail, entering their pleas, and actively participating in the proceedings without timely insisting on a proper preliminary investigation, consistent with the rule that such right is statutory and waivable.

The Court further held that the repeal of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and R.A. No. 265 did not extinguish petitioners’ criminal liability. Although Circular No. 960 was repealed by Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353, both contained saving clauses preserving pending criminal actions. Likewise, while R.A. No. 7653 (New Central Bank Act) repealed R.A. No. 265, it simultaneously reenacted the penal provisions under Section 36, thereby preserving liability for acts previously penalized. The Court also rejected the claim that Section 36 constituted an ex post facto law, ruling that penal statutes operate prospectively absent a clear legislative intent to apply them retroactively. Furthermore, the offenses had not prescribed under Act No. 3326, as the eight-year prescriptive period commenced only upon the discovery of the violations after the 1986 EDSA Revolution, when the government first uncovered the concealed foreign exchange accounts.

The Court likewise rejected petitioners’ claim that they were exempt from the reporting requirements of Circular No. 960. The exemption under Section 10(q) of Circular No. 960, in relation to R.A. No. 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposit Act), applies only to foreign currency deposits maintained in designated Philippine banks, whereas petitioners’ accounts were held in foreign banks. Their reliance on Swiss banking secrecy laws also failed because foreign laws must be pleaded and proved, which petitioners did not do. Finally, the Court ruled that the Compromise Agreement between Roberto Benedicto and the government did not grant immunity from prosecution in these cases, as the agreement expressly covered only specified sequestration and ill-gotten wealth cases and did not include the criminal prosecutions for violations of Circular No. 960. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with the sole modification that the criminal cases against Roberto Benedicto were ordered dropped and his criminal and civil liability ex delicto extinguished due to his death before final judgment, pursuant to the Revised Penal Code.