The People of the Philippines vs. Que Po Lay, G.R. No.

L-6791, March 29, 1954

Facts:
Que Poy Lay was charged in possession of foreign exchange consisting of U.S. dollars, U.S.
checks and U.S. money orders amounting to about $7,000, and failed to sell the same to the
Central Bank through its agents within one day following the receipt of such foreign exchange as
required by Circular No. 20. The decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila found him
guilty in the abovementioned circular in connection with section 34 of Republic Act No. 265,
and sentencing him to suffer six months imprisonment, to pay a fine of P1,000 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
The appeal of the appellant to reverse the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila is
based on the claim that said circular No. 20 was not published in the Official Gazette prior to the
act or omission imputed to the appellant, and that consequently, said circular had no force and
effect. It is contended that Commonwealth Act. No., 638 and Act 2930 both require said circular
to be published in the Official Gazette, it being an order or notice of general applicability. The
Solicitor General answering this contention says that Commonwealth Act. No. 638 and 2930 do
not require the publication in the Official Gazette of said circular issued for the implementation
of a law in order to have force and effect.
Issue:
Whether or not Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank needs to have publication in the Official
Gazette for it to take effect.
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that although circular No. 20 of the Central Bank was issued in
the year 1949, it was not published until November 1951, that is, about 3 months after appellant's
conviction of its violation. It is clear that said circular, particularly its penal provision, did not
have any legal effect and bound no one until its publication in the Official Gazzette or after
November 1951. In other words, appellant could not be held liable for its violation, for it was not
binding at the time he was found to have failed to sell the foreign exchange in his possession
thereof.
Thus the Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and acquitted the appellant.
Doctrine:
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.
In the case at bar wherein the issuance in question is a Central Bank circular, it is then ruled
according to the settled jurisprudence that its effectively should be still pursuant to Article 2 of
the Civil Code for reasons that it has been issued for the implementation of the law authorizing

Michael Berturan,
Juris Doctor – 1
Persons and Family Relations
its issuance and the fact the circular is punitive in character are the principal reason why
publication should be made.

ALBINO S. CO vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Facts:
Petitioner Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm on September 1, 1983 a check drawn against
the Associated Citizens' Bank, postdated November 30, 1983 in the sum of P361,528.00.  The
check was deposited on January 3, 1984. It was dishonored two days later, the tersely-stated
reason given by the bank being: "CLOSED ACCOUNT."
Following such, a criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Bilang 22 was then filed by the
salvage company against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. The lower court
then favored the salvaged company and convicted Co for the criminal act. He was sentenced to a
term of sixty (60) days and to indemnify the salvage company the sum of P361,528.00.
The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals where he sought exoneration upon the theory
that it was reversible error for the Regional Trial Court to have relied, as basis for its verdict of
conviction, on the ruling rendered on September 21, 1987 by this Court in Que v. People, 154
SCRA 160 (1987). He argued on the appeal that at time of the issuance of the check on
September 1, 1983, some four (4) years prior to the promulgation of the judgment in Que v.
People on September 21, 1987, the delivery of a "rubber" or "bouncing" check as guarantee for
an obligation was not considered a punishable offense, an official pronouncement made in a
Circular of the Ministry of Justice. That Circular (No. 4), dated December 15, 1981, pertinently
provided as follows:
2.3.4. Where issuance of bouncing check is neither estafa nor violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
Co's theory was rejected by the Court of Appeals which affirmed his conviction.
Citing Senarillos v. Hermosisima, 101 Phil. 561, the Appellate Court opined that
the Que doctrine did not amount to the passage of new law but was merely a construction or
interpretation of a pre-existing one, i.e., BP 22, enacted on April 3, 1979.
Petitioner appealed to this Court on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. By Resolution
dated September 9, 1991, the Court dismissed his appeal. Petitioner moved for reconsideration
under date of October 2, 1991. The Court required comment thereon by the Office of the
Solicitor General. The latter complied and, in its comment dated December 13, 1991, extensively
argued against the merits of the petitioner’s theory on appeal, which was substantially that
proffered by him in the Court of Appeals. To this comment, petitioner filed a reply dated
February 14, 1992. After deliberating on the parties' arguments and contentions, the Court
resolved, in the interests of justice, to reinstate Albino Co's appeal and adjudicate the same on its
merits.

Issue:
Whether or not decision issued by the Court be applied retroactively to the prejudice of the
accused.
Michael Berturan,
Juris Doctor – 1
Persons and Family Relations
Ruling:
No. According to Article 4 of the Civil Code. "Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the
contrary is provided,” a declaration that is echoed by Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code:
"Penal laws shall have, a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony,
who is not a habitual criminal… The principle of prospectivity has also been applied to judicial
decisions which, "although in themselves not laws, are nevertheless evidence of what the laws
mean. Thus, the judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form
a part of the legal system of the Philippines are also subject to conformity with the
abovementioned provisions.

Thus, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and of the
Regional Trial Court, and the criminal prosecution against the accused-petitioner is
DISMISSED.

Doctrine:

The doctrine of the prospective application of the law can be found on Article 4 of the Civil
Code as echoed by Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. It is then laid out that “Laws shall have
no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided” and “Penal Laws shall have a retroactive
effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this
term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of
such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.”

To simplify, the general rule is that, Laws should be prospective in nature, however there are
exemptions. The following are the exemptions to the general rule:

(a) If the laws themselves provide for retroactivity.

(b) If the laws are remedial in nature.
(c) If the statute is penal in nature, provided tt is favorable to the accused or to the convict; 2)
and provided further that the accused or convict is not a habitual delinquent as the term is
defined under the Revised Penal Code.
d) If the laws are of an emergency nature and are authorized by the police power of the
government
(e) If the law is curative (this is necessarily retroactive for the precise purpose is to cure errors or
irregularities).
(f) If a substantive right be declared for the first time, unless vested rights are impaired.

In the case at bar, the penal nature of the jurisprudence cannot be retroactively enforced in
violation of Article 4 of the Civil Code as echoed by Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code since
it does not favor the accused.

Michael Berturan,
Juris Doctor – 1
Persons and Family Relations