GR L 3281; (June, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3281; June 28, 1951
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. 259 PIECES OF JEWELRY (TRANQUILINO ROVERO, claimant), defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On April 25, 1947, Tranquilino Rovero arrived at the Manila International Airport from Bangkok. In his baggage declaration, he listed eight pieces of baggage, including a Chinese vase valued at fifteen pesos. After partial examination and payment of duties, some baggage, including the vase, was left for inspection the next day. On April 26, 1947, customs agents, suspecting the vase due to its unusually thick bottom, cracked it open and discovered a hidden tin can containing 259 pieces of jewelry appraised at P23,736. Rovero learned of the discovery on April 28, 1947, when he returned to the Bureau of Customs. Due to his failure to declare the jewels, the Collector of Customs ordered their seizure and imposed a fine equal to three times their appraised value, pursuant to Section 1292 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Court of First Instance of Manila affirmed this decision, prompting Rovero’s appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Collector of Customs correctly ordered the seizure of the jewelry and imposed a fine equal to three times its appraised value under Section 1292 of the Revised Administrative Code, despite Rovero’s claims of inadvertence, constitutional violation against excessive fines, and double jeopardy.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment. Rovero’s failure to declare the jewelry was fraudulent, as his excuse of fear of being held up was implausible; he could have disclosed the jewels and requested delayed inspection. Section 1292 of the Revised Administrative Code specifically authorizes seizure and a fine of treble the value for undeclared articles, unless the failure is without fraud, which was not established. The Court rejected Rovero’s arguments: (1) American decisions cited require timely disclosure, which he did not make; (2) Section 1321 on abandonment is inapplicable as it refers to declared merchandise; (3) the fine under Section 1292 is explicitly permitted and not excessive; and (4) the proceeding is civil in nature, distinct from any criminal liability, thus not placing him in double jeopardy. Costs were imposed against Rovero.