ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No.

125359

FACTS:

In 1991 to 1992, petitioners, together with former First Lady Imelda Marcos, werecharged
with twenty-five informations at the RTC for dollar salting violation of Central Bank
Circular No. 960. The complaints alleged that petitioners maintained foreign exchange
abroad without prior authorization from and failed toreport earnings or receipts to the CB.
Meanwhile, CB Circular No. 1318 revised the rules governing non-trade foreignexchange
transactions and Circular No. 1353 deleted the requirement of prior Central Bank
approval for foreign exchange-funded expenditures obtained from the banking system. Both
circulars contained a saving clause exempting from its coverage
pending criminal actions involving violations of Circular No. 960 andCircular No. 1318.

ISSUE: Whether or not the repeal of CB 960 by Circular 1353 extinguish criminal liability
of petitioners?

HELD:

No. Generally, an absolute repeal of a penal law has the effect of depriving a courtof
its authority to punish a person charged with violation of the old law prior toits repeal.
This is because an unqualified repeal of a penal law constitutes alegislative act
of rendering legal what had been previously declared as illegal,such that the offense no
longer exists and it is as if the person who committed it never did so. Inclusion of
a saving clause in the repealing statute that provides that therepeal shall have no effect on
pending actions.2. repealing act reenacts the former statute and punishes the act previously
penalizedunder the old law. In such instance, the act committed before the reenactment
continuesto be an offense in the statute books and pending cases are not affected
regardlessof whether the new penalty to be imposed is more favorable to the accused.
BALAGTAS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE. v. CA G.R. No. 159268

FACTS: Petitioner Josefina G. Hipolito-Herrero filed acomplaint for illegal

dismissal, and non-payment of 13 th month pay or Christmas Bonus against
"Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. She prayed that she be reinstated and
paid backwages. Labor Arbiter which rendered his decision favoring Josefina
and ordering petitioner to pay backwages and other money judgment. Balagtas
appealed the decision to the NLRC but failed to post either a cash or surety bond
as required by Article 223 of the Labor Code Petitioners filed motion, stating
that under RA No. 6938, Article 62 of the Cooperative Code of thePhilippines,
petitioners are exempt from putting up a bond in an appeal from the
decision of the inferior court. NLRC rendered decision denying petitioners claim.
Petitioners then filed a certiorari with the CA but CA stated that the exemption from
putting a bond applies to cases decided by inferior courts only.

ISSUE:Whether or not petitioner is exempted from filing bond required to perfect an

employers appeal?

HELD: Petitioners are not exempt from posting the appeal bond required under
Article 223 of the Labor Code. The provision cited by petitioners cannot be taken in
isolation and must be interpreted in relation to the Cooperative Code in its
entirety certain benefits and privileges were expressly granted to
cooperativeentities under the statute. The provision invoked by petitioners regarding the
exemptionfrom payment of an appeal bond is only one among a number of such
privileges which appear under the article entitled "Tax and Other Exemptions" of the
code. This follows the well-settled principle that exceptions are to be strictly but
reasonably construed; they extend only so far as their language warrants,and all doubts
should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than the
exceptions.