GR 24170; (December, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24170 December 16, 1968
Illuh Asaali, Hatib Abdurasid, Ingkoh Bantala, Basok Ingkin, and Mohammad Bantalla, petitioners, vs. The Commissioner of Customs, respondent.
FACTS
On September 10, 1950, a customs patrol team intercepted five Philippine-registered sailing vessels (kumpits) named ‘Iroc-Iroc,’ ‘Lahat-lahat,’ ‘Liberal Wing III,’ ‘Sulu Area Command,’ and ‘Business’ on the high seas between British North Borneo and Sulu while they were heading towards Tawi-tawi, Sulu. The vessels, all of less than thirty tons burden and owned and manned by Filipino residents of Sulu, came from Sandakan, British North Borneo. Upon boarding, customs officers found 181 cases of ‘Herald’ cigarettes, 9 cases of ‘Camel’ cigarettes, and some rattan chairs. The vessels did not possess a permit from the Commissioner of Customs to engage in importation into any port of the Sulu sea as required by Section 1363(a) of the Revised Administrative Code, and their cargoes were not covered by the required import license under Republic Act No. 426 (the Import Control Law). The Collector of Customs of Jolo declared the vessels and cargo forfeited, a decision affirmed by the respondent Commissioner of Customs and subsequently by the Court of Tax Appeals.
ISSUE
The principal issue is the validity of the interception, seizure, and forfeiture of the vessels and cargo by customs officials on the high seas, beyond Philippine territorial waters, on the grounds that importation had not yet begun and that the Bureau of Customs lacked jurisdiction.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, upholding the seizure and forfeiture. The Court ruled that:
1. The factual findings of the Court of Tax Appeals, supported by substantial evidence, are binding. The circumstances clearly indicated the vessels’ intent to import the goods into a Philippine port (Tawi-tawi) without the required permits and licenses.
2. The seizure on the high seas was valid. The vessels were of Philippine registry, and the state has the right under international law to protect itself and its revenues beyond its territorial limits, as established in Church v. Hubbart. The Revised Penal Code’s applicability to offenses on Philippine ships supports this authority.
3. There was no denial of due process. Petitioners were aware of the facts, and the seizure and forfeiture proceedings were conducted in accordance with law, specifically under Section 1363(a) and (f) of the Revised Administrative Code.
4. The repeal of Republic Act No. 426 did not abate the liability for forfeiture, as the proceedings were in rem and jurisdiction had already vested prior to the repeal. The expiration of the law did not nullify a forfeiture decree validly made during its effectivity.
The Court emphasized the government’s legitimate authority to combat smuggling and that the constitutional guaranty of due process should not be used to escape liability arising from clear violations of law.