GR 115218; (September, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115218 September 18, 1995
ANGEL O. RODRIGUEZ, EULOGIO O. RODRIGUEZ, JOSE O. RODRIGUEZ, and TOMAS NGO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Angel, Eulogio, Jose Rodriguez, and Tomas Ngo were charged with violating the Tariff and Customs Code. The prosecution established that a shipment of fabric consigned to Inter-Fashion, Inc. was released from the Manila International Port using a fraudulent Special Permit to Transfer. Instead of being delivered to the declared bonded warehouse in Cavite, the container was diverted to a residence in Quezon City. Customs agents, alerted by the missing shipment, traced the container.
The agents intercepted a delivery van driven by petitioners Angel and Jose Rodriguez, which was loaded with fabric from the diverted shipment. A subsequent search led to the discovery of more fabric at the Quezon City residence and at the Paranaque residence of petitioner Tomas Ngo. The fabric was seized, and petitioners were apprehended.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners are guilty of the crime of smuggling under Section 3602 in relation to Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
RULING
Yes, petitioners are guilty. The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts. The essential elements of the offense are present: the articles were imported into the Philippines; a fraudulent practice was employed to effect their entry; and the accused participated in that fraudulent practice. The fabric was unquestionably imported. Its entry was effected through the presentation of a fake permit, a clear fraudulent practice. The pivotal question was petitioners’ knowledge and participation.
The Court found petitioners’ claim of good faith—that they were merely helping a certain “Rolly” transport the goods—incredible. Their actions were inconsistent with innocence. They transported and stored a large volume of high-value fabric in residential areas late at night, never inquired about essential customs documents like tax receipts from their supposed principal, and failed to verify the legitimacy of the goods despite being engaged in the textile business. These circumstances overwhelmingly demonstrate conspiracy and conscious participation in the scheme to unlawfully import the goods without paying duties, constituting the crime of smuggling. The petition was denied.