G.R. No. 180597 November 7, 2008
RAUL BASILIO D. BOAC, RAMON B. GOLONG, CESAR F. BELTRAN, and ROGER A. BASADRE, petitioners vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, all members of the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG), were charged with violating Section 2203 in relation to Section 3612 of the Tariff and Customs Code. The Information alleged that on or before July 27, 2004, in Cagayan de Oro City, they conspired and, without lawful authority or delegation from the Collector of Customs, willfully flagged down, searched, and seized three container vans consigned to Japan Trak Surplus (Kakiage Surplus). During pretrial, it was stipulated that petitioners, upon the order of petitioner Boac but without authority from or coordination with the Bureau of Customs (BOC), flagged down the three container vans in the evening of July 27, 2004. The vans were brought to the consignee’s warehouse, and the actual search was conducted on July 28, 2004. Atty. Lourdes V. Mangaoang, the Customs District Collector, testified that the CIDG operatives had no written authority from the Commissioner of Customs or the District Collector. Inspection of the vans, witnessed by BOC personnel, revealed no contraband. For the defense, Boac testified he was on leave in Manila on July 27, 2004, and acted on information from Beltran about possible contraband; he instructed Golong’s team to flag down the vans. After inspection found no contraband, Boac directed his team to leave. The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioners, ruling that as officers under Section 2203(d) of the Tariff and Customs Code, they needed written authority from the Collector of Customs to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests, which they lacked.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Resolution, acquitting petitioners. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioners actually conducted a search, seizure, or arrest as contemplated under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code. The evidence showed that petitioners only flagged down the container vans. The subsequent search on July 28, 2004, was conducted by employees of the consignee under the supervision of BOC personnel, with petitioners merely present as witnesses. No seizure or arrest was made. Since the acts of searching, seizing, or arresting are essential elements of the offense under Section 2203, and these were not proven, petitioners’ conviction cannot stand. The Court did not find it necessary to resolve the second assigned error regarding the need for prior authority from the Collector of Customs when flagging down the vans outside the BOC’s territorial jurisdiction, in light of the acquittal based on the first issue.