G.R. No. 79307 August 29, 1989
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner, vs. THE HON. RAMON P. MAKASIAR, RTC Judge, Branch 35, Manila and THE DISTILLERS CO. LTD. OF ENGLAND, respondents.

FACTS

On December 8, 1978, authorities enforced search warrants issued by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila in related criminal cases, seizing goods, including Scotch whisky, suspected of being counterfeit “Johnnie Walker” from the premises of Hercules Bottling Co. The seized articles remained on-site under guard. Subsequently, on January 2, 1979, the Collector of Customs, upon learning the goods were imported contrary to law, issued a Warrant of Seizure and Detention, initiating forfeiture proceedings under the Tariff and Customs Code. The CFI later authorized the transfer of the goods to Customs custody, subject to conditions safeguarding them as evidence for the criminal cases. After the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the search warrants, both the criminal prosecution and the customs forfeiture proceedings resumed.
The private respondent, The Distillers Co. Ltd. of England, owner of the trademark, filed a petition for prohibition before the Regional Trial Court (Branch 35, Judge Makasiar) to halt the customs proceedings. It argued these proceedings would jeopardize the parallel criminal cases by potentially disposing of the vital evidence. The RTC granted the petition, declaring the customs warrant null for excess of jurisdiction and ordering the Bureau of Customs to desist from proceedings until final judgment in the criminal cases.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly prohibited the Bureau of Customs from conducting seizure and forfeiture proceedings over goods that are also subject matter and evidence in pending criminal cases.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the RTC decision. The Court clarified that the Collector of Customs acted within his jurisdiction in issuing the seizure warrant and initiating forfeiture proceedings. Jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases is vested exclusively in the Bureau of Customs by the Tariff and Customs Code, and such jurisdiction, once attached, continues until the case is finalized. The pendency of criminal cases in the regular courts does not divest the Bureau of this jurisdiction. The two proceedings are separate and independent, addressing different violations: the criminal cases deal with violations of the Revised Penal Code and other statutes, while the forfeiture case deals with a violation of the Tariff and Customs Code.
The perceived conflict between the two proceedings can be resolved through judicial comity and coordination, not by prohibiting one valid proceeding. Citing Government v. Gale, the Court ruled that where the subject goods are needed as evidence in another proceeding, the rules of orderly procedure forbid their disposition in a manner prejudicial to the other case. Therefore, the customs proceedings may continue, but the execution of any final decision (e.g., destruction or sale of the goods) must be coordinated. A representative quantity of the goods, agreed upon by customs and the prosecuting fiscals, must be set aside and retained in custodia legis as evidence for the criminal cases until their final resolution. The remainder may be disposed of according to the final decision in the forfeiture case. This balanced approach allows both proceedings to advance without frustrating the state’s ability to present evidence in the criminal prosecutions.