US vs.

Go Chico (14 Phil 133)

Facts: On or about the 4th day of August, 1908, appellant Go Chico displayed in one of the windows and
one of the show cases of his store in No. 89 Calle Rosario, Manila, a number of medallions, in the form
of a small button, upon which were printed the miniature faces of Emilio Aguinaldo and the flag or
banner or device used during the late insurrection in the Phil. Islands to designate and identify those in
armed insurrection against the United States. On the day previous to the one set forth above, the
appellant had purchased the said medallion sold at a public sale under the authority of the sheriff of the
city of Manila. On the day in question, the appellant was arranging his stock of goods for the purpose of
displaying them to the public, and in doing so, he placed the medallions in his showcase and on one of
the windows of his store. The appellant was ignorant of any law against the display of such medallions
and had consequently no corrupt intention. The facts stated above are admitted. The appellant has two
propositions for his acquittal: first is that before a conviction can be had, a criminal intent upon the part
of the accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Second is that the prohibition of law is
directed against the use of identical banners, devices or emblems actually used during the Philippine
insurrection by those in armed rebellion against the United States.

Issue: Whether or not criminal intent is necessary in crimes punishable by special laws.

Held: The court ruled that the act alone, irrespective of its motive, constitutes the crime. The words
“used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate or identify those in armed
rebellion against the United States” mean not only the identical flags actually used in the insurrection,
but any flag which is of that type. The description refers not to a particular flag, but to a type of flag. The
literal interpretation of a statute may lead to an absurdity, or evidently fail to give the real intent of the
legislature.
Padilla vs. Dizon (Crim1)
Alexander Padilla, complainant, vs. The Hon. Baltazar R. Dizon, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court of Pasay City, Branch 113, respondent.

February 23, 1988

Per Curiam

Facts:

Respondent Baltazar R. Dizon acquitted, in his decision, the tourist and accused, Lo Chi Fai, saying that
Lo Chi Fai had no willful intention to violate the law. He also directed the release to Lo Chi Fai of at least
the amount of US$3,000.00 under Central Bank Circular No. 960.

Lo Chi Fai was caught by Customs guard at the Manila International Airport while attempting to smuggle
foreign currency and foreign exchange instruments out of the country.

An information was filed against Lo Chi Fai with the RTC for violation of Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular No.
960 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.

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.
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.

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.

Held:

Yes.

Ratio:

Baltazar R. Dizon ignored the fact that the foreign currency and foreign currency instruments found in the
possession of Lo Chi Fai when he was apprehended at the airport and the amounts of such foreign
exchange did not correspond to the foreign currency declarations presented by Lo Chi Fai at the trial, and
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.