View full case

KAREN E. SALVACION v. CENTRAL BANK OF PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

The case involves a complaint filed by Karen Salvacion and her parents, Federico and Evelina Salvacion, against Greg Bartelli for rape and serious illegal detention. There was an allegation that Bartelli approached Karen at Plaza Fair Makati Cinema Square and convinced her to go to his house along Kalayaan Avenue under the pretense of teaching his niece. However, when they reached the apartment, Bartelli locked the door, tied Karen's hands and feet to the bed posts, and proceeded to sexually assault her. Karen testified that she cried for help but Bartelli strangled her and covered her mouth with tape. Bartelli then applied baby oil to his and Karen's genitalia but was unable to fully insert his penis. After the assault, he told Karen to take a shower and then he left the room.

The victim, Karen Salvacion, was kidnapped and held captive by the defendant. On February 4, 1989, the defendant forced Karen to undress and tied her hands and feet. He then blindfolded her and proceeded to rape her. After the first rape, Karen was allowed to take a shower but defendant untied her hands. During her shower, she noticed more blood coming out from her. Defendant changed the mattress because it was full of blood. Karen was allowed to sleep and woke up the following morning.

On February 5, 1989, Karen was raped twice, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. For dinner, they had rice and defendant cooked it. Karen was raped for the third time during the night. Defendant did not tie her hands and feet or put a tape on her mouth at this point. Karen did not cry for help because all the windows and doors were closed and she was afraid of being killed by the defendant. Defendant did not leave the house that Sunday, ruling out her chance to call for help.

On February 6, 1989, Karen was raped three times, once in the morning, once in the afternoon, and once in the evening. That evening, Karen had a chance to call for help through a small window in the bathroom but the neighbor who heard her cried for help got angry and told her to sleep and that she would call the police. No policeman came.

Karen woke up on February 7, 1989, and saw the defendant still sleeping. When he woke up, he got food for them both and kept the door locked. Karen was raped three times that day. After the third rape, the defendant left the house. Karen shouted for help and after about five minutes, she heard many voices asking for her name. She gave her name and heard a woman say they would call the police. She did not change her clothes for fear that the defendant might kill her if he saw her in different clothes.

When the defendant returned and opened the door, he asked Karen if she had asked for help because there were many policemen outside. She denied it and he instructed her to change her clothes. They went downstairs where there were about five policemen in uniform. Karen knocked on the door until a policeman came up and she told him she was kidnapped. They went outside where neighbors were gathered and they rode in a car together with the defendant, the policeman, and two neighbors to the police station.

The accused, who was a domestic helper, was arrested and brought to the police headquarters. She was taken to the second floor of the headquarters where she was questioned by the investigator. She provided a written statement to the police, which was marked as Exhibit A.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Section 8 of R.A. 6426, as amended by P.D. 1246, exempting foreign currency deposits from attachment, garnishment, or any other court processes, applies to a foreign transient like Greg Bartelli y Northcott.

  2. Whether the provisions in question violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution by denying the petitioners their right to the monetary award granted by the court.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and P.D. 1246, insofar as they amend Section 8 of R.A. 6426, are inapplicable to this case due to its peculiar circumstances involving a foreign transient. The Court ruled that these provisions were not meant to protect foreign transients like Greg Bartelli, who committed a crime and then deposited his funds simply for safekeeping during his temporary stay in the Philippines.

  2. The Court found the questioned law to be unreasonable and oppressive as it denied the petitioners their right to have the judgment satisfied. It thus required the respondents to comply with the writ of execution and release the dollar deposit of Bartelli to the petitioners to satisfy the judgment.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Principle of Justice in Statutory Interpretation: In cases of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail (Article 10, New Civil Code).

  2. Protection Against Injustice: Legal provisions should not be applied in a manner that results in injustice, especially to citizens aggrieved by foreign visitors.

  3. Authority of Courts in Declaratory Relief with Far-reaching Implications: The Supreme Court can treat a petition for declaratory relief as one for mandamus if it raises questions of far-reaching implications that should be resolved.

  4. Limits on Exemptions from Judicial Processes: Statutory exemptions, such as those for foreign currency deposits, must be construed in light of their purpose and should not be used to unjustly protect wrongdoers.