JOSE T VIDUYA, as collector of Customs of the Port of Manila
petitioner, vs. EDUARDO BERDIAGO alias EDUARDO BERTIAGO; and HON. ANDRES REYES,
as Presiding Judge of Branch VI, Court of First Instance of Rizal, respondents.G.R. No. L-29218. October 29, 1976.
FACTS:
Fraudulent documents were used by respondent Berdiago in
securing the release from the Bureau of Customs of a Rolls Royce car, Model
1966, 2 door, Hardtop with Motor No. CRX 1379, which arrived in the Port of
Manila on January 8, 1968. It was made
to appear that such car was a 1961 model instead of a 1966 one, thus enabling
respondent to pay a much lower customs duty in the amount of P3,255.00, when
the correct amount due was P219,783.00.
A formal demand for the payment of the sum to cover the
deficiency was sent to the respondent with respondent manifesting his
willingness to do so but failing to live up to his promise. This led to Seizure
Identification Case No. 10941 against the car.
As it was kept in a dwelling house at the Yabut Compound,
Wakas, Barrio San Dionisio, Parañaque, Rizal, 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, pursuant to Section 2209 of the Tariff and Customs Code; he
issued the search warrant on May 30, 1968.
On June 3, 1968, Berdiago filed an urgent motion to quash
the same. An opposition to said motion to quash was filed by petitioner, based
on the allegation of a violation of Section 2209 of the Tariff and Customs
Code. It was moreover pointed out that respondent 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 warrant. Hence
this petition.
ISSUE:
WON respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion
when he ordered to quash the issued search warrant
RULING:
The answer filed by respondents was on the primacy of the
immunity the Constitution guarantees against an unreasonable search and
seizure. More specifically, it was contended with vigor and plausibility that
respondent Judge quashed the search warrant on a showing of lack of probable
cause, a requirement not only of the Constitution but of the Rules of Court 7
and the Tariff and Customs Code. While no objection could validly be raised
against such a proposition, it cannot apply to this controversy. It is undoubted
that prior to the issuance of a search warrant, there was a previous discovery
of the failure to pay the correct amount of customs duties. That was probable
cause enough. It let to the institution of a seizure and forfeiture proceeding.
Moreover, the law has always looked with disfavor on attempts at nonpayment or
underpayment of customs duties. It is essential that no undue obstacle be
placed on intensive efforts to assure the collection of what is properly due
the government.
Comments
Post a Comment