STATUTORY

CONSTRUCTION
People of the Philippines
v. Que Po Lay
Instructor:
ATTY. JOSEPH A. GAMEZ
Presented by:
RACHELLE B. YU
 People of the Philippines
v Que Po Lay
94 Phil I GR No. 6791, March 29, 1954

Circulars and Regulations, Issued for the Implementation of the

Law Authorizing Its Issuance, Take Effect, In the Absence of Special
Provision, 15 days after Publication in the Official Gazette.

SYLLABUS
1. CUSTOMS DUTIES; FORFEITURE OF UNDECLARED
ARTICLES; ERRONEOUS DESIGNATION OF LAW VIOLATED. — An
erroneous designation of the particular Section of the law that had
been violated in the seizure report of the Collector of Customs is of
no moment because what controls in a complaint or information is
not the designation of the crime or of the violation charged, but the
description of the same given in the body of the complaint or
information. (U.S. v. Burns, 41 Phil. 418). In the case at bar, it was
explained that only a mere error was committed thru oversight in
the designation of the law, but that the seizure report as well as the
decision of the Collector of Customs clearly state the facts which
constitute the acts committed, which fall under Section 1363 (M) 3
and 4 of the Revised Administrative Code.
2. ID.; ID.; ORDER OF SEIZURE WHEN JUSTIFIED. — The
Collector of Customs is justified to order the seizure of articles
when they were not declared by the exporter in the export entry
issued to him and instead were concealed among other declared
articles in an attempt to smuggle them cut of the country without
complying with the law.
3. ID.; ID.; SERVICE OF PROCESS. — The alleged lack of notice
of hearing as well as the decision of the Collector of Customs to an
exporter for which reason he claims he was not able to protect his
interest and was adjudged without due process of law is untenable
where it appears on record that exporter’s counsel was duly
served with formal notice of hearing as well as a copy of the
decision of the Collector of Customs.
FACTS
Que Po Lay was convicted at the Court of First Instance of Manila
for violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in connection with Section 34
of Republic No. 265. The appellant was in possession of foreign
exchange consisting of U.S dollars, checks and money orders
amounting to about $ 7,000. He failed to sell the said currency to the
Central Bank through its agents one day following the receipt of such
currency as required by Circular No.20. The appellant was sentenced
to six months imprisonment and a fine of Php 1, 000.
The appellant based the appeal on the claim that said circular was
not published on the Official Gazette prior to the act of omission of the
appellant, thus, said circular has no force and effect. Circular No. 20 of
the Central Bank was issued in the year 1949. It was not published until
November 1951, or after three months after appelant’s conviction of its
violation.

ISSUE
Whether or not:
1. Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank, not being a statute or a
law should be subjected to publication requirement stated in
Article 2 of the Civil Code;
2. The appellant is liable to the said Circular No. 20 when the
latter was only published after about three months of his
conviction.

HELD
1. Circular No. 20 is not a statute or a law but it is being issued for the
implementation of the law authorizing its issuance, therefore it has the
force and effect of the law. Circulars and regulations which prescribe
a penalty for its violation should be published before becoming
effective. It is based on the general principle that before the public is
bound by penal provisions, the people should be officially informed of
its contents and penalties.
2. Appellant could not be held liable for the violation of Circular No. 20
for it was not binding at the time he was found to have failed to sell the
foreign exchange.