People of the Philippines vs. De la Rosa

On a motion to quash grounded on the information's failure to charge an offense, the court may consider additional facts admitted or not denied by the prosecution and evidence presented by both parties; where those facts show that no importation or taxable entry occurred, the information must be quashed. Gold bars carried by a transiting tourist who had no intention to unlade them are not imported articles, and no customs duties are lost.

The prosecution invoked Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code, Republic Act No. 1937, which penalizes the fraudulent entry of imported articles and the avoidance of customs duties. Executive Order No. 408, issued to encourage foreign tourist travel, suspended certain forms required of foreign tourists and exempted their luggage from customs examination if oral examination proved satisfactory; Customs Memorandum Circular No. 130-67 implemented that policy. Edery's admission as a tourist/transient under Section 9(b) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, in relation to Executive Order No. 408, was governed by these issuances.

On October 8, 1968, Berti Hildegard Edery arrived at Manila International Airport, Pasay City, carrying 28 pieces of gold bars with corresponding markings. According to the charge, she brought them into the country by false oral and written statements and omissions, concealing the bars in pockets of a vest within her person and not passing them through the Customhouse, thereby avoiding declaration, appraisal, and payment of duties and taxes. The amended information valued the bars at approximately P209,126.40 (224,000 Deutsch Marks), alleged that she denied carrying valuable and taxable items, and alleged that she did not indicate in her Baggage Declaration and Entry Form that she had the 28 gold bars.

Edery's travel documents and immigration records showed that she had a confirmed booking from Manila to Taipei, Republic of China, with scheduled departure the day following her arrival. Her passport bore the stamped notation of the examining immigration inspector admitting her as a tourist under Executive Order No. 408, pursuant to the Commissioner of Immigration's Memorandum Circular of December 28, 1960, under Section 9(b) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, in relation to Executive Order No. 408. She was allowed to debark and re-embark after a stay in Philippine territory not longer than 72 hours without applying for or holding a Philippine transit visa, and was exempted from both customs declaration and examination.

Because there was no connecting flight to Taipei at the time of her arrival, Edery stayed overnight at the Manila Hilton Hotel with the 28 gold bars. She was arrested by customs authorities at the Manila International Airport only hours after her arrival, at the time she was taking the same 28 gold bars out of the country and was about to board a Japan Airlines plane bound for Taipei. The trial court found that she had no intention to unlade or import the gold bars; had she intended to import them illegally for local sale, she could have disposed of them while at the hotel. The gold bars were never imported or intended to be imported, and their entry for a number of hours did not convert them into imported articles.

After preliminary investigation, the City Fiscal of Pasay resolved to dismiss the complaint against Edery. The State Prosecutor later took over, filed the information and amended information, and participated in the hearings on the motion to quash. Both parties presented documentary and testimonial evidence; the prosecution made admissions and asked the court to allow it to present additional evidence. The respondent court found that under Executive Order No. 408 and Customs Memorandum Circular No. 130-67, foreign tourists were not required to file a customs declaration form and were not subject to customs examination, and that the forms suspended included any Central Bank license or written permission form, whose enumeration did not include gold bars. It further found that the alleged falsity of the declaration, omissions, and false statements were immaterial because Edery was not required to make them, and that no importation occurred to support the charge of defrauding the government of duties and charges. The respondent court also observed that Edery wrote the word "TOURIST" instead of giving the description of the articles she was carrying on her Baggage Declaration and Entry.

• Scope of Motion to Quash: Petitioner argued that a motion to quash under Section 2(a) of Rule 117 on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense must be decided on the strength of the allegations of the information alone, and that the court may not go beyond those allegations to inquire into the merits to determine sufficiency.
• Sufficiency of the Information: Petitioner maintained that the information contained allegations clearly charging an offense and that the respondent court erred in ruling that the facts charged did not constitute an offense.
• Quashing the Criminal Case: Petitioner argued that the respondent court erred in quashing the criminal case filed against Edery.
• Customs Custody: Petitioner contended that if Edery had no intention of leaving the gold bars in the country, she should have left them at Manila International Airport under customs custody to be picked up upon departure.
• Tourist Status: Petitioner further contended that Edery was not a bona fide tourist entitled to exemptions and facilitations under Executive Order No. 408 but a transiting tourist.

• Non-immigrant Status: Respondent Edery argued that her non-immigrant status placed her beyond the operation of Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code and Central Bank Circular No. 21, as amended, in relation to Sections 2530(f) and (m)(3) and (5) and Section 102 of the same Code.
• Tourist Exemptions: She invoked Executive Order No. 408 and its implementing circulars and memoranda, including Customs Memorandum Circular No. 130-67 and the Bureau of Immigration memorandum circular, to show that as a foreign tourist she was exempt from customs declaration and examination.
• No Importation: She maintained that the 28 gold bars were not imported articles because she had no intention to unlade or import them; she was a transiting tourist who carried the same gold bars out of the country hours after arrival.
• No Offense: She argued that the facts did not constitute an offense and that the motion to quash was properly granted.
• Prosecution's Admissions: The respondent court relied on the prosecution's admissions and evidence presented at the hearing, which showed that no offense was committed.

• Scope of Motion to Quash: Whether a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense must be resolved solely on the allegations of the information, or whether the court may consider additional facts admitted or not denied by the prosecution and evidence presented by both parties.
• Sufficiency of the Charge: Whether the facts charged, in light of the admitted facts and evidence, constitute a violation of Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
• Importation: Whether the 28 gold bars carried by Edery were "imported articles" subject to customs duties and declaration.
• Tourist Exemption: Whether Edery, as a tourist/transient admitted under Executive Order No. 408, was exempt from customs declaration and examination.
• Propriety of Quash: Whether the respondent court erred in quashing the information and amended information.

• Scope of Motion to Quash: No. Although a motion to quash is generally resolved on the allegations of the information, additional facts admitted or not denied by the prosecution may be invoked in support of the motion, and evidence presented by both parties may be considered.
• Sufficiency of the Charge: No. The facts established and admitted did not constitute an offense under Section 3602 because no importation occurred and no customs duties were lost.
• Importation: No. Importation begins when the carrying vessel or aircraft enters the jurisdiction with the intention to unlade therein; Edery had no such intention, as she was transiting and was arrested while taking the same gold bars out of the country.
• Tourist Exemption: Yes. As a tourist/transient admitted under Executive Order No. 408 and its implementing rules, Edery was exempt from customs declaration and examination, and the alleged false statements or omissions were immaterial.
• Propriety of Quash: No error. The orders quashing the amended information and denying reconsideration were affirmed.

• Scope of Motion to Quash: The general rule is that a motion to quash on the ground that the information's allegations do not constitute an offense is resolved on the basis alone of those allegations, whose truth and veracity are hypothetically admitted. However, People vs. Navarro, 75 Phil. 516, allows additional facts not alleged in the information but admitted or not denied by the prosecution to be invoked in support of the motion. Rule 117, Section 6, Rules of Court, provides that all issues, whether of law or fact, arising on a motion to quash shall be tried by the court. Here, the State Prosecutor admitted certain facts and participated in hearings where both parties presented documentary and testimonial evidence. The prosecution even asked to present additional evidence. The respondent court thus did not err in considering the evidence aliunde and the admissions in resolving the motion. The prosecution's admissions are evidence of the highest order in favor of the accused and may not be disputed later; the petition for certiorari implied a waiver of the right to question the respondent court's findings of fact.

• Sufficiency of the Charge: The essence of the charge was that Edery failed to declare the 28 gold bars she carried when she landed and stayed overnight in Manila, which the prosecution treated as illegal importation causing loss of duties. The facts established and admitted showed that the gold bars were not imported articles and that no duties were lost. The City Fiscal had dismissed the complaint after preliminary investigation. The State Prosecutor's presentation of evidence and admissions turned the motion to quash into, in effect, a trial on the merits. With the evidence presented, the respondent judge could not ignore it on the technicality that the motion should be resolved solely on the information's allegations. To restore the informations and proceed to trial would be a resort to mere technicality frowned upon by the courts and discouraged by the rules.

• Importation: Section l202 of the Philippine Tariff and Customs Laws (Republic Act 1937, as amended) states that importation begins when the carrying vessel or aircraft enters the jurisdiction of the Philippines with the intention to unlade therein. The intention to unlade is essential. Edery arrived in Manila without a visa but was admitted by immigration authorities as a transient; she had a confirmed booking to Taipei the following day. Because there was no connecting flight, she stayed overnight at the Manila Hilton Hotel with the gold bars. She was arrested at the airport only hours after arrival while taking the same 28 gold bars out of the country and about to board a Japan Airlines plane to Taipei. The trial court found that she had no intention to import the gold bars; had she intended illegal local sale, she could have disposed of them at the hotel. The gold bars were never imported or intended to be imported, and their brief entry did not convert them into imported articles. Without importation, the charge that she defrauded the government of duties and charges due on imported articles could not stand.

• Tourist Exemption: Executive Order No. 408 sought to encourage international tourism. It ordered all government offices and agencies to suspend forms required of foreign tourists upon applying for admission or entering the country; foreign tourists were not required to file a customs declaration form, and their luggage was exempt from customs examination if an oral examination proved satisfactory. Customs Memorandum Circular No. 130-67 provided that a foreign tourist shall not be subject to customs examination. Edery's passport showed she was admitted as a tourist under Executive Order No. 408, pursuant to the Commissioner of Immigration's memorandum circular, under Section 9(b) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, in relation to Executive Order No. 408, without need of a Philippine transit visa, and was allowed to debark and re-embark after a stay not longer than 72 hours; she was exempted from both customs declaration and examination. The forms suspended included any Central Bank license or written permission form, and the enumeration did not include gold bars. Thus, the alleged falsity of the customs declaration, omissions, and false statements were immaterial because Edery was not required to make them. No distinction exists in Executive Order No. 408 between a bona fide tourist and a transiting tourist; if any distinction were made, the transiting tourist would be more entitled to the exemptions and facilitations, as such tourist is not even required to observe a visa that an ordinary tourist must obtain. Both are tourists, and bona fide status is impliedly required of all tourists. The prosecution's claim that Edery should have deposited the gold bars under customs custody at the airport failed because it did not appear that she was advised of the availability of such deposit or offered the facility and refused; the information did not allege those facts.

• Propriety of Quash: Since the facts established and admitted did not constitute an offense, the respondent court correctly quashed the information and amended information. The June 14, 1971 order denying the People's Motion for Reconsideration of the February 12, 1969 order was affirmed. The petition for certiorari was dismissed.

• Motion to quash — admitted facts and evidence aliunde — General rule: a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense is resolved solely on the allegations of the information, whose truth is hypothetically admitted. Exception: additional facts not alleged but admitted or not denied by the prosecution may be invoked in support of the motion; where the hearing on the motion includes evidence presented by both parties, the court may consider evidence aliunde and decide accordingly. Applied: the respondent court properly considered the prosecution's admissions and the evidence presented, and the Supreme Court refused to restore the informations on a mere technicality.
• Importation under the Tariff and Customs Code — Importation begins when the carrying vessel or aircraft enters the jurisdiction of the Philippines with the intention to unlade therein. Without the intention to unlade, articles are not imported and no customs duties accrue. Applied: the 28 gold bars carried by Edery, a transiting tourist, were not unladen and were taken out of the country hours later; they were never imported or intended to be imported.
• Tourist exemption under Executive Order No. 408 — Foreign tourists admitted under Executive Order No. 408 and its implementing circulars are exempt from customs declaration and examination; the required forms were suspended. No distinction exists between a bona fide tourist and a transiting tourist; if any distinction were made, the transiting tourist would be more entitled to the exemptions and facilitations. Applied: Edery was exempt, and the alleged false declaration, omissions, and false statements were immaterial.
• Prosecution's admissions as evidence — Admissions by the prosecution at a motion to quash hearing are evidence of the highest order in favor of the accused and may not later be disputed; the principle is based on estoppel. Applied: the prosecution could not dispute the facts it admitted and presented, and its petition implied a waiver of the right to question the respondent court's factual findings.
• Trial of issues on a motion to quash — Rule 117, Section 6, Rules of Court, requires all issues of law or fact arising on a motion to quash to be tried by the court. Applied: the court properly heard and considered evidence and admissions in resolving the motion to quash.

• "As a general proposition, a motion to quash on the ground that the allegations of the information do not constitute the offense charged, or any offense for that matter, should be resolved on the basis alone of said allegations whose truth and veracity are hypothetically admitted. However, as held in the case of People vs. Navarro, 75 Phil 516, additional facts not alleged in the information, but admitted or not denied by the prosecution may be invoked in support of the motion to quash." — This states the general rule and the exception governing the scope of a motion to quash, which was the procedural core of the decision.
• "Section l202 of the Philippine Tariff and Customs Laws (Republic Act 1937, as amended) states, in part, that importation begins when the carrying vessel or aircraft enters the jurisdiction of the Philippines 'with the intention to unlade therein.'" — This defines the statutory concept of importation on which the Court relied to hold that the gold bars were not imported articles.
• "That the gold bars were never imported nor intended to be imported, as the respondent court observed, cannot but meet with our approval in the light of the undeniable fact that the accused carried them with her in exactly the same way when she debarked from the air carrier, when she was to board the plane that would bring her to her real destination Taipei after spending only a night at the Manila Hilton Hotel There being no importation to speak of, it cannot be said that, as is the essence of the charge against the accused, the latter defrauded the government of the duties and charges due the articles, if imported." — This is the ratio decidendi on the absence of importation and the consequent failure of the charge.
• "If a distinction is to be made, the transiting tourist should be more entitled to the exemptions and facilitations, for the transiting tourist is not even required to observed a visa which the ordinary tourist must have to obtain." — This rejects the prosecution's distinction between a bona fide tourist and a transiting tourist under Executive Order No. 408.

• People vs. Navarro, 75 Phil. 516 — Controlling precedent for the rule that additional facts not alleged in the information but admitted or not denied by the prosecution may be invoked in support of a motion to quash; the Court quoted its rationale that the fiscal's role is to see that justice is done and that admissions may be considered in the interest of speedy administration of justice.
• People vs. Segovia, 102 Phil. 1162 — Cited for the remark that prima facie the facts charged are those described in the complaint but may be amplified or qualified by other additional circumstances upon admission by the People's representative, which admission could be submitted as an amendment to the information.
• People vs. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659 — Cited for the proposition that the prosecution's claim that the ground for a motion to quash is a matter of defense is unavailing where the fact was brought out by the defense in its petition to quash and was not disputed by the prosecution.

• Section 3602, Tariff and Customs Code, Republic Act No. 1937 — The provision under which Edery was charged for bringing gold bars into the country through false statements and omissions to avoid customs duties and taxes. The Court found no offense because no importation occurred and no declaration was required of Edery as a tourist.
• Section l202, Philippine Tariff and Customs Laws (Republic Act 1937, as amended) — Defines importation as beginning when the carrying vessel or aircraft enters Philippine jurisdiction with the intention to unlade therein. Applied: Edery had no intention to unlade the gold bars, so they were not imported articles.
• Section 9(b), Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended — Under this provision, in relation to Executive Order No. 408, Edery was admitted as a tourist/transient without a Philippine transit visa, allowed to debark and re-embark after a stay not longer than 72 hours, and exempted from customs declaration and examination.
• Executive Order No. 408 (56 O.G. 28, November 1960) — Encouraged foreign tourist travel and ordered suspension of forms required of foreign tourists, including customs declaration; luggage exempt from customs examination if oral examination satisfactory. Applied to exempt Edery and render alleged false declaration and omissions immaterial.
• Customs Memorandum Circular No. 130-67 of July 21, 1967 — Provided that a foreign tourist shall not be subject to customs examination. Applied to Edery as a foreign tourist.
• Rule 117, Sections 2(a) and 6, Rules of Court — Section 2(a) allows a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense; Section 6 requires all issues of law or fact arising on a motion to quash to be tried by the court. Applied: the court could hear and consider evidence and admissions in resolving the motion.
• Central Bank Circular No. 21, as amended, in relation to Sections 2530(f) and (m)(3) and (5) and Section 102 of the Tariff and Customs Code — Cited by Edery in her motion to quash to argue that her non-immigrant status placed her beyond the operation of Section 3602. The Court noted that the suspended forms included any Central Bank license or written permission form, and the enumeration did not include gold bars.

Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Melencio-Herrera concurred. Chief Justice Fernando and Justices Teehankee and Aquino took no part.