THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIA DE OCAMPO Y PADILLA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Republic Act No. 427, effective May 22, 1950, pena­lizes – with some exceptions –
the possession of silver and/or nickel coins in an aggregate amount exceeding
fif­ty pesos.  This is a prosecution for violation of this special law.

On September 15, 1964,
at eight in the evening, Ro­gelia de Ocampo, alias Rita Aguirre, was aboard the boat M/B Mariquita, at Balamacan pier, Mogpog, Marinduque, about to
leave for Lucena, Quezon.  She had in her posses­sion a buri bag and a rattan basket.  A
Philippine Cons­tabulary patrol, then on the lookout for smuggling,
asked to search her aforesaid belongings, which she allowed.  Inside them, they found three bags of coins.

Rogelia de Ocampo
was taken to the PC headquarters.  An
inventory of the coins was taken; the total amount was P1,120.00
consisting of 50¢, 20¢, 10¢ and 1¢
denominations.

The PC filed on September
16, 1964 a complaint against Rogelia de Ocampo for said
incident.  On the same day, she accomplished an affidavit before the Deputy
Clerk of Court relating inter alia the
aforesaid facts (Exhibit A).

A corresponding information was filed on
September 22, 1964 in
the Court of First instance of Marinduque.  Rogelia de Ocampo pleaded not guilty and stood trial.  On December 29, 1964, the Court of First Instance rendered a
decision of conviction, sentencing her to serve one year imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P5,000.00, plus costs and confiscation
of the amount of coins held in excess of fifty pesos.  Defendant appealed to raise a point of
statutory interpretation.

Appellant’s view is that the law punishes the accumulation
of silver and/or nickel coins in excess of fifty pesos; that
a period of seven days is given by said law within which to turn over to any
bank, treasury or post office, and exchange for notes, an excess in coins above
fifty pesos.  She claims, therefore, that
her possession of such coins in the total amount of P1,120.00, not hav­ing been
alleged or shown to be for more than seven days, is not an offense under the
statute.

The relevant provisions of the law state:

“SECTION 1.  It shall be the duty of eve­ry person,
partnership, association or corpo­ration, having in its possession silver
and/or nickel coins of the Philippine currency in an aggregate amount of more
than fifty pesos, to turn over any excess over said amount to any bank,
treasury or post office in the Phi­lippines in exchange for notes of legal cir­culation,
within seven days from the passage of this Act. 
At the end of the seven days, as hereinabove provided, every person
conducting business, partnership, association or corpo­ration and every seven
days thereafter shall record in a cash book or memorandum an inven­tory of the
total amount of coins by denomi­nations that it has in its possession, and this
record and all cash and cash receptacles kept by such person, partnership, association
or corporation shall be open to inspection and verification by the Secretary of
Finance or his duly authorized representatives.

“SEC. 2.  After the period of seven days provided in
the preceding section, it shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, as­sociation
or corporation to hold, possess or keep silver and/or nickel coins in an aggre­gate
amount exceeding fifty pesos.  The posses­sion
of such an excess
amount shall be punish­able with a fine of five thousand pesos and
imprisonment of one year, and the confiscation of the amount held in excess of
fifty pesos:  Provided, That if
the person found guilty of violation of this section be a foreigner, the
sentence shall also include an order for his deportation immediately after
service of his term of imprisonment, principal as well as subsidiary.”

Appellant cannot successfully claim to fall under “persons
conducting business” as to whom the law alleged­ly grants a period of seven days, even
after the origi­nal seven-day period following the passage of the Act, within
which to turn in and exchange for notes, silver and/or nickel coins in excess
of fifty pesos.  Appellant was not
engaged in business, as an incident of which she possessed the coins in
question.  She kept no record of
inventory of coins every seven days as required by law of persons conducting
business.  Rather, in Exhibit A she
admitted that she engaged in buying and selling of coins; that the coins she
had when she was apprehended were in­tended by her to be sold to someone in Lucena; that she would gain some percentage thereby; that
someone in turn uses the coins for purchases in Hong Kong where the coins are
rated at a greater ratio than notes; that she de­rived these coins from agents
of her own who purchase coins and turn them over to her for a percentage; and
that she had previously consummated similar transactions four times before,
involving a total of P900.00.

All the foregoing shows Rogelia de Ocampo’s posses­sion of the P1,120.00
in silver and/or nickel coins in­volved herein, to be punishable under the
law.  The prac­tice she engaged in of
purchasing and selling, for a per­centage, silver and/or nickel coins,
constitutes an evil intended to be curbed by the law, for the same would re­sult
in the withdrawal of said coins from circulation, by systematic, deliberate and
excessive accumulation thereof, resulting in adverse effects on the economy.

WHEREFORE, the
judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, without costs in this
instance.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., and Dizon, J., are on official leave.