Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

Rigor v rosales

Collector Sabino Rigor issued a Warrant of Seizure and Detention against the vessel
LCT-759 and its cargo, consisting of 103 pieces of logs for failure to present a manifest
for the said logs within the period prescribed. The parties who were duly notified and
represented, voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the respondent Collector. After
hearing, the Collector rendered a decision ordering the seized logs forfeited in favor of
the government to be disposed of according to law.
Instead of appealing the Collectors decision to the Commissioner of Customs, the
private respondents filed an original petition for certiorari with the Davao CFI.
Respondent alleged lack of jurisdiction of the CFI.

W/N the lower court has jurisdiction to review a decision of the

Collector of Customs
The Supreme Court held in the negative.
Articles subject to seizure do not have to be goods imported from a foreign country. The
provisions of the Code refer to unmanifested articles found on vessels or aircraft
engaged in the coastwise trade. The customs authorities do not have to prove to the
satisfaction of a court of first instance that the articles on board a vessel were imported
from abroad or are intended to be shipped abroad before they may exercise the power
to effect customs searches, seizure, or arrests provided by law and to continue with the
administrative hearings on whether or not the law may have been violated.
Regarding the nature of the port of origin and the port of destination, it is enough if one
of the ports is a port of entry. The respondent courts finding that port of entry must be
limited to the wharves of Sta. Ana and Sasa where the customs house is located and
not extended to every inch of the City of Davao would unduly hamper if not cripple the

effective enforcement of customs and tariff laws. Customs officials cannot stand by
helplessly for want of jurisdiction simply because a restrictive interpretation of port of
entry would enable coastwise vessels to load or unload unmanifested goods with
impunity outside of the specific area where the wharves and the customs house are
Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the customs officials have authority under
the law to make the initial determination on the limits of their administrative jurisdiction,
to act speedily and to make decisions on the basis of that determination, and to have
such act or decision reviewable only in the manner provided by the Customs and Tariff
Code. The Collectors decisions are appealable to the Commissioner of Customs,
whose decisions, in cases involving seizure, detention or release of property, may in
turn be reviewed only by the CTA.

Pacis vs pamaran
Respondent Ricardo Santos is an owner of a car which he bought from a tax-exempt individual. He paid
P311.00 for customs duty and taxes. Pedro Pacis, the Acting Collector of Customs, received a letter stating
that Santos' car was a hot car. The amount collectible was P2,500.00, not just P311.00.
Based on such discrepancy, Pacis instituted seizure proceedings and issued a warrant of seizure and
detention. The car was taken by agents who were authorized to do so by virtue of the said warrant. Santos
wrote to Pacis about the seizure. Santos also filed a case of usurpation of authority against Pacis. Manuel
Pamaran, an Assistant Fiscal, proceeded with the charge against Pacis.
ISSUE: Whether Customs Collectors can issue a warrant of seizure and detention.
YES. Prohibition against Pamaran is of want. The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant
in the instant case. The Code authorizes persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff
and Customs Code to such search and seizure. Except in the case of the search of a dwelling house,
persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search
warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. The plenitude of the competence vested in customs officials
is undeniable.

Nasiad lozada vs CTA

A raid was conducted on the vessel of one Jose Lopez. Sacks of copra and coffee were part of the seized
items which petitioners claim they own. The Commissioner of Customs ruled the forfeiture of the items
which was also affirmed by the CTA.
Petitioners contend that the said goods were not imported and of foreign origin thus not legally subject to
seizure and forfeiture. Petitioners also contend that the forfeiture made by the Collector of Customs was
invalid because the said forfeiture was based on documents and papers which were illegally seized by
agents of the Government through violence and intimidation.
ISSUE: Whether the forfeiture was valid.
YES. The SC supported the answer made by the Solicitor General. Petitioners have no cause of action
because they have no personality to contest the searches and seizures complained of, since at the time the
searches and seizures were allegedly conducted, the vessel belonged to Jose Lopez. Petitioners, not being
parties-in-interest, may not invoke the Constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure.
The doctrine in Stonehill v. Diokno is not applicable. The vessel's search was effected as an incident of a
lawful arrest and the disputed evidence was voluntarily delivered to NBI by the persons who had custody.
It is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been
impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot
be availed of by third parties.

Viduya v berdiago

Respondent Berdiago is the owner of a Rolls Royce car, Model 1966, which arrived in
the Port of Manila on January 8, 1968. However, the petitioner, Jose Viduya, then
Collector of Customs of Manila, obtained reliable intelligence that fraudulent documents
were used by Berdiago in securing the release of the car from the Bureau of Customs,
making it appear therein that the car was a 1961 model instead of a 1966 one, thus
enabling respondent to pay a much lower customs duty.
There was, accordingly, a formal demand for the payment of the sum to cover the
deficiency, respondent manifesting his willingness to do so but failing to live up to his
promise. As the car was kept in a dwelling house at the Yabut Compound, two officials
of the Customs Police Service as duly authorized agents of petitioner, applied to
respondent Judge for a warrant to search said dwelling house and to seize the Rolls
Royce car found therein.
Berdiago filed a motion to quash the search warrant issued by the court based on lack
of probable cause to issue the warrant. Collector Viduya opposed, alleging that
Berdiago could not rely on the constitutional right against unreasonable search and
seizure because it was not shown that he owned the dwelling house which was
searched. Nonetheless, respondent Judge in the challenged order quashed such search
Hence, this petition.

Whether or not respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion

in quashing the warrant
The Court opined that except in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons
exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without
a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. There is justification then for the

insistence on the part of private respondent that probable cause be shown. So

respondent Judge found in issuing the search warrant.
Apparently, he was persuaded to quash it when he noted that the warrant for seizure
and detention came later than its issuance. In thus acting, respondent Judge apparently
overlooked that long before the search warrant was applied for, to be specific on April
15, 1968, the misdeclaration and underpayment was already noted and that thereafter
on April 24, 1968, private respondent himself agreed to make good the further amount
due but not in the sum demanded.
As the car was kept in a dwelling house, petitioner through two of his officers in the
Customs Police Service applied for and was able to obtain the search warrant. Had
there been no such move on the part of petitioner, the duties expressly enjoined on him
by law assess and collect all lawful revenues, to prevent and suppress smuggling and
other frauds and to enforce tariff and customs law would not have been performed.
While therefore, it is to be admitted that his warrant of seizure and detention came later
than the search warrant, there were indubitable facts in existence at that time to call for
its issuance. Certainly there was probable cause. There was evidently need for the
issuance of a search warrant. It ought not to have been thereafter quashed.

Auyong hian vs cta

Ute paterok vs bureau of customs

In March 1986, petitioner shipped from Germany to the Philippines two containers, one
with used household goods and the other two used automobiles (one Bourgetti and one
Mercedes Benz). The first container and the Bourgetti car were released by the BOC,
but not the Mercedes Benz, which remained in custody of the Bureau.
Petitioner then received a notice of hearing, informing him that seizure proceedings
were being initiated against the said Mercedes Benz. While this case was pending,
petitioner received a letter from the District Collector of Customs, informing her that a
decision ordering the forfeiture of her Mercedes Benz had been rendered.
Petitioner did not know that the same Mercedes Benz was subject to two different
forfeiture proceedings. He only found out later that the Notice of Hearing for the
forfeiture proceedings before the District Collector was posted on the bulletin board of
the BOC, at Port Area, Manila.

Whether or not the posting on the bulletin board of the public

respondent was sufficient compliance with proper service of notice and

procedural due process
Whether or not seizure and forfeiture was proper in the instant case
The Court held that there was no sufficient compliance with requirement of notice and
hearing under the due process clause. But notwithstanding the procedural infirmity, the
Court ruled that the petition cannot be granted.
The seizure and forfeiture proceedings was based on a violation of B.P. 73, specifically
a law that promotes energy conservation and prohibits the importation, manufacture or
assembling of gasoline-powered passenger motor cars with engine displacement of
over 2,800 cubic centimeters.

The Mercedes Benz subject of this case has an engine displacement of over 2,800
cubic centimeters, which clearly falls within the prohibited importation and as such, is
liable for seizure and forfeiture by the public respondents.

Ramos vs pamaran

Farolan vs ca

Acting customs vs cta andrulis

Llamado vs com of customs

Petitioner's plane was involved in a smuggling operation when it was used to bring lamps for the
transportation of blue seal cigarettes.
A warrant of seizure and detention of the plane was issued and after the hearing it was forfeited by the
government applying Section 2530 of the Tariff and Customs Code (Code). On appeal, the CTA affirmed
the decision of the Collector of Customs.
Petitioner contends that the plane cannot be forfeited under the Code for it did not come from a foreign
country nor did it carry or unload cigarettes in any place in the Philippines. It was not actually used in
transporting the cigarettes but was merely used to bring the lamps to the airstrip and as such, it is not
subject to forfeiture under Philippine laws.
ISSUE: Whether the plane was used in the unlawful importation of cigarettes within the meaning of the
YES. Under the foregoing legal provision, in order to warrant forfeiture, it is not necessary that the vessel
or aircraft must itself carry the contraband. There is nothing in the law that so requires. Nor is it essential
that the vessel or aircraft must come from a foreign country, as argued by the petitioner.
In this case, the plane was deliberately used to insure its successful prosecution. The participation of the
plane was an active involvement and constituted an unlawful use thereof for, smuggling or illegal
importation within the meaning of the Code.

Com of customs vs cta

Transglobe vs ca

Facts: A shipment from Hong Kong arrived at the port of Manila, aboard the
S/S Seadragon. Its inward foreign manifest indicated that it contained
various hand tools. Acting on an information that the shipment violated
provisions of tariff and customs code, the Economic Intelligence and
Investigation Bureau (EIIB) agents seized the shipment while in transit to the
container yard. The EIIB recommended seizure of the shipment, and for which a
warrant of seizure and distraint was issued by the District Collector.
For failure of petitioner, to appear during the hearing despite due notice,
collector decreed the forfeiture of the shipment in favor of the government.

Issue: Whether or not Transglobe is allowed

to redeem the forfeitedshipments.

Held: As a means of settlement under Sec. 2307, TCC, redemption

offorfeited property is unavailing in 3 instances:
1. Where there is fraud;
2. Where the importation is absolutely prohibited;
3. Where the release of the property is contrary to law.
The fraud contemplated by law must be actual and not constructive. It must be
intentional, consisting of deception willfully and deliberately done or resorted to
in order to induce another to give up same right.