Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-12623 January 27, 1959
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
NICASIO GUIAO Y DAVID, defendant-appellee.
Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Camilo D. Quiason for appellant.
Garcia and Layug for appellee.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
On September 1, 1956, Nicasio Guiao y David was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with having violated Section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Section 1 of Republic Act No. 455, for having concealed in the back compartment of a car which he was driving "Sea Store cigarettes" consistingof three cartoons of king size Chesterfield, three cartoonsof CAmel, eight cartoons of regular size Chesterfield,seventeen loose packages of chesterfield and twenty loosepackages of Lucky Strike cigarettes "after the same have been imported, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law." On May 2, 1957, the accused filed a motion to quash on the ground that the facts alleged inthe information do not consitute on offense, which was opposed by the City Fiscal. On July 2, 1957, the courtgranted the motion and dismissed the case. The City Fiscal has appealed.
Section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Section 1 of Republic Act 455, provides:
Any person who shall fraudulently or knowingly import or bringinto the Philippines, or assist in so doing, any merchandise, contrarytoo law, or shall receive, conceal, buy, sell or in any mannerfacilitate the transportation, concelment, or sale of such merchandiseafter importation, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law, shall be punished by a fine of not less than six hundred pesos but not mre than five thousand pesos and by imprisonment for not less than three months nor more than two years and, if the offender is an alien, he may be subject to deportation.
It would appear that any person who knowingly imports a merchandise contrary to law, or conceals such merchandise knowing that it has been imported contrary to law, commits an offense which is punishable under the provisionof law above quoted. The trial court reached the conclusion that the information filed against the accused doesnot allege an offense because in its opinion he did not importthe ciegarettes found in his possession because theyare "Sea Store cigarettes" which were not imported withinthe meaning of the law, and the reason given by the court is as follows: "Such sea store cigarettes are for the use and consumption of the crew members of the vessel and not dutiable except the quantity in excess of the requuirementsfor the vessel . . . . They could not have been illegally or fraudulently imported and therefore the concealmentof such sea store cigarettes by the accused does not come within the penal sanction of Section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Section 1of Republic Act No. 455."
This reasoning is erroneous in the light of facts allegedin the information. We agree with the statementthat "Sea Store cigarettes" are not generally imported in the course of commercial transaction because they are brought by a vessel for the use and consumption of the members of its crew and are not for sale to the public, butthe situation hereinobtained in different; they are not only "Sea Store cigarettes" but wre brought to the Philippinesin a suspicious manner undboubtedly for profit and that is what appears in the information. Thus, it is therealleged that the accused fradulently or knowingly imported into the Philippines said "Sea Store cigarettes" concealed in the back compartment of his car "knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law." This is enough to constitute an offense. At least the information contains sufficient allegations to constitute such offense.The rest is a matter of evidence which may be presented when the case is tried on the merits. Evidently, the dismissalof the case is premature.
In a similar case where the chief steward of a foreignvessel moored at the port of Manila took 30 cases of foreign cigarettes from the vessel's store and unloaded them without paying the import taxes and sold them, and upon discovery of the sale the owner of the vessel was required to pay the import taxes due thereon, this Court, in rejecting the defense that those cigarettes were not imported within the meaning of the law, said:
But Tabacalera argues that the merchandise (a) had not been imported and (b) had not been imported by the shipowner. In support of its first propostion is alleges that the shipowner was never engaged in the sale or distribution in the Philippines of cigarettes. That is immaterial. Its agents and officers brought or allowed to be brought into the contrary these cigarettes belonging to it. Consequently, it imported them. To `import' is to bring intoa country merchandise from abroad. (Customs Duties, sec. 4, 25 C.J.S.) (See art. 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Republic Act No. 455.) In fact its master, actuallyacknowledged its liability for the importation (Exhibit 1).
Again it is alleged, there is no proof the cigarettes had been landed `for purposes of sale or consumption.' Surely they were notclandestinely introduced in Manila merely to be destroyed or dumped into the sea. The buyers paid good money for them either for resale or for their own consumption. (Compaņia General deTabacos de Filipinas, et al. vs. The Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-9071, January 31, 1957)
Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside. The case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. No costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
