Papa vs.

Mago [GR L-27360, 28 February 1968]

FACTS:
Martin Alagao, head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police Department, acting upon a
reliable information received to the effect that a certain shipment of personal effects, allegedly
misdeclared and undervalued, would be released the following day from the customs zone of the port
of Manila and loaded on two trucks, and upon orders of Ricardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and
a duly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs, conducted surveillance at gate 1 of the customs
zone. When the trucks left gate 1 at about 4:30 p.m. of 4 November 1966, elements of the counter-
intelligence unit went after the trucks and intercepted them at the Agrifina Circle, Ermita, Manila. The
load of the two trucks, consisting of nine bales of goods, and the two trucks, were seized on instructions
of the Chief of Police. Upon investigation, a person claimed ownership of the goods and showed to
the policemen a “Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected on Informal Entry No. 147-5501”, issued
by the Bureau of Customs in the name of a certain Bienvenido Naguit. Claiming to have been
prejudiced by the seizure and detention of the two trucks and their cargo, Remedios Mago and
Valentin B. Lanopa filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila a petition “for mandamus with
restraining order or preliminary injunction (Civil Case 67496), praying for the issuance of a restraining
order, ex parte, enjoining the police and customs authorities, or their agents, from opening the bales
and examining the goods, and a writ of mandamus for the return of the goods and the trucks, as well
as a judgment for actual, moral and exemplary damages in their favor. Mago filed an amended
petition, including as party defendants Collector of Customs Pedro Pacis of the Port of Manila and Lt.
Martin Alagao of the Manila Police Department. On 7 March 1967, the Judge issued an order releasing
the goods to Mago upon her filing of a bond in the amount of P40,000.00. On 13 March 1967, Papa, on
his own behalf, filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the court releasing the goods under
bond, upon the ground that the Manila Police Department had been directed by the Collector of
Customs of the Port of Manila to hold the goods pending termination of the seizure proceedings.
Without waiting for the court’s action on the motion for reconsideration, and alleging that they had no
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, Papa, et. al. filed the action for
prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
WON the custom search requires a warrant.

HELD:
The SC held that the TARRIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE explicitly does not require warrants for custom
officers to board and search vessels, beasts, or persons suspected of introducing contraband
merchandise into the PH. In this case, the PNP Chief, having been deputized by the Commissioner of
Customs, is, thus authorized to carry out such searches. However, the SC held that the search of
dwelling houses, even for the enforcement of Customs Laws, requires warrant.

The SC recognized that jurisprudence has held that there is a difference between a) a search of a
dwelling of a house and b) a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile for contraband goods,
where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can quickly escape. Thus, search
of motor vehicle is likewise valid without search warrant.