G.R. No. L-29218 October 29, 1976
JOSE T. VIDUYA, as collector of Customs of the Port of Manila, petitioner, vs. EDUARDO BERDIAGO alias EDUARDO BERTIAGO; and HON. ANDRES REYES, as Presiding Judge of Branch VI, Court of First Instance of Rizal, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose T. Viduya, the Collector of Customs of Manila, initiated seizure and forfeiture proceedings against a Rolls Royce car imported by private respondent Eduardo Berdiago. Intelligence revealed that Berdiago used fraudulent documents to declare the 1966 model vehicle as a 1961 model, enabling him to pay only P3,255.00 in duties instead of the correct amount of P219,783.00. After a formal demand for payment went unheeded, customs agents applied for and were granted a search warrant by respondent Judge Andres Reyes to seize the car from a dwelling house in Parañaque, Rizal, pursuant to Section 2209 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Berdiago filed an urgent motion to quash the warrant, which the respondent Judge granted, prompting Viduya to file this certiorari and mandamus proceeding, arguing the quashal constituted grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the search warrant issued for the seizure of the imported vehicle in the enforcement of customs laws.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding grave abuse of discretion in the quashal of the search warrant. The legal logic is anchored on the settled doctrine that customs authorities possess broad powers to assess, collect revenues, and prevent fraud upon customs. Importation is deemed terminated only upon full payment of duties, and until then, the goods remain under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs. The Court, citing Papa v. Mago, emphasized that the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures must be balanced against the government’s compelling interest in enforcing customs laws and preventing evasion of duties. Here, probable cause was sufficiently established prior to the warrant’s issuance through reliable intelligence of fraudulent misdeclaration, which led to a formal seizure proceeding. The existence of this administrative probable cause for the seizure satisfied the constitutional requirement, rendering the search warrant a valid procedural tool to implement the seizure order. The Court held that the respondent Judge’s order quashing the warrant unduly obstructed the customs enforcement mechanism, especially since the vehicle was subject to forfeiture. The ruling reinforces that in customs cases, where there is prior evidence of violation justifying a seizure, the issuance of a warrant to locate and secure the property is a ministerial enforcement act, not an unconstitutional search.