ALEXANDER PADILLA, complainant, vs. THE HON. BALTAZAR R. DIZON, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City Branch 113, respondent; Adm. Case No. 3086 February 23, 1988

CUE: judge acquitted Chinese from illegal smuggling of foreign currency

TOPIC: Mallum prohibitum to as exception to the requirement of mens rea.

RATIONALE: 

Proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) is not essential in offenses punished by special laws, which are mala prohibita

Administrative Case against:

RTC judge Baltazar R. Dizon

GUILTY of gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law and grave and serious misconduct affecting his integrity and efficiency, and consistent with the responsibility of this Court for the just and proper administration of justice and for the attainment of the objective of maintaining the people's faith in the judiciary

FACTS:

1. Accused  Lo Chi Fai was apprehended at the Manila International Airport and caught in possession of US$355,349.57 in assorted foreign currencies and foreign exchange instruments (380 pieces), without any specific authority from the Central Bank as required by law. During his apprehension, he was able to exhibit only two foreign currency declarations in his possession. These were old declarations made by him on the occasion of his previous trips to the Philippines. He was smuggling of foreign currency out of the country.

2. Violation of Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular No. 960 was filed against Lo Chi Fai with a penal sanction provided by Sec. 1, PD NO. 1883.

Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular No. 960

provides that no person shall take out or transmit or attempt to take out or transmit foreign exchange in any form out of the Philippines without an authorization by the Central Bank. Tourists and non-resident visitors may take out or send out from the Philippine foreign exchange in amounts not exceeding such amounts of foreign exchange brought in by them. Tourists and non-resident temporary visitors bringing with them more than US$3,000.00 or its equivalent in other foreign currencies shall declare their foreign exchange in the form prescribed by the Central Bank at points of entries upon arrival in the Philippines.

Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1883

provides that any person who shall engage in the trading or purchase and sale of foreign currency in violation of existing laws or rules and regulations of the Central Bank shall be guilty of the crime of blackmarketing of foreign exchange and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal (minimum of 12 years and 1 day and maximum of 20 years) and a fine of no less than P50,000.00.

3. At the trial, Lo Chi Fai tried to establish that he was a businessman from Hongkong, that he had come to the Philippines 9 to 10 times to invest in business in the country with his business associates, and that he and his business associates declared all the money they brought in and all declarations were handed to and kept by him.

4. Because of the revolution taking place in Manila during that time, Lo Chi Fai was urged by his business associates to come to Manila to bring the money out of the Philippines.

5. RTC Pasay judge, herein respondent, Baltazar R. Dizon, acquitted Lo on the grounds that:

   a. there was NO DELIBERATE INTENT needed for accused's prosecution

  b. Money brought by the accused is for the purpose of investing in some undefined business ventures and that the reason why the accused ought to export the money is because of the fear that the "Attempted Revolution" might spread.

and that he rendered the decision in "good faith."

6. Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, then filed a complaint against Baltazar R. Dizon for acquitting Lo Chi Fai.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Baltazar R. Dizon is guilty of gross incompetence or gross ignorance of the law in holding that the accused, Lo Chi Fai, for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960, the prosecution must establish that the accused had the criminal intent to violate the law.

RULING: 

YES.

The respondent judge ought to know that proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) is not essential in offenses punished by special laws, which are mala prohibita. In requiring proof of malice, the respondent has by his gross ignorance allowed the accused to go scot free. The accused at the time of his apprehension at the Manila International Airport had in his possession the amount of US$355,349.57 in assorted foreign currencies and foreign exchange instruments (380 pieces), without any specific authority from the Central Bank as required by law. At the time of his apprehension, he was able to exhibit only two foreign currency declarations in his possession. These were old declarations made by him on the occasion of his previous trips to the Philippines.

Baltazar R. Dizon also ignored the fact that these currency declarations were declarations belonging to other people. 

In invoking the provisions of the Central Bank Circular No. 960 to justify the release of US$3,000.00 to Lo Chi Fai, Baltazar R. Dizon again diplayed gross incompetence and gross ignorance of law. There is nothing in the Central Bank Circular which could be taken as authority for the trial court to release the said amount of US Currency to Lo Chi Fai.

Thus, the court find Dizon GUILTY of gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law and grave and serious misconduct affecting his integrity and efficiency, and consistent with the responsibility of this Court for the just and proper administration of justice and for the attainment of the objective of maintaining the people's faith in the judiciary. He was also stripped of his service-connected benefits.