G.R. No. 126594. September 5, 1997.

* ANTECEDENT FACTS:
IMELDA R. MARCOS, petitioner, vs. The Honorable COURT  On October 21, 1983, pursuant to Monetary Board
OF APPEALS; Honorable Judge GUILLERMO L. LOJA, SR., Resolution Nos. 1632 and 1718, the Central Bank (CB) of
the Presiding Judge of Branch 26 of the RTC of Manila; and the Philippines (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) issued
the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Circular No. 960.
- The circular, which consolidated the various rules and
THE CASE: regulations promulgated by the CB concerning foreign
 In a petition for review on certiorari Imelda R. Marcos prays exchange non-trade transactions including those on
this Court to set aside the CA decision, as well as its gold and silver,
resolution denying her MR of the judgment in said case. o prohibits in its Section 4 residents, firms,
association, or corporations from
 Preliminary, her motion for extension of time to file this maintaining foreign exchange accounts
petition was denied for non-compliance with Revised abroad without prior authorization from
Circular No. 1-88 and Circular No. 19-91 because the the CB or without being permitted by CB
affidavit of service was not signed by the affiant, and regulations; and
the registry receipt proving service of a copy of said o requires in Section 10 thereof all residents
motion to the Solicitor General was not attached who habitually earn or receive foreign
thereto. Hence, the petition subsequently filed by her was exchange from invisibles locally or from
dismissed for having been filed out of time in this Courts abroad to submit reports of such earnings
resolution of November 27, 1996. or receipts in prescribed form with the
proper CB department and to register with
 Petitioner then moved for reconsideration, explaining the the Foreign Exchange Department of the
cause for the procedural lapses and contending that, on the CB within 90 days from October 21, 1983.
merits, the trial court had no jurisdiction over the offenses o Violation of the provisions of the circular is
charged; that no offenses actually charged or that the facts punishable as a criminal offense under
alleged do not constitute the imputed offenses; and, Section 34 of R.A. No.265, as amended (the
consequently, that the court a quo gravely abused its Central Bank Act).
discretion in denying the motion to quash.
 On December 20, 1991 or nearly 6 years after the 1986
 Considering the number of criminal cases filed against EDSA Revolution which toppled the Marcos regime,
Imelda Marcos, relief from which is sought in the petition at Marcos was, for allegedly opening and maintaining
bar and the issues wherein may possibly be raised again in foreign exchange accounts abroad on various dates
other cases of a similar nature, the Court resolved on Feb. from 1968 to 1991 without prior authorization from the
24, 1997 to require the Solicitor General to comment CB or otherwise allowed by CB regulations, charged
thereon, in order that the adjudication of petitioners plaints with violating Section 4 of CB Circular 960 before the
may not go off only on procedural points. In due time, such RTC of Manila in eight (8) essentially identically worded
comment was filed, albeit in abbreviated form, the Solicitor informations docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 91-101732 to
General correctly pointing out that all the substantive issues 101739, one of which reads as follows:
now being raised before us had also been extensively  That from 1968 to June 6, 1991, both dates inclusive,
argued in and resolved by respondent appellate court. the Marcos in conspiracy with her late husband wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously open and maintain foreign
 Indeed, an overall review of the allegations in the present exchange accounts abroad, particularly in Swiss Bank
petition reveals that the same are merely a rehash of Corporation (SBC) in Geneva, Switzerland, in the
those already submitted to respondent court and that name of Maler Establishment, later transformed
this petition is apparently a reprise of the certiorari into Maler Foundation, which was organized by
petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 35719 filed in the Court of their dummies, nominees, fronts, agents or duly
Appeals. appointed administrators among them Jean Louis
Sunier who received instructions from the accused and
 For facility of presentation, therefore, we need merely to her husband who signed with their alias JOHN LEWIS
reproduce herein the findings in the assailed decision of in order to maintain two accounts, one of which is
respondent appellate court, which are fully sustained by the Account No. 98929 NY under Maler II with a balance of
records, excluding therefrom those cases pertaining to CA- SF 16,195,258.00, without prior permission from the
G.R. SP No. 35928 (except when involved in the narration Central Bank of the Philippines, and such act of
of the antecedents of this case) which was jointly resolved maintaining foreign account abroad was not permitted
by it but from which no appeals or other recourse was taken under Central Bank regulations.
by the petitioners therein.
 The wordings of the other 7 informations differed only in the
 We accordingly give credit to respondent court and adopt dates of commission of the offense charged, the name/s of
its recital of the antecedents of the instant petition, to wit: the dummy/dummies, the balance of the foreign exchange
accounts maintained abroad and the name/s of the foreign
 In CA-G.R. SP No. 35719, petitioner Marcos assails the bank/s where such accounts were maintained.
Order which denied her Motion to Quash the 8 informations
filed against her in the consolidated Criminal Case Nos. 91-  Likewise, for allegedly failing to submit a report of their
101732 to 91-101739 and the other fourteen (14) foreign exchange earnings from abroad and/or to register
informations filed against her, Benedicto and Rivera in the with the Foreign Exchange Department of the CB within the
consolidated Criminal Case Nos. 91-101879 to 91-101892, period mandated by Section 10 of CB Circular No. 960,
and Order dated August 30, 1994 which denied her Motion Marcos, Benedicto and Rivera were similarly indicted on
for Reconsideration. December 27, 1991 for violation of Section 10, CB Circular
No. 960 in relation to Section 34 of the Central Bank Act in
 5 informations filed with the RTC of Manila which were - repeals all the provisions of Chapter X of CB Circular
docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 91-101879 91-101883. No. 1318 only insofar as they are inconsistent
therewith.
 On the same date, nine (9) more informations essentially  Both circulars, however, contain a saving clause
charging the same offense were filed with the RTC of excepting from the circular pending criminal actions
Manila, but this time only against Marcos and Benedicto, involving violations of CB Circular No. 960 and CB
which were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 91-101884 to Circular No. 1318.
91-101892. One of the informations reads:
 Invoking the abovementioned repeal as one of her grounds,
 That from September 21, 1983 up to December 26, 1985, Marcos filed a Motion to Quash seeking the dismissal of the
both dates inclusive, and for sometime thereafter, all cases or the quashal of the informations filed against her.
accused, conspiring and confederating with one another Respondent People of the Philippines opposed the same
and with the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos, all on June 2, 1994.
residing and/or doing business in Manila, Philippines, within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, and assisted by  Petitioners Marcos aforesaid motion was denied by the trial
their foreign agent or attorney-in-fact Stephen G. Cattaui, court in an order dated June 9, 1994 and her motion for
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to reconsideration was likewise repudiated in an order of
submit reports in the prescribed form and/or register with August 30, 1994. She then filed a petition for certiorari and
the Foreign Exchange Department of the Central Bank prohibition with CA ascribing abuse of discretion on the part
within 90 days from October 21, 1983 as required of them of respondent trial judge. What transpired there is best
being residents habitually/customarily earning, taken from the account thereof in the following portion of the
acquiring/receiving foreign exchange from whatever source impugned decision of respondent appellate court.
or from invisibles locally or from abroad, despite the fact that
they actually earned interests regularly for their investment In CA-G.R. SP No. 35719, Marcos relied on two grounds in
of FIFTEEN MILLION ($15-million) DOLLARS, U.S. taking respondent court to task, to wit:
Currency, in Philippine-issued dollar-denominated treasury 1) respondent court has no jurisdiction over the offenses
notes with floating rates and in bearer form, in the name of charged;
Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas (also known as Banque 2) respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion
Paribas) in Geneva, Switzerland but which was transferred amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying her Motion
on May 17, 1984 to Lombard, Odier et Cie, a bank also in to Quash.
Geneva, for the account of COGES 00777 being managed
by Mr. Stephane Cattaui for the marcoses who also MARCOS ARGUMENT:
arranged the said investment of $15-million through 1st ground:
respondents Roberto S. Benedicto and Hector T. Rivera by Respondent court has no jurisdiction over the cases as the
using the Royal Traders Bank in Manila as the custodian of informations clearly allege that the acts complained of were
the said dollar-denominated treasury notes, which earned, committed outside Philippine territory, and that her constitutional
acquired or received for the accused Imelda Romualdez right to equal protection of the laws was violated, the saving
Marcos and her late husband an interest of $13,229.16 for clause contained in CB Circular No. 1318 which repealed CB
delay (December 16-19, 1995) plus redemption of $15- Circular No. 960 being patently discriminatory as it was
million which was remitted to Lombard, Odier et Cie through purposedly designed to preserve the criminal cases lodged
Chicago International Banking Corporation in New York, against her and her co-accused.
United States of America, for the credit of said Account
COGES 00777 of the Marcoses for further investment 2nd ground:
outside the Philippines without first complying with the Marcos argues that the facts alleged in the informations, even if
reporting/registering requirements of the Central Bank. true, do not constitute offenses and that in any event the
offenses charged have disappeared due to repeal.
 On January 3, 1992, eleven (11) more informations for  The saving clause (Section 111, Chapter X) of CB Circular
alleged violation of the aforesaid Section 10, CB Circular No. 1318 is invalid since the Monetary Board has no
960 were filed against Marcos and Benedicto with the same authority to except therefrom pending criminal
court which were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 92- prosecutions, the power being purely legislative and is not
101959 to 92-101969. expressly granted in its charter;
- that even assuming ad arguendo that the Monetary
FACTS: Board has the power, the same is still invalid for being
All these 33 cases were consolidated before Branch 26 of the an encroachment and an invalid delegation thereof, the
RTC of Manila presided by herein public respondent Judge Loja, power to declare what constitutes a crime and how it
Sr. should be punished being vested solely and exclusively
 Marcos was arraigned on February 12, 1992 while in the legislature;
Benedicto and Rivera were arraigned on February 28, - that even further assuming that there is no invalid
1994. delegation of power to incorporate the saving clause, it
 During the pendency of these cases, CB Circular No. 1318 is still invalid for being ultra vires as it is not germane
(Revised Manual of Rules and Regulations Governing to the object and purpose of the Central Bank Act which
Non-Trade Foreign Exchange Transactions) is to stabilize the monetary system; and in any event,
- repeals insofar as inconsistent therewith all existing even if the power is unquestioned, the clause is still
provisions of CB Circular No. 960, among other invalid for being violative of the equal protection of the
circulars law clause of the constitution, it having been designed
 and CB Circular No. 1353 (Further Liberalizing Foreign solely for the purpose of preserving the criminal cases
Exchange Regulations) were issued by the CB. against her and her co-accused.
 As regards the assertion that the facts alleged in the SEC. 111. Repealing Clause. All existing provisions of Circulars 363,
informations do not constitute an offense, Marcos contends 960 and 1028, including amendments thereto, with the exception of the
that since the allegations unequivocally state that foreign second paragraph of Section 68 of Circular 1028, as well as all other
existing Central Bank rules and regulations or parts thereof, which are
foundations or trust, not the Marcoses, opened and inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of this Circular, are hereby
maintained the subject Swiss accounts and earned and repealed or modified accordingly: Provided, however, that
received the interest therefrom, she has no duty to report regulations, violations of which are the subject of pending actions
any earnings and if at all, she was a mere beneficiary of or investigations, shall not be considered repealed insofar as such
the foreign foundations or trusts; and that the acts pending actions or investigations are concerned, it being understood
having been committed abroad, they are beyond the that as to such pending actions or investigations, the regulations existing
jurisdiction of respondent court. at the time the cause of action accrued shall govern

MARCOS DO NOT DISPUTE:  The assailed saving clause in CB Circular No. 1353 is as
 The validity of CB Circular No. 960, the law under which follows:
SEC. 16. Final Provisions of CB Circular No. 1318. All the
they are being prosecuted, and of CB Circular Nos. 1318
provisions in Chapter X of CB Circular No. 1318 insofar as they are
and 1353 which they allege repealed CB Circular No. 960, not inconsistent with, or contrary to the provisions of this circular,
nor do they challenge the authority of the Monetary Board shall remain in full force and effect: Provided, however, that any
to issue them. regulation on non-trade foreign exchange transactions which
 That violation of Section 4 and 10 of CB Circular No. 960, has been repealed, amended or modified by this Circular,
as amended, which provides: violations of which are the subject of pending actions or
SEC. 4. Foreign exchange retention abroad. No person investigations, shall not be considered repealed insofar as such
shall promote, finance, enter into or participate in any foreign pending actions or investigations are concerned, it being
exchange transactions where the foreign exchange involved understood that as to such pending actions or investigations, the
is paid, retained, delivered or transferred abroad while the regulations existing at the time of the cause of action accrued shall
corresponding pesos are paid for or are received in the govern
Philippines, except when specifically authorized by the
Central Bank or otherwise allowed under Central Bank  We agree with CA that such amendments and saving
regulations. clauses are valid and were authorized enactments
Residents, firms, associations, or corporations unless under a delegated power of the Monetary Board.
otherwise permitted under CB regulations are prohibited from - Section 14 of the Central Bank Act expressly grants
maintaining foreign exchange accounts abroad
the Monetary Board the power to “prepare and
SEC. 10. Reports of foreign exchange earners. All resident issue rules and regulations necessary for the
persons who habitually/customarily earn, acquire, or receive effective discharge of the responsibilities and
foreign exchange from invisibles locally or from abroad, shall exercise of the powers assigned to the Monetary
submit reports in the prescribed form of such earnings, Board and to the Central Bank under this Act,” and
acquisition or receipts with the appropriate CB to report the same thereafter to the President and
department. Those required to submit reports under this Congress.
section shall include, but need not necessarily be limited to
- In fact, this power of subordinate legislation and its
the following:
Residents, firms or establishments validity was admitted by petitioner in the respondent
habitually/customarily earning, acquiring or appellate court.
receiving foreign exchange from sales of
merchandise, services or from whatever source  It cannot be plausibly claimed that there was undue
shall register with the Foreign Exchange delegation of legislative power in this particular instance
Department of the Central Bank within 90 days from since it was the Central Bank itself which defined the
the date of this Circular. offense and provided the penalty therefor.
is punishable as a criminal offense under Section 34 of the
Central Bank Act the pertinent portion of which provides:
- Administrative bodies have the authority to issue
administrative regulations which are penal in
SEC. 34 Proceedings upon violation of laws and nature where the law itself makes the violation of
regulations. -- Whenever any person or entity wilfully violates the administrative regulation punishable and
this Act or any order, instruction, rule or regulation issued by provides for its penalty.
the Monetary Board, the person or persons responsible for - This is still the rule on the matter and, in the instant
such violation shall be punished by a fine of not more than case, the Central Bank Act defined the offense and its
twenty thousand pesos and by imprisonment of not more than penalty while the questioned circular merely spelled out
five years
the details of the offense. Ironically, petitioner
concedes the greater power of the Board to repeal CB
 In CA, however, it was Marcos insistent position that
Circular No. 960 through CB Circular No. 1318, yet she
violations of CB Circular No. 960, specifically Sections 4
inexplicably questions the lesser and incidental power
and 10 thereof, ceased to be punishable upon the issuance
to provide for saving clauses therein.
in 1992 of CB Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353, on the theory
that the latter circulars completely repealed the former, and
 Petitioner’s argument that the saving clauses are not
that the reservations made in each of the repealing clauses
germane to the purposes of the Central Bank Act, and
of the latter circulars are invalid. She now reiterates the
consequently ultra vires, has been roundly confuted by CA.
same contentions before us.
- If, as she claims, one of the objectives of that law is to
- Respondent appellate court rejected her thesis on
stabilize the monetary system, that is precisely why
this score; we are sufficiently persuaded to do
Congress punished as criminal offenses the violations
likewise.
of the issuances of the Monetary Board necessary for
the effective discharge of its responsibilities, and to
RULING:
carry out which the Board deemed it necessary to
 The saving clause in CB Circular No. 1318, which petitioner
provide for the challenged saving clauses.
questions, provides:
 - The saving clauses were dictated by the need to
continue the prosecution of those who had already
committed acts of monetary destabilization
- The opposite view posited by petitioner would result in
an absurdity.

 Her lamentations that the aforementioned provisions are

discriminatory because they are aimed at her and her co-
accused do not assume the dignity of a legal argument
since they are unwarranted conjectures belied by even
the text of the circulars alone.
 HENCE, the foregoing facts clearly disprove petitioners
claim that her constitutional right to equal protection of the
law was violated. Should she nonetheless desire to pursue
such objection, she may always adduce additional evidence
at the trial of these cases since that is the proper stage
therefor, and not at their present posture.
 Lastly, there is no need for us to tarry on petitioners
hypothesis that the acts charged in the questioned
informations were committed by foreign agents or juridical
persons outside Philippine territory and that, she being
supposedly a mere beneficiary, this scenario divests the
trial court of jurisdiction over her insofar as the violations
resulting from such acts abroad are concerned. This is too
simplistic an argument because it would have the Court
assume that she only had a passive participation thereon
or, if she is to be believed, none at all.
 That is why CA decided to just graciously quote, in
refutation of such imposition on judicial credulity, the
perceptively succinct observation of respondent trial judge,
to wit:
- In no uncertain terms, the corresponding informations
clearly state that the accused, in conspiracy with the
late president, opened and maintained foreign
accounts abroad in the name of foundations organized
by their dummies. The same observation holds true in
Criminal Cases Nos. 91-101879-92 where the accused
and her co-accused are charged (with) violation of
section 10, CB Circular 960. As easily gleaned
therefrom, (the) criminal informations are not only
sufficient but clear in alleging that the accused earned
foreign exchange without proper reporting therof
although camouflaged in the name of foundations.

 Accused’s contention that the acts charged were committed

by persons or agents who managed said foundation outside
the country and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of this
court is misplaced argument. As already stated and
discussed, it is the accused who (was alleged to
have) maintained foreign accounts and earned
foreign exchange abroad camouflaged in the name of
foreign agents and/or foundations but neither obtained
authority to do so nor reported the earnings to the Central
Bank.

WHEREFORE, the petition at bar is DENIED and the challenged

judgment of respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with
costs against petitioner.