Of Tee Philippine? Court Gf Fax Appeals Queson Crft Angrl Hasiad and - Fratsto Lozada Petitioners vs. Cra Cage Ho, et al.

OF TEE PHILIPPINE?

COURT GF FAX APPEALS

QUESON CrFT

ANGRL HASIAD and -

FRATSTO LOZADA

Petitioners,

versus CRA CAGE HO, 1855

THE COMMISSIONFA OF

Respondent. — :

Rewer ene ew we Oe Rw

DECITSeTOR

Thies is an appeal from the decision of the

Commissioner ef Customs in Customs Case No. “46

(Seigsare Identification So. 25-%6- Davac) ordering

the forfeiture im favor of the Government of 1,408

sacks of copre and 06 sacks of goffee. This case

was submitted for decision om the pleadings and

record of this case.

The fects as stated in the Commissioner's

deci sien are as follows:

That on Sopteuber 19 Mgrs the

OLb ERMA wath

vessel M/¥ “J

docked "on Batjak wherf, y

ready

Davao Ci Frag es te gin

searcned a team of WHI

DECIGION « ;

CTA CASE WO, 18595

2

3200 im the afternoon of the same

Gate, the eforessid combined tean

searched the room of Yr. Tomas Vee

leses, charterer of the vessel and

took therefrom verious Indonesian

documents and other oy thet Mr.

Tomag Velasco wee not present during

the raid, and the only son sent

therein was s certain “iss Teofilas

Ibefiez; end that yeti ger of Mr,

Tomes Yelaseo was op and searched,

That on the basis of the sffi-

davits taken from the erew members

of the vessel and the veskees Tn-

donesian documents, the Collector ef

Cystoms of Davao fe emen a Warrant of

Seigure and Detention ia oP

while the seizure procecdings were in progress

before the Heering Officers of the Boreau of Cus-

tems, Daveo City, the Court of First Instenee of

Manile, thru.J/udge Gaudencio Cloribel, issued a

restraining order, enjoining all parties con-

cerned from proceeding against the vessel N/V

“JOLO LEMMA" pending trial on the merits of the

ease. Only the seisure case ageinst the cargoes

was heard. ina decision dated ’ebruary 16, 1967

(Seisure identifieation No. 25-66), the Collector

ef Custous of Davac decreed the forfeiture of the

goods in question. Thereafter, the eleimants ap-

peeled to the Commissioner of Customs, Fron the

decision of the Commissioner of Customs in Cus-

tems Case No. 946 (Seisure Identification Yo, 25-

66 Davao) dated April 27, 1967, an appeal wes

filed with this Court.

» 85

- , a

a Ss a i a

PMCISION «

CTA CASE 1655

a

During the pendency of the case, the goods ia

question were relessed to the petitioners by an

order of the Court dated June 16, 1967 (CTA reeords

pp. 47-48), because the latter filed on June 15,

1967 a surety bond of 960,000.00 gubseribed by the

Milriters’ Ousranty Assurance Corp. to answer for

the appraised valve of said goods in cese it should

be finally decided thet they are subjeet te for-

feiture. '

During the hearing of the case on the merits,

the contending parties manifested te this Court

their agreement to submit the case for decision

on the basis of the pleadings and records thereof,

The enly iseue submitted to this Court for

resolution is the legality ef the seisure made by

the Collector of Customs of Davao of the 4,408

sacks of copra and [6 sacks of coffee allegedly

owned by the petitioners,

The decision of the Commissioner ef Customs

appealed from is predieated on Section 2530-m(1),

(3), (*) and (5) of the Tariff and Customs Code

and Section 1 of Republic Act No. 2713 which

provide as follows:

DPCISION «

CTA CASE 1855

‘

m. Any article sougut te be

imported or exported:

(4) Without going through a

customhouse, whether the act was

consummated, frustrated er atteupteds

x z x x 3

(3) On the strength of a false

declaration or affidevit po by

the owner, importer, exporter or

consignee coneerning the importatian

or exportation ef such article.

(4) Om the strength of « false

invoice or other document executed

ty the owner, importer, exporter or

consignee concerning the importaticn

or ceertuthen of Pr article,

(5) Through any other fraudulent

practice or deviee by means of whieh

such article was entered through a

one to the prejudice of the

and

prohi 3x =x

ne 4 distr: zy. > welf

haritable institutions. Under-

aeoring supplied)

Petitioners claim that the 1,408 sacks of

copra and 66 sacks of coffee in question were

purchased in Siamba, Cuma ting and lawesal, all

in the provinee of Cotabato, from a certain

— —_ Ss. se ae ee en a eae ee eS a

DECISION «

CTA CASE 1855

5.

Osmefia Juanday. Fetitioners contend that, ine

agemoh ag the said goods were not imported and of

foreign origin, they are not legally subject te

seizure ané forfeiture. They likewise contend that

the forfeiture made by the Collector of Custens of

Davao was invalid because the said ferfeiture was

based on documents and papers which were tllegelly

seized by agents of the Government through viclence

and intinidation.

Respondent denies petitioners’ clais, He

contends that the evidence is-sufficient to hold

that the goods in question came from Indonesia and

subsequently brought to the Philippines in violation

of our laws and, therefore, subject to forfeiture;

and thet the Indonesian documents and papers ale

legedly secured illegally by the combined team of

WRI, PC amd BASAC agents stationed in Pavac, were

in fact lewfully and validly secured by then.

Consequently, said documents and papers are s¢-

missible in evidence in the forfeiture proceedings

inetituted adrinistratively by the Collector of

Customs of Devac,.

The voluminous evidences of record clearly

show that #/V¥ JOLO LEMA had been under strict sur-

veillance by the combined team of agents of the

WBI, PC, RAGAC, and City Pelice of Davao prior te

its apprehension at a private wharf in Batjok,

een

DRCISION + .

CTA CASE WO, 1655

6

U

Saga, Paveo Citys thet the said M/V JULO LOMA was

skippered by Capt. Aquiline Pantineple and char-

tered by "r. Tomas Velaseog during the period from

the latter part of August te Septeuber 18, 1966,

the said vessel was in Indonesian waters where it

leaded copra and coffee beans from Taruna, Pitta,

and Mangenito, all ef Indonesia (Exha. To1 to To2leg

pp. 36-39 ané@ 56, t.a.n.)g that in its trip te

Indonesia it brought various merohandise from the

Philippines which were exchanged and/or bartered

for copra and coffee beans and subsequently taken to

Davao City (pps 36-39 end 124425, t.een.), and that

said vessel passed Marore, indonesia on eptember

18, 1966 on its way to Tehuna, Indonesia ("xhs, U-4

and te23; p. *1, tesa.) before proceeding to Davac

City where it was apprehended en September 19, 1966. |

Tne foregoing findings ean only be sustained

_ by considering and adaitting as evidence the

various indonesian documents, papers and records

found and seized by agents of the goverment from

the Skyroom Hotel of ‘ir. Tomas Velasco, eharterer

of the vessel, and the legbock and other papers and

resords seized from the vessel “/V¥ JO\A Lema, In

both places, the searches ard seisvures of the

various indonesian documents, logbook and other

papers were made by government agents without the

corresponding search warrants issued by the court.

p 89

DECISION «

CTA CASE MO, 1655

7

Counsel for the cetitioners ergues vigorously

thet the various Indonesian documents, logbook,

papers and other records which were seized by the

government agents without search warrants ere

net admissible in evidence because the aduission

thereof would wipe owt completely one cf the

fundamental rights guaranteed in our Corstitution

whieh provides as follows:

The right of the people to be

seoure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects ageingt unreeson-

able searehes and seigures shall not

be vielated, and no warrants shall

issue but 25 mg os ns cause, ta be

éetermined the judge after exanina-

tion under oath or affirmation of the —

gg oA ane hep ae eg - may

ce eu #ser bing

Gee plate te be a

searched, and the

persons or to be seized. (Art.

Ili, section 1Z3/ of the Constitution.)

it was formerly a firmly settind rule thet

evidence obtained by an unreasonable, unwerranted,

or uplawful search and seisure, if otherwise

pertinent to an issue, was not rendered incompetent

and inadaissible because of the wrong method in

which 1% was cbtained until the enpearance in

y885 of the ill-starred aajority opinion of Boyd

v. United States (116 ".0. 616), which has exer-

eise4 unhealthy influence upen subsequent judicial

opinion. (See People v. Carlos, *7 Phil. 626-635.) be

in the BoyG case, supra, the U. 5. Supreme Court :

held that documents obtained by illegal scarches of

Se

“ 90

DECISION «

CTA CaSR NO, 4855

8

the defendant's effects are not sdmissible in

evidenee in a criminal case. The Beyd case remained

unquestioned in its own Court for twenty years;

meantime reeeiving frequent disfavor in the State

Courts. Then in Adams v. New York (192 U. 5. 565,

Le e@. 575) decided by the U. S. Supreme Court in

1904, the doctrine in the Boyd ease wes virtually

Trapmudiated. Subsequently, in Weeks v. United States,

232 U. &. 363, the U. 8, Supreme Court caverted to

She orisinal dostrine of the Boyd esse, but with

A.sondition, via., that the Sllegality of the

seareh and seizure should first have been direct-

ly litigated and established by a motion, and then

only, the illegality would be noticed in the nein

trial and the evidenee thus obtained would be ex-

eluded. in the case of Silverthorne lumber Co. v.

United States, 6e L. ef. 319, the 0. 5. Supreme

Court adhered te ite decision in the weeks case

(People v. Carlos, supra).

The deetrine enuneiated by the U. 5. Supreme

Court in the case of Weeks v. United States, gupra,

that documents obtained by illegs] searches of the

defendant's effects are not admissible in evidence

in a criminal cease wes renondiated by our Supreme

Court im the ease ef Moneade v. Peoples Court

and Ledew, G. R. No. 1-826, January 1%, 1948, 6:

9d

DECISION «

CTA CASE NO, 1855

9

Phil. 11, when it held as follows: —

le teoria de Weeks yg. ". &.

gue subvierte las regias de pruebe

no es aeeptabdle en ests adiecion:

es contrarie al sentide de justicia y

@ la ordenada y sane administracion de

justieia. ie doctrina ortodoxa se in-

pone por su consistencia probate a traves

de muchisimes alios. %o hay que abandon-

aria si se desea que lee dereches con

stituelionales sean reapetades y no pro-

fanades. Los a oye nse: Rtn

sa —— castigo, aunque les pruebes

@eontra elics hayan side ebtenidas Lle-

galmente. Y les que con infraecion de

la lay y de la Constitucion se apoderen

indebidamente de tales pruebas deben

tambien ser casti « Asi es como la

ley impers, majestuosa e incoluse.

It is to be noted, however, that four justices

of our Supreme Court, namely: Messrs. ‘erfecto,

Bengzon, Sriones and "aras, were egainst the

majority opinion in the Moncsedo case, gunra, and

expressed the view that documents obtained by 11-

legal searches of the defendant's effeets are not

admissible in evidenese in « criminal ease. This

minority view in the Moncado cage became the

majority opinion in 1967 in the ease of llarry 5.

GR. Mo, 119550, June 19, 1967, wherein the

Supreme Court held as fellows:

we hold, therefore, that the

doctrine adopted in the Moncado ¢sse

must be, as it is hereby, abandoned;

thet the warrants for the seareh of

three (3) residences of herein peti-

tioners, x xX X are nul] and voids

that the searches and seizures there~

in made are illegal; thet the writ

of preliminary injunction heretefore

Y -

DECISION «

CTA CASE NO, 1855

‘ 90

iseued, in connection with the

documents, papers and other effeets

thns seised in said residences of

herein petitioners is hereby sade

permanent; that the writs prayed fer

are granted, insefer ag the doeuments,

og ané other effeets sco seized in

aforementioned realdences are con-

ecernedy; x = x

Despite the conflicting decisions of the U. 8.

Supreme Court and cur Supreme Court as to the ad~

missibility of documentary evidences obtained by

an unreesonable, unwarranted, or unlawful search

ané seisure, it is now a settled doctrine in this

furisdietion that the illegality of the search

and seisure should first have been @ireetly

litigated in court and established by a petition

or original action before the illegality of the

search and seisure would be noticed in the sain

trial and the evidenee thus cbtained would be ex

eluded. This procedure was followed in the Mon- —

eado @Gase, gipra, as stated in the dissenting

opinion of Justice Perfecto, te wits

9 petitioner filed

The

with this Sopreme Court on Sugvat

10, 1946, a petition praying t

the lower court's order of July 9,

» be set eside, that said court

be required to order the return of

the documents and s in questien

te petitioner, and that the proseeutor

be restrained from using and prese

them as evidence at the trial of the

criminal case fer treason.

The precedure adverted te above was also

followed in the case of Harry &, Stonehill, gupra. |

In the said cise, our Supreme Court, among others,

93

DECISION « | ;

CTA CABE MC, 1855

19

eaids

oners filed with the Sunrene

OH, and prayed that, pending

nal digpesition ef the present case,

a writ of preliminary injunction be

issued restraining Respendant-

>poseeutors, tneir agents ané /or

representatives from using the

effects seised as aforementioned, or

any copies thereof, in the 4

tion eases already adverted to, and

that, in due course, there ’

decision be rendered quashing the

contested search warrants dec~

laring the same null and void, and

commanding the rea ents, their

agents or representatives to return

to petitioners ry in accordance

with Section 3, Rule 67, ef the Rules

ef Ceurt, the documents, papers, things

and eagh moneys seized or canfiscated

under the search warrants in question,

i? we were to adhere te the rule denying the

‘ admissibility of the evidence procured by an

illegal seareh and seizure, only the party con-

cerned mst interpese in court a timely challenge

te the validity ef the sclowe and the competency

ef the evidenee by weens of a petition or original

action. If upon such eaetion, the real party in

interest ean show in fact that the documentary

evidence was secured by an unlawful seareh and

seizure, the evidence will be suppressed as decided |

by our Supreme Court in the Stonehill case. In

the case at bar, however, neither the cwner of |

the vessel M/V JOLO ISMA nor the charterer there-

of, Mr. Tomas Velaseo, filed an action in court

DECISION~ . . ;

CTA CASE MO. 1855 [

2

tor the return of the various Indonesian dceunents,

| papers and records allegedly illegelly seized

from them and the suppression thereof as evidence.

Consequently, the suppression of the evidences

im question can not be entertained by this Court.)

We have carefully and @4ligently exanined the

evidences of record and the testimonies of the

witnesses of both parties. Ir sifting the .

evidence for respondent, we have not fonnd any

ground to diseredit then. We consider it quite

improbable that the raiding party, couposed ef

the combined team of agents of the MBI, PC, Rasac,

ané City Police of Davao, wenld fabricate and

conceet false testimonies against the petitioners

herein, The evidence does not show any plausible

motive for respondent's witnesses to falsify the

truth beeause they represent different arencies

of the government. From ail appearances, they

have no personal interest whatsoever over the

goods mubject of the forfeiture proceedings.

Besides, petitioners have net adduced any evidence

showing that they were enemies of the witnesses

for the government. In short, no iote of evidence

was ever presented by the petitioners te destroy

the integrity of the government witnesses end to

east a cloud of doubt on their teatimonies.

We found from the records that the evidences

@f respondent were strongly corroborated by the

‘ - 3s

DECISIGH «

CTA CASE NO, 1855

13

sworn statements of Capt. Aquilino iantineple

and the members of his crew (Exhs. Ni, N-1, i-2,

Nu}, Cy Py Put, P-2y Oy Ry 8 and f). While the

said sworn statenents were subsequently repudiated

or retracted by the officer and crew menbers of

the vessel, we believe that their evidentiary

value was net seriously impaired because the

recantation can always be expected from such

persons, who obvionsly have common cause and

interest with the eharterer of the vessel, Mre

Tomas Velasco, an attorney-in-feet of the herein

petitioners. | ;

The decision of the ‘ellector of Custens ef

Davao shows that a petitioner herein and at the

same time one of the claimants of the confiscated

copra and coffee beans, “ir. Ernesto Lozada, is

the Officer-in-Charge of the vessel M/V JOLO

IOMA. It is not surprising, therefore, that the

nembers of his crew repudiated their sworn state-

ments given te government agents.

Petitioners clained that the Indonesian doe

wsents and ether pertinent capers relative to the

eoore and coffee beans in question were illegally

taken by government scents. They also clained

that the search conducted by the raiding party ef

the hotel room (Skyreeu, Deveo City) ef “ir. Tomas

Velasco without & search werrant issued by the

er 96

. i +

ee a eget —_ ——