G.R. No. L-11947; June 30, 1959
Venancio Carreon Tong Tek, et al., petitioners, vs. The Commissioner of Customs, respondent.

FACTS

On October 8, 1954, at Pier 9 in Manila, Port Policeman Felipe de Guzman, after allowing petitioners Venancio Carreon Tong Tek, Juanito Tong, and George Tong (an American President Lines employee) to enter with passes to visit the “S.S. President Cleveland,” later stopped Venancio and Juanito upon their exit due to their suspicious gait. They refused a search but were taken to the Port Patrol Headquarters, where a search revealed four canvas belts tied around their waists containing 138 gold bars (weighing 97,290 grams, valued at P470,760.00). The gold was confiscated and turned over to the National Treasurer. Seizure proceedings (Manila Seizure Identification No. 2040) were instituted in the Bureau of Customs, and a criminal case (Crim. Case No. 30216) was filed against Venancio and Juanito for attempted violation of Central Bank Circular Nos. 21 and 42. The Court of First Instance found them guilty, but the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, ruling that under the Circulars, only consummated offenses are punishable. In the seizure proceedings, the Acting Collector of Customs ordered the forfeiture of the gold, a decision affirmed by the Acting Commissioner of Customs and later by the Court of Tax Appeals, which upheld the forfeiture under Section 1363-(f) and (m-1) of the Revised Administrative Code. Petitioners seek review of this decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether Central Bank Circular Nos. 20, 21, and 42 are valid.
2. Whether gold bars are subject to forfeiture under Section 1363 of the Revised Administrative Code.
3. Whether the Court of Tax Appeals erred in upholding the forfeiture order.
4. Whether petitioners’ acquittal in the criminal action bars the forfeiture proceeding.

RULING

1. Yes, the Central Bank Circulars are valid. The Court, citing People vs. William Ernest Jolliffe, held that Circular No. 20, which restricts gold and foreign exchange transactions and requires Central Bank licensing, was approved by the President as required by Section 74 of Republic Act No. 265 (the Central Bank Act). Circular No. 20 also authorized the issuance of further implementing regulations. Therefore, Circular Nos. 21 and 42, issued subsequently to implement Circular No. 20, bear the stamp of presidential sanction, and their validity is upheld.
2. Yes, gold bars are subject to forfeiture under Section 1363 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that “merchandise of prohibited exportation” under Section 1363(f) refers only to articles specifically enumerated in the Tariff Act of 1909. The Revised Administrative Code is general legislation intended to cover conditions arising after its enactment. Since the exportation of gold without a Central Bank license was prohibited under the valid Circulars, the gold bars became “merchandise of prohibited exportation” under Section 1363(f). Furthermore, Section 1363(m-1) subjects to forfeiture any merchandise whose exportation is attempted “without going through a customhouse,” which applies to petitioners’ act of attempting to take the gold out of the pier area without declaring it at a customhouse.
3. No, the Court of Tax Appeals did not err in upholding the forfeiture order. The forfeiture was justified under Section 1363(f) and (m-1). The attempt to export the gold without a license and without going through a customhouse rendered the merchandise subject to forfeiture. The fact that the attempt was frustrated and did not result in a consummated exportation is immaterial, as the forfeiture provisions specifically cover attempted violations.
4. No, petitioners’ acquittal in the criminal action does not bar the forfeiture proceeding. The criminal case was based on an alleged violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 21 and 42, under which the Court of Appeals acquitted petitioners because only consummated offenses are punishable. In contrast, the forfeiture proceeding is based on Section 1363 of the Revised Administrative Code, which explicitly includes attempted exportation as a ground for forfeiture. Since the legal provisions and required elements differ, acquittal under the Circulars does not preclude forfeiture under the Administrative Code.
The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is affirmed.