Mustang Lumber vs.

CA

Facts:First Case: On 1 April 1990, acting on an information that ahuge stockpile of narra flitches, shorts, and slabs were seeninside the lumberyard of the petitioner in Valenzuela, MetroManila, the SAID organized a team of foresters andpolicemen and sent it to conduct surveillance at the saidlumberyard. In the course thereof, the team members sawcoming out from the lumberyard the petitioner's truck, withPlate No. CCK-322, loaded with lauan and almaciga lumber of assorted sizes and dimensions. Since the driver could notproduce the required invoices and transport documents, theteam seized the truck together with its cargo and impoundedthem at the DENR compound at Visayas Avenue, QuezonCity. The team was not able to gain entry into the premisesbecause of the refusal of the owner. 2The special Action and nvestigation Division of DENr also procured a search warrant from Jusge AdrianoOsorio of RTC Valenzuela, by virtue of the warrant, the teamseized for truckloads of narra woods including almaciagaand supa. Moreover, the lumberyard of the petitioner wasalso placed under administrative seizure. For failure toproduce certificates of lumber origins, auxiliary invoices, tallysheets and delivery receipts.Subsequently, the Sec of DENR Factoran issued anorder confiscating the woods seized in the truck of thepetitioner as well as those found in their lumberyardIssue:Was the seizure of the goods unlawful? And that theBOC has no jurisdiction over the articles sought?Held:No. it is a valid seizure.The Chief of the Manila Police Department, RicardoG. Papa, having been deputized in writing by theCommissioner of Customs, could, for the purposes of theenforcement of the customs and tariff laws, effect searches,seizures, and arrests, and it was his duty to make seizure,among others, of any cargo, articles or other movableproperty when the same may be subject to forfeiture or liablefor any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. He couldlawfully open and examine any box, trunk, envelope or other container wherever found when he had reasonable cause tosuspect the presence therein of dutiable articles introducedinto the Philippines contrary to law; and likewise to stop,search and examine any vehicle, beast or person reasonablysuspected of holding or conveying such article as aforesaid.It cannot be doubted, therefore, that petitioner Ricardo G.Papa, Chief of Police of Manila, could lawfully effect thesearch and seizure of the goods in question. The Tariff andCustoms Code authorizes him to demand assistance of anypolice officer to effect said search and seizure, and the latter has the legal duty to render said assistance. This was whathappened precisely in the case of Lt. Martin Alagao who, withhis unit, made the search and seizure of the two trucksloaded with the nine bales of goods in question at the Agrifina Circle. He was given authority by the Chief of Policeto make the interception of the cargo.Petitioner Martin Alagao and his companionpolicemen had authority to effect the seizure

without anysearch warrant issued by a competent court.The Tariff and Customs Code does not require saidwarrant in the instant case. The Code authorizes personshaving police authority under Section 220 3 of the Tariff andCustoms Code to enter, pass through or search any land,inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwellinghouse; and also to inspect, search and examine any vesselor aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope or anyperson on board, or stop and search and examine anyvehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveyingany dutiable or prohibited article introduced into thePhilippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of asearch warrant in said cases.It is our considered view, therefore, that except inthe case of the search of a dwelling house, personsexercising police authority under the customs law may effectsearch and seizure without a search warrant in theenforcement of customs laws.