G.R. No.

L-6791 March 29, 1954

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
QUE PO LAY, defendant-appellant.

Facts:

 Que Po Lay appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, which found him
guilty of violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in connection with section 34 of Republic Act No.
265.

 He was charged with failing to sell foreign exchange (U.S. dollars, U.S. checks, and U.S. money
orders amounting to about $7,000) to the Central Bank within one day of receiving it, as
required by Circular No. 20.

 The appellant argued that Circular No. 20 was not published in the Official Gazette before the
alleged violation, making it without force and effect.

 Commonwealth Act No. 638 and Act 2930 were cited, asserting that they required the
publication of circulars of general applicability in the Official Gazette.

 The Solicitor General argued against the need for such publication, contending that the
mentioned laws only specify what should be published in the Official Gazette for guidance.

Issue:

 The main issue is whether Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank, which the appellant allegedly
violated, had legal force and effect despite not being published in the Official Gazette before the
violation.

Supreme Court's Ruling:

 No, Circular No. 20 did not have legal force and effect at the time of the alleged violation.

Explanation:

 Commonwealth Act No. 638 and Act 2930 were deemed not applicable to Circular No. 20, as
they do not mandate the publication of circulars, regulations, or notices to give them force and
effect.

 Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code and Article 2 of the new Civil Code were
referenced, emphasizing that laws take effect after publication in the Official Gazette, unless
otherwise provided.

 Although Circular No. 20 was not a statute, it was issued for the implementation of a law, thus
having the force and effect of law.
 The court acknowledged the general principle that circulars, especially those with penal
provisions like Circular No. 20, should be published before becoming effective to inform the
public officially and specifically.

 Referring to jurisprudence, it was established that Circular No. 20 did not have any legal effect
until its publication in November 1951, which was about three months after the alleged
violation by the appellant.

 The appellant's argument about the non-publication was considered fundamental and decisive,
and the court asserted that this question could be raised at any stage of the proceeding.

 Consequently, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila was reversed, and the
appellant was acquitted with costs de oficio.