Bureau of Customs vs. Sherman

A public prosecutor exercises exclusive control and supervision over criminal prosecutions, limiting the private complainant to the role of a witness; consequently, a private complainant's motion for reconsideration cannot prosper without the public prosecutor's imprimatur, and a government agency cannot institute a petition without the Office of the Solicitor General's representation.

Mark Sensing Philippines, Inc. (MSPI) imported 255,870,000 pieces of finished bet slips and 205,200 rolls of finished thermal papers from Australia between June 2005 and January 2007. MSPI facilitated the release of the shipment from the Clark Special Economic Zone (CSEZ) to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) for its lotto operations in Luzon without paying the corresponding duties and taxes estimated at Php 15,917,611.83.

• Unlawful Importation: MSPI imported finished bet slips and thermal papers from Australia, releasing them from the CSEZ to the PCSO without payment of duties and taxes estimated at Php 15,917,611.83.
• Criminal Complaint: The BOC filed a criminal complaint against MSPI officers (Peter Sherman, Michael Whelan, Ofelia Cajigal, Teodoro Lingan) and customs brokers for violation of Section 3601 in relation to Sections 2530 and 101(f) of the Tariff and Customs Code, and Republic Act No. 7916.
• Prosecutorial Reversal: State Prosecutor Rohaira Lao-Tamano initially found probable cause, prompting the filing of an Information before the CTA. The Secretary of Justice subsequently reversed the State Prosecutor's resolution and directed the withdrawal of the Information.
• CTA Dismissal: The State Prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Information before the CTA. The CTA granted the motion and dismissed the Information on September 3, 2009.
• Noted Without Action: The BOC filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CTA noted without action on October 14, 2009, because an entry of judgment had already been issued and the State Prosecutor did not file a motion for reconsideration or execution.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner maintained that the CTA gravely abused its discretion in noting its motion for reconsideration without action and in dismissing the Information, thereby depriving the BOC of its right to prosecute smugglers under its Run After The Smugglers (RATS) Program.

• Prosecutorial Control: Respondent countered that the public prosecutor exercises exclusive control and supervision over the prosecution of the case, limiting the BOC's participation to that of a witness.

• Control of Prosecution: Whether the CTA gravely abused its discretion in noting without action the BOC's motion for reconsideration, given the public prosecutor's control over the case.
• Government Representation: Whether the BOC can validly institute a petition for certiorari without the representation of the Office of the Solicitor General.

• Control of Prosecution: No grave abuse of discretion was committed, the public prosecutor having exclusive control and supervision over the prosecution of criminal cases. The participation of a private complainant, even a government agency acting as such, is limited to that of a witness. Because the BOC's motion for reconsideration lacked the public prosecutor's imprimatur, the CTA correctly noted it without action.
• Government Representation: The petition cannot prosper, the BOC having instituted it without the representation of the Office of the Solicitor General. Established doctrine mandates that the OSG shall represent the Government, its agencies, and instrumentalities in any litigation.

• Control of Prosecution Doctrine — All criminal actions commenced by complaint or information are prosecuted under the direction and control of public prosecutors. The participation of a private complainant is limited to that of a witness in both the criminal and civil aspects of the case. Applied to bar the Bureau of Customs from pursuing a motion for reconsideration that lacked the public prosecutor's imprimatur.
• OSG Representation Doctrine — The Office of the Solicitor General represents the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities, and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation, or matter requiring the services of lawyers. Applied to dismiss the petition because the Bureau of Customs filed it independently, without OSG representation.

• "All criminal actions commenced by complaint or information are prosecuted under the direction and control of public prosecutors." — Reiterates the exclusive authority of the executive department, through public prosecutors, over criminal prosecutions.
• "The participation in the case of a private complainant, like petitioner, is limited to that of a witness, both in the criminal and civil aspect of the case." — Defines the restricted role of private complainants, even government agencies acting as such, in criminal proceedings.

• Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995 — Cited as controlling authority for the principle that the prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department, which has the principal power and responsibility to ensure laws are faithfully executed.
• Ong v. Genio, G.R. No. 182336, December 23, 2009 — Cited as controlling authority for the doctrine that the OSG represents the government and its agencies in litigation, precluding independent legal action by government agencies.

• Rule 110, Section 5, Rules of Court — Provides that all criminal actions commenced by complaint or information are prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. Applied to affirm the public prosecutor's authority to withdraw the information over the private complainant's objection.
• Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV, Administrative Code of 1987 — Mandates that the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities, and its officials and agents in any litigation. Applied to invalidate the Bureau of Customs' independent filing of the certiorari petition.
• Section 3601, Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines — Defines unlawful importation (smuggling) and its penalties. The provision underlies the criminal complaint filed against the respondents.
• Sections 2530(f) and (l)5, Tariff and Customs Code — Enumerate property subject to forfeiture under tariff and customs laws, including articles imported contrary to law or through practices prejudicial to the government.
• Section 101(f), Tariff and Customs Code — Prohibits the importation of lottery and sweepstakes tickets except those authorized by the Philippine Government.
• Republic Act No. 7916 — The Special Economic Zone Act of 1995. Relevant to the locus of the importation and the jurisdictional rules governing the Clark Special Economic Zone.

Arturo D. Brion, Lucas B. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno