Aban Book Chap 12

8/18/2019 Aban Book Chap 12

1/77

G.R. No. L-56866 June 27, 1985

EDEN TAN, petitioner,vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS n! PEOPLE OF THEPH"L"PP"NES, respondents.

Felipe L. Abel for petitioner.

CUE#AS, J.:

Appeal by way of certiorari from the decision dated September 29,1980 of the then Court of Appeals in CA!.". #o. 19$1 %C" entitled&People of the Philippines versus Eden Tan& which affirmed in toto theCircuit Criminal Court's (ud)ment in Criminal Case #o. CCC*%%1$00+.C., findin) petitionerappellant )uilty of violation of Section -02 ofthe ariff and Customs Code, as amended.

he facts and circumstances that )ave rise to appellant's prosecutionand conviction as summari/ed by the onorable Solicitor !eneral inthe +eople's rief, 1 runs thus

At about 831$ in the evenin) of #ovember 14,1945, Cathay +acific Airways 6li)ht #o. 90 fromon)7on) landed at the anila %nternational Airport%A for short:. ;den an, one of the, passen)ersof this fli)ht, appeared to be restless, and as if she

was loo7in) for somebody. 9, tsn, September 18,194$:.

$, tsn, Id .: 2


2/77

he defense evidence on the other hand as found by the thenonorable Court of Appeals, runs this wise3

... the evidence for the defense see7s to establishthat the alle)ed precious stones and assorted

(ewelries were nothin) but synthetic or limitationstones called &ya)& and fancy (ewelryD that upon are?uest for reappraisal by appellant, in the sei/ureproceedin)s in the %A Customhouse, the re

appraisal committee created by the Actin)Commissioner of Customs reported the appraisalof the sei/ed articles at +54,99.00 ;=h. 10, 10A,10, 10C, 10C1, 10C2 and 10C:D thatappellant testified that she accomplished aba))a)e declaration presented to her by thestewardess aboard the planeD that she declared inher ba))a)e declaration all the ba))a)e sic:includin) one leather ba) and bed cover, personaleffects, synthetic stones, fancy (ewelries, medicine,clothin) and so forthD that this ba))a)e declaration

was not presented as evidence in court and,instead the prosecution (ust manifested in courtthat the ba))a)e declaration could not be foundD

that the prosecution did not prove first the loss ofthe ba))a)e declaration before provin) thecontents thereof by secondary evidence throu)hthe recollection of witnesses and that evenadmittin) that the prosecution has proved thecontents to be such that appellant stated only&personal effect& in her ba))a)e declaration still theevidence is unsufficient to sustain the conviction ofappellant beyond reasonable doubt. $

After trial followin) a plea of not )uilty upon arrai)nment, accused wasconvicted and thereafter sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, to pay afine of +10, 000. 00, and to pay costs. Epon otion for

"econsideration filed by the petitionersappellant, however, the penalty was reduced merely to 5 years imprisonment and fine of +$,000.00.he articles sei/ed by the customs authorities were ordered forfeited infavor of the )overnment.

Epon appeal to the then Court of Appeals and as herein earlier stated,the (ud)ment appealed from was affirmedin toto.

ence, the instant appeal, petitioner contendin) that the then Court ofAppeals erred3

1. %n not ac?uittin) the petitionerappellant for failure of the prosecution

not only to present in evidence the ba))a)e declaration in ?uestion butalso to prove its alle)ed loss durin) the trial of the caseD

2. %n not findin) that the prosecutin) fiscal's mere manifestation that hecould not find the ba))a)e declaration amon) the records handed tohim althou)h said documents was one of the enclosures stated in theindorsement to the fiscal's office dated #ovember 18, 1945, and hismanifestation &we will prove the loss& tsn, September 0, 194$, pp. 912:, are not the proof of loss or evidence of such loss as re?uired bySection 5, "ule 10 of the "ules of Court to (ustify introduction andadmission of secondary evidence of the alle)ed contents of theba))a)e declarationD

. %n not findin) that secondary evidence of the alle)ed contents of themissin) ba))a)e declaration consistin) of testimonies of prosecution

witnesses were inadmissible as evidence there bein) no evidencepresented by the prosecution to prove its alle)ed loss as re?uired bySec. 5, "ule 10 of the "ules of CourtD

5. %n not findin) that there was valid and sufficient oral and truedeclaration made by petitioner re)ardin) the synthetic stones andfancy (ewelry on customs inspection after her arrival at the airport in

compliance with memorandum rder #o. 50 as amended byemorandum rder #o. $0 and the customs standard operatin)procedure laid down therein ;=hs. 2A, 2C, 2@, 2;, 26, and 2!,tsn, #ovember -, 194$, pp. 218, -441: allowin) and )ivin) incomin)passen)ers the opportunity to ma7e oral and true declaration of whatthey are carryin) and brin)in) into this countryD

$. %n overloo7in), disre)ardin) or interpretin) the si)nificance of certainfacts and circumstances of wei)ht and influence appearin) in therecord, which if properly considered and correctly interpreted wouldprobably chan)e the result of this caseD and

-. hat the decision and resolution of denial of the Court of Appeals in

this case are not in accord with law and the applicable (urisprudence.%

+etitionerappellant centers her attac7 a)ainst the (ud)ment ofconviction on the alle)ed error of the trial court in admittin) secondaryevidence of the ba))a)e declaration despite absence of sufficient prooof its loss. She contends that in such a case as the instant one,testimonial evidence is inadmissible to prove the contents of the saidba))a)e declaration, because then it will be in violation of the bestevidence rule as prescribed in Section 2a: and Section 5 of "ule 10of the "ules of Court.

%t is conceded that petitioner's ba))a)e declaration is the bestevidence of the contents thereof. So much so that if her conviction lies

solely on the said declaration and nothin) more, y %n there may bedoubt as to her culpability. ence, her ac?uittal may be warrantedunder the premises. Such however, is not the situation in the case atbar. he )uilt of petitioneraccused has been sufficiently proven by;nri?ue anansala, "uben @ia/ and in)a)un acud.

;nri?ue anansala is a customs police assi)ned at the anila%nternational Airport. Amon) his duties were to maintain peace andorder within the customs area, investi)ate violation of the customs andtariff code, watch for )oods ille)ally brou)ht into the country, watchfli)hts comin) in particularly from on)7on) which are consideredcritical, and to conduct surveillance on passen)ers actin) suspiciously.%t was he who at about 831$ in the evenin) of #ovember 14, 1945

spotted the herein petitionerappellant, a passen)er of 6li)ht #o. 90from on)7on). e posted himself near petitioner, actually saw ande=amined petitioner's ba))a)e declaration and noticed the entrytherein readin) &+ersonal ;ffects& only and nothin) more, And that

when ?uestioned by customs e=aminer acud as to whether she hadanythin) more to declare, heard petitioner answered &nothin) more,personal effects only&. e also witnessed e=aminer acud )oin) overand inspectin) petitioner's ba))a)es. e actually saw one of the plasticba)s brou)ht in by the petitioner containin) fancy (ewelries hiddenamon) fruitsD 5 that he was ordered by Airport Customs Collector tohelp in the e=amination of the petitioner's ba))a)es and to)ether withe=aminer acud, found upon further e=amination, precious stonessewed alon) the four 5: corners of a blan7et found in petitioner's


3/77

ba))a)e and also other precious stones and (ewelries sewed in thelinin) of petitioner's handba).

in)a)un acud, the e=aminer assi)ned to e=amine petitioner,declared that he e=amined petitioner's ba))a)eD that he was shownpetitioner's ba))a)e declaration wherein no entry appears e=cept&personal effects&D that before he started to e=amine petitioner'sba))a)e, he as7ed petitioner whether she had anythin) more todeclare and that petitioner's answer was &nothin) e=cept personal

effects&D that he then started e=aminin) petitioner's ba))a)es therebyopenin) one of the plastic ba)s in the process and found assortednec7laces and pendants concealed underneath the fruitsD 6 thatproceedin) further with his e=amination of petitioner's ba))a)es, hediscovered a bundle of pearl earrin)s in a plastic wrapperD that whenhe continued to e=amine another ba))a)e of the petitioner, the lattertold him &uwa) mon) bu7san ito that further e=amination made byhim of the petitioner's ba))a)e, yielded precious stones sewed alon)the four 5: corners of a bed cover blan7etD and that thereafter, heinformed Collector @ario of his findin)s and was later instructed by thelatter to brin) all the petitioner's ba))a)es to his room for inventory.

he collective wei)ht of the fore)oin) testimonies stron)ly andconvincin)ly established that petitioner attempted to smu))le into thecountry (ewelries and other precious stones which she failed to declarein violation of Section -02 of the Customs and ariff Code.

Anent petitioner's ba))a)e declaration, there is no controversy as to itse=istence which had been sufficiently established not only by theprosecution's evidence but li7ewise by that of the defense'. %t was alsoclearly shown that said ba))a)e declaration forms part of the variousdocuments forwarded by the customs authorities to the 6iscal's fficeupon the filin) of the case a)ainst the petitioner. Enfortunatelyhowever, it can no lon)er be found amon) the papers ma7in) up therecord of the case.

he said documents to)ether with petitioner's ba))a)e declaration were handed to andFor turned over to the trial fiscal. he place,therefore, where the ba))a)e declaration was last 7nown to be wouldbe the office of the trial fiscal who was the last custodian of saiddocument. ein) a vital evidence in the prosecution of the case, it issafe to assume. %t the fiscal necessarily undertoo7 and conducted athorou)h search for the missin) document. And failin) to locate it, he

was the only person who could 7nowled)eably inform the court of itsloss.

he )eneral rule concernin) proof of a lost instrument is, thatreasonable scarch shall be made for it in the compliance where it waslast 7nown to have been, and if such search does not discover it. then

in?uiry should be made of person most li7ely to have its custody, or who have some reasons to 7now of its whereabouts. #o fi=ed rule as tothe necessary proof to establish loss, or what constitutes reasonablesearch, can be formulated. he terms &reasonable search& and &in)ood faith,& applied to proof of lost instruments, must be construed anddefined under the facts in each particular caseD there is no infle=ibledefinition under which they can be applied to all cases. he sole ob(ectof stich proof is, to raise a reasonable presumption, merely that theinstrument is lost. and this is a preliminary in?uiry addressed to thediscretion of the (ud)e. 7

he loss may be shown by any person who 7new the fact of its loss, orby and one who has made, in the (ud)ment of the court, a sufficient

e=amination of the place or places where the documents or papers ofsimilar character are 7ept by the person in whose custody thedocument lost was, and has been unable to find it. 8

he loss of the ba))a)e declaration havin) been duly establishedresort to secondary evidence, is warranted under our rules ofevidence 9 which provides3

Section 2. Original Writing must be produced,

eceptions.here can be no evidence of a writin)the contents of which is the sub(ect in?uiry, otherthan the ori)inal writin) itself, e=cept in thefollowin) case3

a:


4/77

4 of Appellee's rief.

2 +a)es 5, $, - > 4 of the +eople's rief.

+a)e 8, @ecision.

5 +etitioner's rief, pa)es 49.

$ +a)es 9, 10, 1$, 1-, 14and 19, tsn, September0, 194$.

- +a)es 295, tsn, ctober 15, 194$.

4 6rancisco's ;vidence, 194 ;d., *ol. *%%, p. 18,Citin) Genniff v. Caulfield 190: 150 Cal. 5, 4,p. 80:.

8 +ayla)o v. Harabe, 22 SC"A 1254, 12$$.

9 "ule 10, Sec 2a: in relation to Sec. 5.

10 +etitioner's rief, pa)e 2.

11 a##;I &A&, pa)es $-.

G.R. No. 7$882 O)'o*e+ 22, 1987

ROSA CANC"O, petitioner,vs.HON. COURT OF TA APPEALS n! HON. CO"SS"ONER OFCUSTOS, respondents.

ELENC"O-HERRERA,J.:

efore us is petitioner's otion for "econsideration of this Court's"esolution of Au)ust 11, 198-, which denied for lac7 of merit her+etition for "eview on certiorari of respondent Court of a= Appeals'CA: @ecision in C..A. Case #o. 98.

@urin) the pendency of this case, or on April 2, 198-, petitioner hadpassed away and her le)al heirs were ordered substituted in her steadand Hose Cancio, Hr., was appointed )uardian ad)litem for the minors

a. %rene and "oberto, both surnamed Cancio, in this Court's"esolution of Au)ust 11, 198-.

here is no substantial dispute on the bac7)round facts and theevidentiary aspects *ol the controversy, summari/ed in said

@ecision as follows3

he records show that claimant rs. "osa Cancio

bearin) +hilippine +assport #o. 11494499 whileclearin) throu)h the +reoardin) A*S;C:Area of %A with her husband and three :children to board +" 0- for on)7on) in themornin) of Hune 12, 1981, was apprehended withne undred wo housand #ine undred @ollarsESB102,900.00: in cash, si= hundred dollarsESB-00.00: in two travelers chec7s, and onethousand five hundred +l,$00.00: +esosD that suchapprehension was effected only thru an alarmsounded by the scanner metal detectin) device: ofthe A*S;C men, when rs. Cancio who did notdeclare her currency had already passed the

Customs inspection areaD that sub(ect currencies were placed and concealed inside the two fairlysi/ed carton bo=es for local chocolates, securely

wrapped and taped with tin foilbac7 paperD and,that in view of claimant's failure, upon bein)re?uired, to present the Central an7 Authority, thesaid currencies were accordin)ly confiscated and asei/ure "eceipt #o. 01 was issued to herD hence,this sei/ure proceedin)s.

At the hearin) of this case, claimant, thru counsel,presented certified =ero= copy of her an7 oo7;=hibit &%&: for forei)n currency deposit with the

+hilippine Commercial and %ndustrial an7 underAccount 6C@E #o. 02-$, dollar remittances intele)raphic transfers from abroad for deposits inher account from ay 1, 1981 to ay 21, 1981,and withdrawal cards ;=hibit &lA& to &1;&,inclusive:, attestin) to the fact that claimant "osaCancio had withdrawn from her 6C@E Account acertain amount of Enited States currency whichtended to show that claimant herein was a forei)ncurrency depositor pursuant to the provisions of"epublic Act #o. -52-, as implemented by Centralan7 Circular #o. 5. And herein claimanttestified that because her forei)n currency depositcould not be withdrawn at one time, she made her

withdrawal on several occasions startin) from ay15, 1981 up to ay 24, 1981 when she closed heraccount preparatory to her departure which wasscheduled in the mornin) of Hune 12, 1981 foron)7on)D that from on)7on), she and her familyintended to proceed to the Enited States formedical treatment of her heart ailment as advisedby her two attendin) physicians from the ESospitalD that the ES currency that they werecarryin) and confiscated from them on Hune 12,1981 was intended principally for such medicalpurpose and for other miscellaneous and


5/77

necessary e=penses, and, that the sub(ectcurrencies were concealed and hidden by theminside the two chocolate bo=es solely for securityreasons. 1

y reason of the forfeiture decreed by respondent Commissioner ofCustoms of both the forei)n and local currencies due to petitioner'sfailure to present a Central an7 C: authority to brin) said currenciesout of the country, petitioner appealed to respondent Court of a=

Appeals. he latter Court affirmed the forfeiture of the ESB102,900.00in cash, and ESB-00.00 in travellers' chec7s for havin) been inviolation of Central an7 Circulars #os. 2-$ and $5, in relation toSection 2$0f: of the ariff and Customs Code, as amended. %treversed, however, the forfeiture of +1,$00.00 on the )round that sincepetitioner was travellin) with her husband and three : children, thesaid amount did not e=ceed the +$00.00 at that each traveller isallowed to brin) out of the country without a C permit pursuant topara)raph 5 of C Circular #o. 8.

+etitioner's unimpu)ned evidence shows that she was a forei)ncurrency depositor at the +hilippine Commercial and %ndustrial an7 ata7ati, etro anila, and that the sub(ect forei)n currency was part ofthe total amount of ESB11-,000.00 she had withdrawn from said ban7from ay 15 to 24, 1981 for her travel and medical e=penses in theEnited States via on)7on). 2 Admitted, too, is the fact that petitionerfailed to present to the apprehendin) customs authorities a Centralan7 authority to brin) out of the country the said currencies while atthe preboardin) area of the anila %nternational Airport on Hune 12,1981 on her scheduled fli)ht to on)7on) to)ether with her husbandand three children.

he primordial issue for resolution is whether or not respondent Courthad committed reversible error in upholdin) the forfeiture of the forei)ncurrencies in ?uestion.

A second loo7 at the facts and the e?uity of the case, the pertinentlaws, and the C Circulars involved constrains us to rule in theaffirmative and, accordin)ly, to )rant reconsideration of our "esolutionof Au)ust 11, 198- denyin) review.

%t is true that in so far as the e=portation or ta7in) out of forei)ncurrency from the country is concerned, Central an7 Circular #o. 2-$,issued on #ovember 20, 19-8, particularly para)raph thereof,mandates3

. #o person shall ta7e out or e=port from the+hilippines forei)n currency or any other forei)ne=chan)e e=cept as otherwise authori/ed by the

Central an7.

Similarly, Central ban7 Circular #o. $5, issued on Huly 19, 194-,reiterates and provides in Sec. thereof as follows3

Sec. . Enless specifically authori/ed by theCentral an7 or allowed under e=istin)international a)reements or Central an7re)ulations, no person shall ta7e or transmit orattempt to ta7e or transmit forei)n e=chan)e, in anyform out of the +hilippines only, throu)h other

persons, throu)h the mails, or throu)h internationalcarriers.

he provisions of this Section shall not apply totourists and nonresident temporary visitors whoare ta7in) or sendin) out of the +hilippines theirown forei)n e=chan)e brou)ht in by them.

owever, peculiar to the present controversy is the fact that, as stated

previously, petitioner is a forei)n currency depositor. "elevant andapplicable to her is the followin) provision of the &6orei)n Currency@eposit Act of the +hilip pines& "epublic Act #o. -52-, as amended:,

which too7 effect upon its approval on April 5,19423

S;C. $. Withdra#abilit" and transferabilit" ofdeposits. * here shall be no restriction on the

withdrawal by the depositor of his deposit or on thetransferability of the same abroad e=cept thosearisin) from the contract between the depositor andthe ban7.11 ;mphasis urs:.

Ender the fore)oin) provision, the transferability abroad of forei)n

currency deposits is unrestricted. nly one e=ception is provided fortherein, which is, any restriction & from the contract between thedepositor and the ban7.& #either is a Central an7 authority re?uiredfor the transferability abroad of forei)n currency deposits.

Attention is called, however, to the implementin) rules and re)ulationsto said "epublic Act -52-, as embodied in C Circular #o. 5 issuedon April 25, 1942, which provides3

S;C. 11.


6/77

and $54, are hereby instructed to advise theirforei)n currency depositors who are withdrawin)funds for travel purposes to carry with them thecertificate of withdrawal that the ban7s shall issue.he travellers shall present the certifications to theCustoms and Central an7 personnel at the %A, ifre?uested.

he ban7s shall issue a uniform certification, as

follows3

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

@ate


7/77

REED"OS AGO n! H"LAR"ON U. JARENC"O, ( P+e(0!0nJu!e o +n)/ 2$, Cou+' o F0+(' "n('n)e o n0, respondents.

Office of the !olicitor eneral for petitioners. 'uan T. /avid for respondents.

ALD"#AR, J.:

his is an ori)inal action for prohibition and certiorari , with

preliminary in(unction filed by "icardo +apa, Chief of +olice of anilaDHuan once ;nrile, Commissioner of CustomsD +edro +acis, Collector ofCustoms of the +ort of anilaD and artin Ala)ao, a patrolman of theanila +olice @epartment, a)ainst "emedios a)o and on. ilarionHarencio, +residin) Hud)e of ranch 2 of the Court of 6irst %nstance ofanila, prayin) for the annulment of the order issued by respondentHud)e in Civil Case #o. -459- of the Court of 6irst %nstance of anilaunder date of arch 4, 19-4, which authori/ed the release under bondof certain )oods which were sei/ed and held by petitioners inconnection with the enforcement of the ariff and Customs Code, but

which were claimed by respondent "emedios a)o, and to prohibitrespondent Hud)e from further proceedin) in any manner whatsoeverin said Civil Case #o. -459-. +endin) the determination of this case

this Court issued a writ of preliminary in(unction restrainin) therespondent Hud)e from e=ecutin), enforcin) andFor implementin) the?uestioned order in Civil Case #o. -459- and from proceedin) withsaid case.

+etitioner artin Ala)ao, head of the counterintelli)ence unit ofthe anila +olice @epartment, actin) upon a reliable informationreceived on #ovember , 19-- to the effect that a certain shipment ofpersonal effects, alle)edly misdeclared and undervalued, would bereleased the followin) day from the customs /one of the port of anilaand loaded on two truc7s, and upon orders of petitioner "icardo +apa,Chief of +olice of anila and a duly deputi/ed a)ent of the ureau ofCustoms, conducted surveillance at )ate #o. 1 of the customs /one.


8/77

Center of the anila +olice @epartment. n @ecember 1, 19--, theabovenamed persons filed a &Compliance& itemi/in) the contents ofthe nine bales.

erein respondent "emedios a)o, on @ecember 2, 19--,filed an e parte motion to release the )oods, alle)in) that since theinventory of the )oods sei/ed did not show any article of prohibitedimportation, the same should be released as per a)reement of thepatties upon her postin) of the appropriate bond that may be

determined by the court. erein petitioners filed their opposition to themotion, alle)in) that the court had no (urisdiction to order the release ofthe )oods in view of the fact that the court had no (urisdiction over thecase, and that most of the )oods, as shown in the inventory, were notdeclared and were, therefore, sub(ect to forfeiture. A supplementalopposition was filed by herein petitioners on Hanuary 19, 19-4, alle)in)that on Hanuary 12, 19-4 sei/ure proceedin)s a)ainst the )oods hadbeen instituted by the Collector of Customs of the +ort of anila, andthe determination of all ?uestions affectin) the disposal of propertyproceeded a)ainst in sei/ure and forfeiture proceedin)s should therebybe left to the Collector of Customs. n Hanuary 0, 19-4, hereinpetitioners filed a manifestation that the estimated duties, ta=es andother char)es due on the )oods amounted to +9$,442.00. n 6ebruary2, 19-4, herein respondent "emedios a)o filed an ur)ent

manifestation and reiteration of the motion for the release under bondof the )oods.

n arch 4, 19-4, the respondent Hud)e issued an orderreleasin) the )oods to herein respondent "emedios a)o upon herfilin) of a bond in the amount of +50,000.00, and on arch 1, 19-4,said respondent filed the correspondin) bond.

n arch 1, 19-4, herein petitioner "icardo +apa, on his ownbehalf, filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the courtreleasin) the )oods under bond, upon the )round that the anila+olice @epartment had been directed by the Collector of Customs ofthe +ort of anila to hold the )oods pendin) termination of the sei/ureproceedin)s.


9/77

bale #o. 4, 20 do/ens of men's metal watch bands )old color:D inAnne= , 20 do/ens only of men's hand7erchief were declared, but inAnne= it appears that there were 225 do/ens of said )oods in bale#o. 2, 120 do/ens in bale #o. -, 80 do/ens in bale #o. 4, 220 do/ensin bale #o. 8, and another 200 do/ens in bale #o. 9. he articlescontained in the nine bales in ?uestion, were, therefore, sub(ect toforfeiture under Section 2$0, pars. e and m, 1:, :, 5:, and $: of theariff and Customs Code. And this Court has held that merchandise,the importation of which is effected contrary to law, is sub(ect toforfeiture, 4 and that )oods released contrary to law are sub(ect tosei/ure and forfeiture. 8

;ven if it be )ranted, arguendo, that after the )oods in ?uestionhad been brou)ht out of the customs area the ureau of Customs hadlost (urisdiction over the same, nevertheless, when said )oods wereintercepted at the A)rifina Circle on #ovember 5, 19-- by members ofthe anila +olice @epartment, actin) under directions and orders oftheir Chief, "icardo C. +apa, who had been formally deputi/ed by theCommissioner of Customs, 9 the ureau of Customs had re)ained

(urisdiction and custody of the )oods. Section 120- of the ariff andCustoms Code imposes upon the Collector of Customs the duty to holdpossession of all imported articles upon which duties, ta=es, and otherchar)es have not been paid or secured to be paid, and to dispose of

the same accordin) to law. he )oods in ?uestion, therefore, wereunder the custody and at the disposal of the ureau of Customs at thetime the petition for mandamus, doc7eted as Civil Case #o. -459-,

was filed in the Court of 6irst %nstance of anila on #ovember 9, 19--.he Court of 6irst %nstance of anila, therefore, could not e=ercise

(urisdiction over said )oods even if the warrant of sei/ure and detentionof the )oods for the purposes of the sei/ure and forfeiture proceedin)shad not yet been issued by the Collector of Customs.

he rulin) in the case of & Alberto de 'o"a, et al. v. 0on. regorioLantin, et al.,& !.". #o. 2504, decided by this Court on April 24,19-4, is s?uarely applicable to the instant case. %n the /e 'o"a case, itappears that 6rancindy Commercial of anila bou)ht from ;rnerose

Commercial of Cebu City 90 bales of assorted te=tiles and ra)s, valuedat +114,41.00, which had been imported and entered thru the port ofCebu. ;rnerose Commercial shipped the )oods to anila on board aninterisland vessel.


10/77

Customs appeal lies to the Court of a= Appeals, as providedin Sec. 2502 of "epublic Act 194 and Sec. 11 of "epublicAct, 112$. o permit recourse to the Court of 6irst %nstance incases of sei/ure of imported )oods would in effect renderineffective the power of the Customs authorities under theariff and Customs Code and deprive the Court of a=Appeals of one of its e=clusive appellate (urisdictions. As thisCourt has ruled in +acis v. Averia,supra, "epublic Acts 194and 112$ vest (urisdiction over sei/ure and forfeitureproceedin)s e=clusively upon the ureau of Customs and theCourt of a= Appeals. Such law bein) special in nature, whilethe Hudiciary Act definin) the (urisdiction of Courts of 6irst%nstance is a )eneral le)islation, not to mention that theformer are later enactments, the Court of 6irst %nstanceshould yield to the (urisdiction of the Customs authorities.

%t is the settled rule, therefore, that the ureau of Customsac?uires e=clusive (urisdiction over imported )oods, for the purposes ofenforcement of the customs laws, from the moment the )oods areactually in its possession or control, even if no warrant of sei/ure ordetention had previously been issued by the Collector of Customs inconnection with sei/ure and forfeiture proceedin)s. %n the presentcase, the ureau of Customs actually sei/ed the )oods in ?uestion on

#ovember 5, 19--, and so from that date the ureau of Customsac?uired (urisdiction over the )oods for the purposes of theenforcement of the tariff and customs laws, to the e=clusion of there)ular courts. uch less then would the Court of 6irst %nstance ofanila have (urisdiction over the )oods in ?uestion after the Collectorof Customs had issued the warrant of sei/ure and detention onHanuary 12, 19-4. 10 And so, it cannot be said, as respondents contend,that the issuance of said warrant was only an attempt to divest therespondent Hud)e of (urisdiction over the sub(ect matter of the case.he court presided by respondent Hud)e did not ac?uire (urisdictionover the )oods in ?uestion when the petition for mandamus was filedbefore it, and so there was no need of divestin) it of (urisdiction. #othavin) ac?uired (urisdiction over the )oods, it follows that the Court of

6irst %nstance of anila had no (urisdiction to issue the ?uestionedorder of arch 4, 19-4 releasin) said )oods.

"espondents also aver that petitioner artin Ala)ao, an officer ofthe anila +olice @epartment, could not sei/e the )oods in ?uestion

without a search warrant. his contention cannot be sustained. heChief of the anila +olice @epartment, "icardo !. +apa, havin) beendeputi/ed in writin) by the Commissioner of Customs, could, for thepurposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, effectsearches, sei/ures, and arrests,11and it was his duty to ma7e sei/ure,amon) others, of any car)o, articles or other movable property whenthe same may be sub(ect to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposedunder customs and tariff laws. 12 e could lawfully open and e=amine

any bo=, trun7, envelope or other container wherever found when hehad reasonable cause to suspect the presence therein of dutiablearticles introduced into the +hilippines contrary to lawD and li7ewise tostop, search and e=amine any vehicle, beast or person reasonablysuspected of holdin) or conveyin) such article as aforesaid. 1 %t cannotbe doubted, therefore, that petitioner "icardo !. +apa, Chief of +oliceof anila, could lawfully effect the search and sei/ure of the )oods in?uestion. he ariff and Customs Code authori/es him to demandassistance of any police officer to effect said search and sei/ure, andthe latter has the le)al duty to render said assistance. 15 his was whathappened precisely in the case of t. artin Ala)ao who, with his unit,made the search and sei/ure of the two truc7s loaded with the nine

bales of )oods in ?uestion at the A)rifina Circle. e was )iven authorityby the Chief of +olice to ma7e the interception of the car)o. 1$

+etitioner artin Ala)ao and his companion policemen hadauthority to effect the sei/ure without any search warrant issued by acompetent court. he ariff and Customs Code does not re?uire said

warrant in the instant case. he Code authori/es persons havin) policeauthority under Section 220 of the ariff and Customs Code to enter,pass throu)h or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or

buildin), not bein) a dwellin) houseD and also to inspect, search ande=amine any vessel or aircraft and any trun7, pac7a)e, or envelope orany person on board, or to stop and search and e=amine any vehicle,beast or person suspected of holdin) or conveyin) any dutiable orprohibited article introduced into the +hilippines contrary to law, withoutmentionin) the need of a search warrant in said cases. 1- ut in thesearch of a dwellin) house, the Code provides that said &dwellin)house may be entered and searched onl" upon #arrant issued by a

(ud)e or (ustice of the peace. . . .& 14 %t is our considered view, therefor,that e=cept in the case of the search of a dwellin) house, personse=ercisin) police authority under the customs law may effect searchand sei/ure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customslaws.

ur conclusion finds support in the case of Carroll v. EnitedStates, 9 A.."., 490, 499, wherein the court, considerin) a le)alprovision similar to Section 2211 of the +hilippine ariff and CustomsCode, said as follows3

hus contemporaneously with the adoption of the 5thAmendment, we find in the first Con)ress, and in thefollowin) second and fourth Con)resses, a difference madeas to the necessity for a search warrant between )oodssub(ect to forfeiture, when concealed in a dwellin) house ofsimilar place, and li7e )oods in course of transportation andconcealed in a movable vessel, where readily they could beput out of reach of a search warrant. . . .

A)ain, by the 2d section of the Act of arch , 181$ Stat. at .21, 22, chap. 95:, it was made lawful for customsofficers not only to board and search vessels within their ownand ad(oinin) districts, but also to stop, search and e=amineany vehicle, beast or person on which or whom they shouldsuspect there was merchandise which was sub(ect to duty, orhad been introduced into the Enited States in any mannercontrary to law, whether by the person in char)e of thevehicle or beast or otherwise, and i f they should find any)oods, wares, or merchandise thereon, which they hadprobably cause to believe had been so unlawfully brou)htinto the country, to sei/e and secure the same, and thevehicle or beast as well, for trial and forfeiture. his Act wasrenewed April 24, 181- Sta. at . 1$, chap. 100:, for ayear and e=pired. he Act of 6ebruary 28, 18-$, revived N 2of the Act of 181$, above described, chap. -4, 1 Stat. at .551. he substance of this section was reenacted in the dsection of the Act of Huly 18, 18--, chap. 201, 15 Stat. at .148, and was thereafter embodied in the "evised Statutes asN 0-1, Comp. Stat. N $4-, 2 6ed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p.11-1. #either N 0-1 nor any of its earlier counterparts hasever been attac7ed as unconstitutional. %ndeed, that section

was referred to and treated as operative by this court in *on


11/77

Cot/hausen v. #a/ro, 104 E.S. 21$, 219, 24 . ed. $50, $51,2 Sup. Ct. "ep. $0. . . .

%n the instant case, we note that petitioner artin Ala)ao and hiscompanion policemen did not have to ma7e any search before theysei/ed the two truc7s and their car)o. %n their ori)inal petition, andamended petition, in the court below "emedios a)o and *alentinanopa did not even alle)e that there was a search. 18 All that theycomplained of was,

hat while the truc7s were on their way, they were intercepted without any search warrant near the A)rifinaCircle and ta7en to the anila +olice @epartment, where they

were detained.

ut even if there was a search, there is still authority to the effectthat no search warrant would be needed under the circumstancesobtainin) in the instant case. hus, it has been held that3

he )uaranty of freedom from unreasonable searchesand sei/ures is construed as reco)ni/in) a necessarydifference between a search of a dwellin) house or other

structure in respect of which a search warrant may readily beobtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, wa)on, orautomobile for contraband )oods, where it is not practicableto secure a warrant because the vehicle can be ?uic7lymoved out of the locality or (urisdiction in which the warrantmust be sou)ht. 54 Am. Hur., pp. $1$15, citin) Carroll v.Enited States, 2-4 E.S. 12, -9 . ed., $5, 5$ S. Ct., 280,9 A.."., 490D +eople v. Case, 20 ich., 49, 190 #.


12/77

1Section -02, pars. a, b, and (, ariff and Customs Code"epublic Act 194.

2Anne= to petition.

Section 1202, ariff and Customs Code.

5Section 1205, ariff and Customs Code.

$Anne= # to petition.

-Anne= to petition.

4+ascual v. Commissioner of Customs, 11954, Hune 0,19$9D Capulon) v. Aseron 22989, ay 15, 19-0D Capulon)v. Actin) Commissioner of Customs, 22990, ay 19, 19-0Da/aro v. Commissioner of Customs, 22$11, and 22$1,ay 1-, 19--.

8@e Hoya, et al. v. antin, et al., 2504, April 24, 19-4.

9

his deputation is not disputed by respondents.

10+acis, et al. v. Averia, et al., 22$2-, #ovember 29, 19--D!overnment of the +hilippine %slands, et al. v. !ale, et al., 95+hil., 9$.

11Section 220 c:, ariff and Customs Code.

12Section 220$, ariff and Customs Code.


15

Section 2204, ariff and Customs Code.

1$Anne= A to the petition.

1-Sections 2208, 2210 and 2211, ariff and Customs Code.


18"ecords, pp. 2- and 5.

G.R. No. 7$722 Fe*+u+ 26, 199&

THE CO"SS"ONER OF CUSTOS, petitioner,vs.... GAN", "NDRAPAL : CO., n! '/e HONORALE COURT OFTA APPEALS, respondents.

Armando !. Padilla for private respondent.

SAR"ENTO, J.:

his is a review of the decision of the Court of a= Appeals disposin)as follows3


13/77

@ru)s Act $and Central an7 Circular #o. 808 in relation to the ariffand Customs Code. %

he Commissioner added the followin) findin)s of fact3 5

1. here is a direct fli)ht from on)7on) toSin)apore, thus ma7in) the transit throu)h anilamore e=pensive, tedious, and circuitous.

2. he articles were )rossly misdeclared,considerin) that Sin)apore is a free port.

. he television sets and betama= units sei/ed were of the American standard which is popularlyused in anila, and not of the ;uropean standard

which is used in Sin)apore.

5. ne of the shippers is a 6ilipino national with nobusiness connection with her alle)ed consi)nee inSin)apore.

$. he alle)ed consi)nee of the prohibited dru)sconfiscated has no authority to import o)adon orandra=.

Epon these findin)s, the Commissioner concluded that there was an&intent to unlade& in anila, thus, an attempt to smu))le )oods into thecountry.

a7in) e=ception to these findin)s, Atty. Armando S. +adilla, a)ain ascounsel of the consi)nees G..G. and %ndrapal, appealed to therespondent Court of a= Appeals CA:. e ar)ued in the CA thatG..G. and %#@"A+A were &entitled to the release of their car)oes fortransshipment to Sin)apore so manifested and covered by the Airwaybills as in transit, ... contendin) that the )oods were never intendedimportations into the +hilippines and the same suffer none of anyaffiliatin) breaches alle)edly found attributable to the other shipmentsunder the Customs and related laws.& 6

he CA reversed the decision of the Commissioner of Customs.ence this petition.

he petitioner raises the followin) errors3

1. ; CE" 6 AIA++;AS ;"";@ %#;#;"A%#%#! ;

+;%%# 6" ";*%;<#


14/77

Court process may be servedto the undersi)ned lawyerD

2. hat the +etitioner's sic: aresuein) sic: upon a sin)ularand isolated transaction. 1&


15/77

cannot bind nor compromise the interest of privaterespondents as it is possible that the latter maydisown the former's representation to avoid civil orcriminal liability. %n this respect, the Court cannotassume (urisdiction over the person of privaterespondents, notwithstandin) the filin) of theunverified petition in ?uestion.

Apart from the fore)oin), Section 5, "ule 8,

"evised "ules of Court mandates that factsshowin) the capacity of a party to sue or be suedDor the authority of a party to sue or be sued in arepresentative capacityD or the le)al e=istence of anor)ani/ed association of person sic: that is madea party, must be averred. %n li7e manner, the rule issettled that in case where the law denies a forei)ncorporation to maintain a suit unless it haspreviously complied with certain re?uirements, thensuch compliance or e=emption therefrom, becomesa necessary averment in the complaint Atlanticutual %nc. Co. v. Cebu Stevedorin) Co., %nc. 14SC"A 104D videD Sec. 5, "ule 8, "evised "ules ofCourt:. %n the case at bar, apart from merely

alle)in) that private respondents are forei)ncorporation sic: and that summons may be servedto their counsel, their petition in the Court of a=Appeals is bereft of any other factual alle)ation toshow their capacity to sue or be sued in arepresentative capacity in his (urisdiction. 17

he representation and the e=tent of the authority of Atty. +adilla havethus been e=pressly challen)ed. ut he i)nored such challen)e whichleads us to the only conclusion that he has no authority to appear forsuch clients if they e=ist, which we even doubt. %n cases li7e this, it isthe duty of the )overnment officials concerned to re?uire competentproof of the representation and authority of any claimant of any )oods

comin) from abroad and sei/ed by our customs authorities orotherwise appearin) to be ille)ally imported. his desiredmeticulousness, strictness if you may, should e=tend to theirrepresentatives and counsel. ur )overnment has lost considerablesums of money due to such dubious claims or claimants.

Apropos the second issue, suffice it to state that we a)ree with thefindin)s, already enumerated and discussed at the outset, made by theCollector of Customs in his decision, dated Huly 15, 198, which wasaffirmed and amplified by the decision of the Commissioner ofCustoms, that those constitute sufficient evidence to support theconclusion that there was an intention to unlade the sei/ed )oods inthe +hilippines instead of its supposed destination, Sin)apore. here is

no need of belaborin) them anymore.


16/77

5: n the stren)th of a falseinvoice or other documente=ecuted by the owner,importer, e=porter or consi)neeconcernin) the importation ore=portation of such articleD and

$: hrou)h any other practiceor device contrary to law by

means of which such articles were entered throu)h acustomhouse to the pre(udiceof the )overnment.

$ "ollo, 2122.

- "ollo, $$$-.

4 Corporation Code, sec. 1 formerly sec. -9:Dop


17/77

2800 cubic centimeters and therefore was under the cate)ory ofprohibited importation pursuant to .+. l). 4.

Subse?uently, the petitioner filed a petition for review 7 with the@epartment of 6inance, which petition the latter referred to the publicrespondent. he petitioner li7ewise addressed a letter 8 to the on.Cancio !arcia, the Assistant ;=ecutive Secretary for e)al Affairs,ffice of the +resident, alacaOan), re?uestin) the latter's assistancefor a speedy resolution of the said petition.

6inally, the public respondent rendered a decision on September 22,1989 affirmin) the previous order of the Collector of Customs for the6orfeiture of the ercedes en/ in ?uestion in favor of the )overnment.

ence, this petition for certiorari alle)in) that3

%%%1. ; ";S+#@;#A++;;; ureau ofCustoms: ;"";@ %# ; "E%#! A A#%C; 6 ;A"%#! +S;@ %# PsicQ ;E;%# A"@ %S SE66%C%;# #%C; A#@6A%E"; 6 +;%%#;"A++;A# A++;A" CAES;@ ;" @;CA"A%# %#

@;6AED

%%%2. ;"";@ %# "E%#! A ;%" 66%C;


18/77

absolutely prohibited or where the surrender of theproperty to the person offerin) to redeem the same

would be contrary to law. ;mphasis ours: 1%

%nasmuch as it would be contrary to law, i.e., .+. l). 4, to allow thepetitioner to redeem the ercedes en/ in ?uestion, there is thereforeno alternative, as correctly claimed by the public respondents, but toforfeit the same.


19/77

violation of Section a: thereof shall be confiscated and forfeited infavor of the !overnment.

he ercedes en/ in the case at bar, havin) been admittedlyimported, but not manufactured or assembled in violation of Sec. a:of + 4, is not, therefore, sub(ect to confiscation and forfeiture in favorof the !overnment.

n the other hand, Sec. 2-09 of the ariff and Customs Code provides3

Sec. 2-09. /isposition of &ontraband . Article ofprohibited importation or e=portation, 7nown ascontraband, shall, in the absence of specialprovision, be dealt with as follows3

=== === ===

c. ther contraband of commercial value andcapable of legitimate use ma" be sold under suchrestrictions as #ill insure its use for legitimate

purposes onl" D but if the thin) is unfit for use or theCollector is of the opinion that, if sold, it would be

used for unlawful purposes, it shall be destroyed insuch manner as the Collector shall direct.;mphasis supplied:

he ?uestioned ercedes en/ is decidedly of commercial value andcapable of le)itimate use, which may be sold under such restrictions as

will insure its use for a le)itimate purpose, by chan)in) its en)ine withan en)ine with a displacement of not more than 2,800 cubiccentimeters or the vehicle may be ordered ree=ported to !ermany.

%n short, the petitioner may be criminally prosecuted for the act ofimporting the sub(ect motor vehicle but, at the same time, the vehiclemay be released to her sub(ect to such restrictions and conditions as

may be imposed by the Collector of Customs, one of which should bethe chan)in) of the en)ine of the vehicle with an en)ine with adisplacement of not more than 2,800 cubic centimeters or that thevehicle may be ordered ree=ported to !ermany at the e=pense ofpetitionerimporter.

Se+'e O0n0on(

PAD"LLA, J., dissentin)3

% am constrained to dissent from the, as usual, wellwritten decision ofr. Hustice Sarmiento. he reasons for my dissent are as follows3

he decision states3

&he petitioner does not dispute the fact that the motor car in ?uestion,a ercedes en/ 5$0 SC, has an en)ine displacement of over 2,800cubic centimeters which clearly falls within the prohibited importationspecified in the law afore?uoted and as such, is liable for sei/ure andforfeiture by the public respondents.& pp. -4, decision: he law reliedupon is Section a: of + 4 which provides3

Sec. . owards the same end and to develop amore dynamic and effective pro)ram for therational use of ener)y, the followin) acts arehereby prohibited3

a: he importation, manufacture or assemblin) of)asolinepowered passen)er motor cars withen)ine displacement of over 2,800 cubiccentimeters or Gerbwei)ht e=ceedin) 1,$00

7ilo)rams, includin) accessories.

ut, Sec. 11 of the same + 4 provides that3

Any person who willfully violates any provision ofSection three hereof or any rule or re)ulationpromul)ated pursuant to the authority )ranted inthis Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by afine of not less than one thousand pesos but notmore than five thousand pesos, or by imprisonmenof not less than one month nor more than one yearor both, in the discretion of the court3 Provided ,hat if the violation is committed by a (uridical

person, the penalty herein provided shall beimposed on the official andFor employee thereofresponsible for the violation3 Provided, further , hatif the violation is committed by a )overnmentofficial or employee includin) those in )overnmentowned or controlled corporations, he shall, inaddition to the penalty provided above, be sub(ectto disciplinary administrative proceedin)s andpenalties3 Provided, finall" , hat any passen)ermotor vehiclemanufactured or assembled inviolation of Section a: hereof shall, after properproceedin)s, be confiscated and forfeited in favorof the !overnment. ;mphasis supplied.:

%t would thus appear that, under the fore?uoted provisions of Sec. 11 of+ 4, only passen)er motor vehiclesmanufactured or assembled inviolation of Section a: thereof shall be confiscated and forfeited infavor of the !overnment.

he ercedes en/ in the case at bar, havin) been admittedlyimported, but not manufactured or assembled in violation of Sec. a:of + 4, is not, therefore, sub(ect to confiscation and forfeiture in favorof the !overnment.

n the other hand, Sec. 2-09 of the ariff and Customs Code provides

Sec. 2-09. /isposition of &ontraband . Article ofprohibited importation or e=portation, 7nown ascontraband, shall, in the absence of specialprovision, be dealt with as follows3

=== === ===

c. ther contraband of commercial value andcapable of le)itimate use may be sold under suchrestrictions as will insure its use for le)itimatepurposes onlyD but if the thin) is unfit for use or theCollector is of the opinion that, if sold, it would be


20/77

used for unlawful purposes, it shall be destroyed insuch manner as the Collector shall direct.;mphasis supplied:

he ?uestioned ercedes en/ is decidedly of commercial value andcapable of le)itimate use, which may be sold under such restrictions as

will insure its use for a le)itimate purpose, by chan)in) its en)ine withan en)ine with a displacement of not more than 2,800 cubiccentimeters or the vehicle may be ordered ree=ported to !ermany.

%n short, the petitioner may be criminally prosecuted for the act ofimporting the sub(ect motor vehicle but, at the same time, the vehiclemay be released to her sub(ect to such restrictions and conditions asmay be imposed by the Collector of Customs, one of which should bethe chan)in) of the en)ine of the vehicle with an en)ine with adisplacement of not more than 2,800 cubic centimeters or that thevehicle may be ordered ree=ported to !ermany at the e=pense ofpetitionerimporter.

Foo'no'e(

1 Anne= &H1&, 9ollo, 5-.

2 9ollo, 1819.

Id ., 1-.

5 Id ., 14.

$ Id ., 200.

- Id ., 01.

4 Id ., 252.

8 Id ., 555$.

9 Id ., 4.

10 An) ibay v. Court of %ndustrial "elations, -9+hil. -$ 1950:D Crespo v. +rovincial oard of#ueva ;ci(a, 1-0 SC"A -- 1988:.

11 Cebu Stevedorin) Co., %nc. v. "e)ional @irector,1-8 SC"A 1$ 1988:.

12 9ollo, 84.

1 Id ., 12.

15 Id ., 12-.

;G.R. No. 1&127$, Ju &$, 1992<

CONGRESSAN ENR"=UE T. GARC"A >SECOND D"STR"CT OFATAAN?, PET"T"ONER, #S. THE EECUT"#E SECRETAR@, THE

CO"SS"ONER OF CUSTOS, THE NAT"ONAL ECONO"C ANDDE#ELOPENT AUTHOR"T@, THE TAR"FF CO"SS"ON, THE

SECRETAR@ OF F"NANCE, AND THE ENERG@ REGULATOR@OARD, RESPONDENTS.

D E C " S " O N

FEL"C"ANO, J.

n 24 #ovember 1990, the +resident issued ;=ecutive rder #o. 58

which imposed, in addition to any other duties, ta=es and char)esimposed by law on all articles imported into the +hilippines, an

additional duty of five percent $R: ad valorem. his additional duty

was imposed across the board on all imported articles, includin) crude

oil and other oil products imported into the +hilippines. his additional

duty was subse?uently increased from five percent $R: ad valorem to

nine percent 9R: advalorem by the promul)ation of ;=ecutive rder

#o. 55, dated Hanuary 1991.

n 25 Huly 1991, the @epartment of 6inance re?uested the ariff

Commission to initiate the process re?uired by the ariff and Customs

Code for the imposition of a specific levy on crude oil and other

petroleum products, covered by S eadin) #os. 24.09, 24.10 and

24.11 of Section 105 of the ariff and Customs Code as amended.Accordin)ly, the ariff Commission, followin) the procedure set forth in

Section 501 of the ariff and Customs Code, scheduled a public

hearin) to )ive interested parties an opportunity to be heard and to

present evidence in support of their respective positions.

eantime, ;=ecutive rder #o. 54$ was issued by the +resident, on

1$ Au)ust 1991 reducin) the rate of additional duty on all imported

articles from nine percent 9R: to five percent $R: ad valorem, e=cept

in the cases of crude oil and other oil products which continued to be

sub(ect to the additional duty of nine percent 9R: ad valorem.

Epon completion of the public hearin)s, the ariff Commissionsubmitted to the +resident a &"eport on Special @uty on Crude il and

il +roducts& dated 1- Au)ust 1991, for consideration and appropriate

action. Seven 4: days later, the +resident issued ;=ecutive rder #o.

548, dated 2 Au)ust 1991, which levied in addition to the

aforementioned additional duty of nine percent 9R: ad valorem and al

other e=istin)ad valorem duties: a special duty of +0.9$ per liter or

+1$1.0$ per barrel of imported crude oil and +1.00 per liter of imported

oil products.

%n the present +etition for &ertiorari , +rohibition and $andamus,

petitioner assails the validity of ;=ecutive rders #os. 54$ and 548. e

ar)ues that ;=ecutive rders #os. 54$ and 548 are violative of Section

25, Article *% of the 1984 Constitution which provides as follows3

&Section 25. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authori/in)

increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills

shall ori)inate e=clusively in the ouse of "epresentatives, but the

Senate may propose or concur with amendments.&

e contends that since the Constitution vests the authority to enact

revenue bills in Con)ress, the +resident may not assume such power

by issuin) ;=ecutive rders #os. 54$ and 548 which are in the nature

of revenue)eneratin) measures.


21/77

+etitioner further ar)ues that ;=ecutive rders #o. 54$ and 548

contravene Section 501 of the ariff and Customs Code, which Section

authori/es the +resident, accordin) to petitioner, to increase, reduce or

remove tariff duties or to impose additional dutiesonly when necessary

to protect local industries or products but not for the purpose of raisin)

additional revenue for the )overnment.

hus, petitioner ?uestions first the constitutionality and second the

le)ality of ;=ecutive rders #os. 54$ and 548, and as7s us to restrain

the implementation of those ;=ecutive rders.


22/77

respect to imports from the principal competin) forei)n country for the

most recent representative period shall be used as bases.

d. he Commissioner of Customs shall re)ularly furnish the

Commission a copy of all customs import entries as filed in the ureau

of Customs. he Commission or its duly authori/ed representatives

shall have access to, and the ri)ht to copy all li?uidated customs import

entries and other documents appended thereto as finally filed in the

Commission on Audit.

e. he #;@A shall promul)ate rules and re)ulations necessary to carryout the provisions of this section.

f. Any rder issued by the +resident pursuant to the provisions of this

section shall ta7e effect thirty 0: days after promul)ation, e=cept in

the imposition of additional duty not e=ceedin) ten

10: per cent advalorem which shall ta7e effect at the discretion of the

+resident.& Enderscorin) supplied:

+etitioner, however, see7s to avoid the thrust of the dele)ated

authori/ations found in Sections 105 and 501 of the ariff and Customs

Code, by contendin) that the +resident is authori/ed to act under the

ariff and Customs Code only &to protect local industries and

products for the sa7e of the national economy, )eneral welfare andFor

national security.&P2Q e )oes on to claim that3

&;.. #os. 548 and 54$ havin) nothin) to do whatsoever with the

protection of local industries and products for the sa7e of national

economy, )eneral welfare andFor national security. n the contrary,

they wor7 in reverse, especially as to crude oil, an essential product

which we do not have to protect, since we produce only minimal

?uantities and have to import the rest of what we need.

hese ;=ecutive rders are avowedly solely to enable the

)overnmentto raise )overnment finances, contrary to Sections 25 and

28 2: of Article *% of the Constitution, as well as to Section 501 of the

ariff and Customs Code.&PQ Enderscorin) in the ori)inal:

he Court is not persuaded. %n the first place, there is nothin) in the

lan)ua)e of either Section 105 or of 501 of the ariff and Customs

Code that su))est such a sharp and absolute limitation of authority.

he entire contention of petitioner is anchored on (ust two 2: words,

one found in Section 501 a:1:3 &e=istin) protective rates of import

duty,& and the second in the proviso found at the end of Section 501

a:3 &protection levels )ranted in Section 105 of this Code = = =.&


23/77

90, 90.20:D etc. %n such cases, customs duties may be seen to be

imposed either for revenue purposes purely or perhaps, in certain

cases, to discoura)e any importation of the items involved. %n either

case, it is clear that customs duties are levied and imposed entirely

apart from whether or not there are any competin) local industries to

protect.

Accordin)ly, we believe and so hold that ;=ecutive rders #os. 54$

and 548 which may be conceded to be substantially moved by the

desire to )enerate additional public revenues, are not, for that reasonalone, either constitutionally flawed, or le)ally infirm under Section 501

of the ariff and Customs Code. +etitioner has not successfully

overcome the presumptions of constitutionality and le)ality to which

those ;=ecutive rders are entitled.P4Q

he conclusion we have reached above renders it unnecessary to deal

with petitioner's additional contention that, should ;=ecutive rders

#os. 54$ and 548 be declared unconstitutional and ille)al, there should

be a roll bac7 of prices of petroleum products e?uivalent to the

&resultin) e=cess money not be needed to ade?uately maintain the

il +rice Stabili/ation 6und +S6:.& P8Q

BHEREFORE, premises considered, the +etition for &ertiorari ,

+rohibition and$andamus is hereby @%S%SS;@ for lac7 of merit.

Costs a)ainst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

arvasa, &.'., utierre-, 'r., &ru-, Paras, Padilla, :idin, ri7o)A(uino,

$edialdea, 9egalado, /avide, 'r., 9omero, ocon, and :ellosillo,

''., concur.

P1Q his provision also e=isted in substantially identical terms in the 194

Constitution Article *%%%, Section 14P2Q:, and the 19$ Constitution

Article *%, Section 22P2Q:.

P2Q +etition, p. 11D 9ollo, p. 12D underlinin) in the ori)inal.

PQ 9ollo, pp. 115.

P5Q ut/ v . Araneta, 98 +hil. 158 19$$:D "epublic v . acolodurcia

illin) Co., %nc., et al., 14 SC"A -2 19--:D +ro)ressive @evelopment

Corp. v . Vue/on City, 142 SC"A -29 1989:.

P$Q E.S. v . Sischo, 2-2 6ed. 1001 1919:D 6lint v . Stone racey

Company, 220 ES 104 1910:D Geller@orian Corp. v . Commissioner of

%nternal "evenue, 1$ 6 2d 100- 195-:. he close affinity of &customs

duties& and &ta=es& was stressed almost a century a)o in the followin)

e=cerpt from +olloc7 v . 6armers' oan and rust Company 1$8 ES

-01D 9 aw ;d. 1108 P189$Q:3

&Cooley, on a=ation, p. , says that the word TdutyU ordinarily

Tmeans anindirect ta=, imposed on the importation, e=portation, or

consumption of )oodsDU havin) Ta broader meanin) than custom, which

is a duty imposed on imports or e=portsDU that Tthe term impost also

si)nifies any ta=, tribute or duty, but it is seldom applied to any but the

indirect ta=es. An e=cise duty is an inland impost, levied upon articles

of manufacture or sale, and also upon licenses to pursue certain

trades or to deal in certain commodities.& Enderscorin) partly in the

ori)inal and partly supplied:

P-Q Campania !eneral de abacos de 6ilipinas v . City of anila, et al.,

118 +hil. 80 19-:.

P4Q #ational


24/77

%n a sworn letterP-Q dated 4 6ebruary 1988 and addressed to the

Commissioner of Customs, one utch artine/ informed the former

of the e=istence of both &assembled and disassembled& 7noc7eddown

vehicles, particularly oyota ite Aces, at the compound of C*C

radin), which is owned by a certain r. Castro and located at St. Hude

Avenue, St. Hude *illa)e, San 6ernando, +ampan)a. artine/

re?uested for an immediate investi)ation thereon and prosecution for

the violation of customs laws.

n the basis thereof, !en. en(amin C. Cru/, Actin) @irector of the#ational Customs +olice, formed a team composed of #ational

Customs +olice #C+: and Customs %ntelli)ence and %nvesti)ation

@ivision C%%@: members, issuin) to the same a ission rder P4Q on 11

6ebruary 1988. he team proceeded to San 6ernando, +ampan)a on

the same day, )ivin) due notice of their presence to the +C "e)ion %%%

Command and the +C%#+ Station at San 6ernando, +ampan)a.

Epon arrival at the place pinpointed by r. artine/ at around 11300

p.m., the team found a fenced area containin) twenty 20: units of fully

and partly assembled oyota ite Ace vans. %t immediately too7

possession and control of the motor vehicles by cordonin) off the

enclosure. hereafter, at about 1130 p.m., two 2: members of the

team were desi)nated to secure a warrant of sei/ure and detention

from the Collector of Customs of the Subport of Clar7, P8Q herein

petitioner Carlos . "a/o. he latter instituted sei/ure proceedin)s

a)ainst the abovementioned vehicles Sei/ure %dentification #o. CA

0188:, entitled &"epublic of the +hilippines versus wenty 20: units

oyota iteAce, C*C radin) St. Hude Ave., @olores omesite, San

6ernando, +ampan)a,


25/77

oreover elementary due process re?uires service of documents

complaint. here can be no service of summon's sic: or notice of

hearin) thru tele)rams.&

At the hearin) on 18 6ebruary 1988, Attys. #apoleon !atmaitan and

Conrado Enlayao, C%%@, ureau of Customs, appeared for the

!overnment. #o appearance was entered for the ownerFclaimant.

hus, the !overnment was allowed to present evidence e)parte.

n 2- 6ebruary 1988, petitioner Collector of Customs rendered a@ecisionP1-Q in the said sei/ure proceedin)s, the dispositive portion of

which reads3

&


26/77

uropinion, in this particular case, the Court of 6irst %nstance should

yield to the (urisdiction of the Collector of Customs. he (urisdiction of

the Collector of Customs is provided for in "epublic Act 194 which

too7 effect on Huly 1, 19$4, much later than the Hudiciary Act of 1958. %t

is a=iomatic that a later law prevails over a prior statute Perman v.

"adio Corporation of the +hilippines, $0 +hil. 590D +ampan)a Su)ar

ills v. rinidad, 249 E.S. 211, 4 . ed. --$Q. oreover, on )rounds of

public policy, it is more reasonable to conclude that the le)islators

intended to divest the Court of 6irst %nstance of the prero)ative to

replevin aproperty which is a sub(ect of a sei/ure and forfeitureproceedin)s for violation of the ariff and TCustoms Code. therwise,

actions for forfeiture of property for violation of Customs laws could

easily be undermined by the simple device of replevin.

6urthermore, Section 20 of the ariff and Customs Code re?uires the

Collector of Customs to )ive to the owner of the property sou)ht to be

forfeited written notice of the sei/ure and to )ive him the opportunity to

be heard in his defense. his provision clearly indicates the intention of

the law to confine in the ureau of Customs the determination of all

?uestions affectin) the disposal of property proceeded a)ainst in a

sei/ure and forfeiture case. he (udicial recourse of the property owner

is not in the Court of 6irst %nstance but in the Court of a= Appeals,

andonly after e=haustin) administrative remedies in the ureau of

Customs.&

%n /e 'o"a vs. Lantin,P19Q this Court, spea7in) a)ain throu)h r. Hustice

H.+. en)/on, declared3

&he )oods in ?uestion are imported articles entered at the +ort of

Cebu. Should they be found to have been released irre)ularly from

Customs custody in Cebu City, they are sub(ect to sei/ure and

forfeiture, the proceedin)s for which comes within the (urisdiction of the

ureau of Customs pursuant to "epublic Act 194.

Said proceedin)s should be followedD the owner of the )oods may set

up defenses therein +acis vs. Averia, 22$2-, #ov. 29, 19--:. 6rom

the decision of the Commissioner of Customs appeal lies to the Court

of a= Appeals, as provided in Sec. 2502 of "epublic Act 194 and

Sec. 11 of "epublic Act 112$. o permit recourse to the Court of 6irst

%nstance in cases of sei/ure of imported )oods would in effect render

ineffective the power of the Customs authorities under the ariff Code

and deprive the Court of a= Appeals of one of its e=clusive appellate

(urisdiction. As this Court has ruled in

+acis vs. Averia, supra, "epublic Acts 194 and 112$ vest (urisdiction

over sei/ure and forfeiture proceedin)s e=clusively upon the ureau of

Customs and the Court of a= Appeals. Such law bein) special in

nature, while the Hudiciary Act definin) the (urisdiction of Courts of 6irst

%nstance is a )eneral le)islation, not to mention that the former are later

enactments, the Court of 6irst %nstance should yield to the (urisdictionof the Customs authorities.&

his rule was subse?uently reiterated in 9omualde- vs. Arca,P20Q /e

'o"a vs. /avid ,P21Q /iosamito vs. :alan(ue,P22Q Lope- vs. &ommissioner

of &ustoms,P2QPonce Enrile vs. @inu"a,P25Q &ollector of &ustoms vs.

Torres,P2$Q Pacis vs. eronimoP2-Q and /e la Fuente vs. /e @e"ra.P24Q

he lan)ua)e of the fore)oin) rule is simple, clear and leaves no doubt

as to the "e)ional rial Court's lac7 of (urisdiction over the res which

has already been made the sub(ect of sei/ure and forfeiture

proceedin)s. 6ran7ly, this Court is unable to understand why the

respondent Hud)e misread the sameD perhaps, he simply chose

toi)nore it. At any rate, such behavior is hi)hly condemnable.

A warrant of sei/ure and detention havin) already been issued,

presumably in the re)ular course of official duty,P28Q the

"e)ional rial Court of +ampan)a was indisputably precluded from

interferin) in the said proceedin)s. hat in his complaint in Civil Case

#o. 8109 private respondent alle)es ownership over several

vehicleswhich are le)ally re)istered in his name, havin) paid all the

ta=es and correspondin) licenses incident thereto, neither divests theCollector of Customs of such (urisdiction nor confers upon the said trial

court re)ular (urisdiction over the case. wnership of )oods or the

le)ality of its ac?uisition can be raised as defenses in a sei/ure

proceedin)DP29Q if this were not so, the procedure carefully delineated by

law for sei/ure and forfeiture cases may easily be thwarted and set to

nau)htP0Q by schemin) parties. ;ven the ille)ality of the

warrant of sei/ure and detention cannot (ustify the trial court's

interference with the Collector's (urisdiction. %n the first place,there is

a distinction between the e=istence of the Collector's power to issue it

and the re)ularity of the proceedin) ta7en under such power. %n the

second place, even if there be such an irre)ularity in the latter, the

"e)ional rial Court does not have the competence to review, modify

or reverse whatever conclusions may result therefrom. %n Ponce Enrilevs. @inu"a,P1Q this Court had the occasion to state3

&2. "espondents, however, notwithstandin) the compellin) force of the

above doctrines, would assert that respondent Hud)e could entertain

the replevin suit as the sei/ure is ille)al, alle)edly because the warrant

issued is invalid and the sei/in) officer li7ewise was devoid of authority

his is to lose si)ht of the distinction, as earlier made mention of,

between the e=istence of the power and the re)ularity of the

proceedin) ta7en under it. he )overnmental a)ency concerned, the

ureau of Customs, is vested with e=clusive authority. ;ven if it be

assumed that in the e=ercise of such e=clusive competence a taint of

ille)ality may be correctly imputed, the most that can be said is thatunder certain circumstances the )rave abuse of discretion conferred

may oust it of such (urisdiction. %t does not mean however that

correspondin)ly a court of first instance is vested with competence

when clearly in the li)ht of the above decisions the law has not seen fit

to do so. he proceedin) before the Collector of Customs is not final.

An appeal lies to the Commissioner of Customs and thereafter to the

Court of a= Appeals. %t may even reach this Court throu)h the

appropriate petition for review. he proper ventilation of the le)al

issues raised is thus indicated. Certainly a court of first instance is not

therein included. %t is devoid of (urisdiction.&

BHEREFORE, the "esolution of respondent Hud)e of 2- 6ebruary

1988 in Civil Case #o. 8109 before ranch 58 of the "e)ional rialCourt of +ampan)a, and all proceedin)s had therein, are #E%6%;@

and S; AS%@; and the said case is hereby ordered @%S%SS;@.

he temporary restrainin) order issued by this Court on 18 April 1988

is hereby made permanent.

SO ORDERED.

:idin and 9omero, ''., concur.

utierre-, 'r., '., ;&hairman


27/77

$elo, '., no part.

P1Q 9ollo, 42.

P2Q Id ., 8110D 11112$.

PQ Id ., 188205.

P5Q Id ., 21121$.

P$Q Id ., 218.

P-Q Anne= &A& of petitionD Id ., 50.

P4Q Anne= && of +etitionD 9ollo, 51.

P8Q Anne= &C& and &C1&, Id .D Id ., 525.

P9Q Anne= &@& of +etitionD 9ollo, 55.

P10Q Anne= &;&' of +etitionD 9ollo, 5$.

P11Q Anne= &6&, Id .D Id ., 5-.

P12Q Anne= &!&, Id .D Id ., 58$2.

P1Q Anne= &%& of +etitionD 9ollo, $$$8.

P15Q Anne= &H&, Id .D Id ., $9-2.

P1$Q Anne= &G& of +etitionD 9ollo, -.

P1-Q Anne= &&, Id .D Id ., -5-4.

P14Q Anne= && of +etitionD 9ollo, -841.

P18Q 18 SC"A 904, 91-914 P19--Q.

P19Q 19 SC"A 895, 894 P19-4Q.

P20Q 21 SC"A 8$- P19-4Q.

P21Q 21 SC"A 159 P19-4Q.

P22Q 28 SC"A 8- P19-9Q.

P2Q 4 SC"A 24 P1941Q.

P25Q 4 SC"A 81 P1941Q.

P2$Q 5$ SC"A 242 P1942Q.

P2-Q $- SC"A $8 P1945Q.

P24Q 120 SC"A 5$1 P198Q.

P28Q Section m:, "ule 11, "ules of Court.

P29Q @e la 6uente vs. @e *eyra, supra.

P0Q +acis vs. !eronimo, supra.

P1Q !upra., at pa)e 8889.

G.R. No. L-626$6 A+0 27, 198%

ACT"NG CO"SS"ONER OF CUSTOS, petitioner,vs.COURT OF TA APPEALS n! CHARLES ANDRUL"S, respondents.

The !olicitor eneral for petitioner.

Alenta=an ? Associates for respondents.

ELENC"O-HERRERA,J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1

A proceedin) for review on certiorari of the @ecision of respondentCourt of a= Appeals in CA Case #o. 201, which reversed the@ecision of petitioner, the Actin) Commissioner of Customs, decreein)the forfeiture of various forei)n currencies found in the possession ofprivate respondent Charles Hoseph Andrulis: for violation of Centralan7 Circular #o. $5, in relation to section 2$0f: of the "evisedariff and Customs Code.

n 20 6ebruary 1980, Andrulis representin) himself as an Americanbusinessman &on (oint ventures with his 6ilipino counterparts&, arrivedin anila and chec7ed in at the Century +ar7 Sheraton otel. wodays later, or on 22 6ebruary 1980, he left the hotel surreptitiously

without payin) for his bills in the amount of +2,000.00. Col. 6eli=Jerrudo, Chief Security fficer of the otel, timely discovered thescheduled departure of Andrulis on that same day, and immediatelytippedoff the Customs authorities on Andrulis' intention to abscond. Atthe anila %nternational Airport %A:, the Customs authorities loo7edfor Andrulis from amon) the passen)ers who were already on board+hilippine Airlines 6li)ht #o. $01 bound for Sin)apore. Apprehensive,Andrulis loc7ed himself inside the airplane's comfort room. %n the

course of ne)otiations for him to come out, he slipped throu)h anopenin) bills worth ESB00.00. Andrulis finally yielded to theauthorities and surrendered the lu))a)e he was carryin) which, whenopened by the authorities, contained various forei)n currenciesconsistin) of ESB$9,-9.00D $,100 %ndonesian "upiah, and Sin)aporeB08.00.

A criminal char)e was filed before the ffice of the City 6iscal, +asayCity, for violation of C Circular #o. $5 in relation to "A 2-$, theCentral an7 Charter. n 10 arch 1980, the Assistant City 6iscaldismissed the char)e on the rationali/ation that the !overnment hadfailed to present evidence that the currencies were not brou)ht in byAndrulis.

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref1http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref1http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref2http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref2http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref3http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref3http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref4http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref4http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref5http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref5http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref6http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref6http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref7http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref7http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref8http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref8http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref9http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref9http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref10http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref11http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref11http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref12http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref13http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref14http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref15http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref16http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref17http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref18http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref19http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref20http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref21http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref22http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref23http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref24http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref25http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref26http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref27http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref28http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref29http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref30http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref31http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref1http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref2http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref3http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref4http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref5http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref6http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref7http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref8http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref9http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref10http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref11http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref12http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref13http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref14http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref15http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref16http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref17http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref18http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref19http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref20http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref21http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref22http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref23http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref24http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref25http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref26http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref27http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref28http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref29http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref30http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12634341591140539103#_ftnref31


28/77

+roceedin)s for the sei/ure of the forei)n currencies were alsocommenced at the Customs ffice of the %A in +asay City, doc7etedas Sei/ure %dentification #o. 51-280.

@urin) the hearin), Andrulis submitted the case for resolution on thebasis of the followin) documentary evidence3t7.BCh(#DB

1. Sworn Affidavit of Charles Hoseph Andrulis,statin) that the forei)n e=chan)e in ?uestion are

owned by claimantD

2. "esolution of the City 6iscal of +asay City in %.S.#o. 8095112, entitled %A Customhouse vs.Charles Hoseph Andrulis, dismissin) the alle)edchar)e of violation of Central an7 Circular #o.$5, in relation to Central an7 Circular #o. 2-$, toshow that there was no violation as char)ed. 1

6or its part, the prosecution submitted the case on the basis of thefollowin)3t7.BCh(#DB

A. Affidavit of Col. 6eli= A. Jerrudo "et.: Chief

Security fficer of the Century +ar7 Sheratonanila otel, e=ecuted on 6ebruary 29, 1980D

. Certification issued by Col. 6eli= A. Jerrudo"et.: dated 6ebruary 29, 1980D

C. Certification of r. @omin)o H. !alicia, Actin)Credit ana)er of the anila otel dated 6ebruary28, 1980D

@. etter of @emand dated Huly 9, 1949 issued by"obert . ani?ui/, Credit and Collection ana)erof the "esort otels Corporation addressed to r.Charles AndrulisD

;. Sworn statement dated 6ebruary 22, 1980 of r."amonchito ion)son, a Customs fficer, whoapprehended the various forei)n currencies hereinsub(ect to sei/ure.& 2

%tems &C& and &@& abovelisted tended to show that Andrulis had, onprevious occasions, also tried to abscond without payment of his billsfrom the anila otel and the +ines otel in a)uio.

n Hune 1980, the Actin) @istrict Collector of Customs rendered a

@ecision, which found Andrulis to have violated Central an7 Circular#o. $5 in relation to section 2$0f: of the ariff and Customs Code,and decreed3t7.BCh(#DB


29/77

=== === ===t7.BCh(#DB

f: Any article the importationor eportation of #hich iseffected or attempted contrar"to la#, or any article ofprohibited importation ore=portation, and au otherarticles which, in the opinion of

the Collector, have been used,are or were entered to be usedas instruments in theimportation or e=portation ofthe former. 5 ;mphaissupplied:

%n his defense, private respondent see7s refu)e behind the e=ceptionin the afore?uoted C Circular #o. $5 )ivin) tourists the ri)ht to ta7eout of the +hilippines their own forei)n e=chan)e brou)ht in by them.+rivate respondent also relies heavily on his ac?uittal in the criminalchar)e filed a)ainst him for violation of C Circular #o. $5.

he core issue is who has the burden of proof in sei/ure or forfeitureproceedin)sM he applicable law, Section 2$$ of the ariff andCustoms Code, is e=plicit in this re)ard.t7.BCh(#DB

S;C. 2$$. :urden of Proof in !ei-ure andorForfeiture. * %n all proceedin)s ta7en for thesei/ure andFor forfeiture of any vehicle, vessel,aircraft, beast or articles under the provisions of thetariff and customs laws,the burden of proof shall lieupon the claimant +rovided, hat probable causeshall be first shown for the institution of suchproceedin)s and that sei/ure andFor forfeiture wasmade under the circumstances and in the manner

described in the precedin) sections of thisCode 6 ;mphais ours:.

Epon the facts of the case, the re?uirement of the law that thee=istence of probable cause should first be shown before firin) of theforfeiture proceedin)s, had been fully met.


30/77

enceforth, no currency declaration of any 7indshall be re?uired either from out)oin) or incomin)passen)ers.11

owever, tourists are not precluded from submittin) proof, other than acurrency declaration, to show the le)itimate source of the currency intheir possession. esides, "esolution #o. $95 must be deemedsuperseded by "esolution #o. 1512, dated 1- Huly 194-, whichre?uires that persons ta7in) or transmittin) or attemptin) to ta7e or

transmit forei)n e=chan)e out of the +hilippines must haveauthori/ation from the Central an7 allowin) them to do so.


31/77

$Rad valorem instead of &synthetic polyethylene: woven fabric& atthe rate of 100R ad valorem based upon the results conducted by theureau of Customs aboratory. Conse?uently, the Court of a= Appealsordered the release of the said article upon payment of thecorrespondin) duties and ta=es. C..A. Case #o. 2590:. 8

hereafter, the Commissioner of Customs moved for reconsideration.n #ovember 19, 194$, the Court of a= Appeals denied said motionfor reconsideration. 9

n Au)ust 20, 194-, private respondent filed a petition as7in) for therelease of the ?uestioned )oods which this Court denied. After severalmotions for the early resolution of this case and for the release of)oods and in view of the fact that the )oods were bein) e=posed to thenatural elements, we ordered the release of the )oods on Hune 2,198-. Conse?uently, on Huly 2-, 198-, private respondent posted acash bond of +159,55.- to secure the release of -5 bales 1& out ofthe 80 bales 11 ori)inally delivered on Hanuary 0, 1942. Si=teenbales 12 remain missin).

+rivate respondent alle)es that of the 15,5$5 yards -5 bales:r

Aban Book Chap 12

Documents

Transcript of Aban Book Chap 12