G.R. Nos. 145422-23; January 18, 2002
ERWIN C. REMIGIO, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, Fourth Division, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Erwin C. Remigio, a licensed customs broker, filed Import Entry No. 72259-88 for a shipment consigned to Borham Trading, declared as 25,000 kgs. of Sodium Bicarbonate. Customs examiner Arthur Sevilla, Jr. conducted an examination, noted 1000 bags of the declared product, and recommended further verification. After duties and taxes of ₱22,972 were paid, the shipment was released. It was later intercepted by EIIB agents. A subsequent inventory at Camp Aguinaldo revealed the container held only 185 bags of sodium bicarbonate alongside a vast array of undeclared goods, including vehicles, electronics, and fabrics. The correct duties were assessed at over ₱1.6 million. Investigation revealed the consignee’s address was non-existent.
The Sandiganbayan convicted Remigio of violating Section 3602 in relation to Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code (smuggling) and sentenced him to imprisonment, a fine, and license revocation. It found he conspired with the customs examiner to defraud the government by filing an entry based on false documents, enabling the underpayment of duties. Remigio appealed, arguing the evidence failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner Erwin C. Remigio of the crime of smuggling under the Tariff and Customs Code.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s decision and acquitted Remigio. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of smuggling under Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code beyond reasonable doubt. For liability to attach, the law requires that a person fraudulently facilitate the importation of articles contrary to law, or facilitate their transport knowing them to be illegally imported. The Court found no evidence that Remigio participated in the actual fraudulent importation or had knowledge of the smuggling scheme.
His role was limited to preparing and filing the import entry based on the shipping documents provided by the foreign shipper. The Court, citing Farolan v. Court of Tax Appeals, emphasized that the fraud contemplated by law must be actual and intentional, not merely constructive. Remigio’s reliance on the submitted documents constituted good faith. The Court noted the irony that the customs examiner, who failed in his duty to conduct a proper examination, was acquitted, while Remigio was convicted for acts that did not constitute a statutory offense. His conviction was based on a misapplication of the law.