GR L 38271; (October, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-38271 October 28, 1974
RAMON RAMOS, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL R. PAMARAN, Presiding Judge, Circuit Criminal Court of Manila, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and JOSE GAMBOA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ramon Ramos, Jr. sought to set aside an order of the Circuit Criminal Court denying his motion to quash an information for smuggling under Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code. The information alleged that between July 29 and September 12, 1966, Ramos and a co-accused conspired to fraudulently import 2,500 metric tons of ammonium sulphate without the required import entry and without paying duties and taxes, with the merchandise valued at over P150,000. The motion to quash was grounded on prescription, duplicity, and failure of the facts to constitute an offense.
Ramos argued the charge had prescribed, contending the offense was essentially non-payment of duties and taxes, subject to a five-year prescriptive period under tax laws or Article 1149 of the Civil Code. He also claimed the information was duplicitous for charging two distinct offenses (non-payment of customs duties and non-payment of taxes) and that it alleged no offense because fertilizer was not a prohibited item and was allegedly exempt from duties.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the information for smuggling.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On prescription, the Court ruled the charge was for unlawful importation (smuggling) under Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code, a special law. As the Code itself did not provide a prescriptive period, Act No. 3326 , Section 1(d) applied, setting a twelve-year period for offenses punishable by imprisonment of six years or more. Since the alleged violation carried a penalty of eight years and one day to twelve years, the information filed in 1972 for acts in 1966 was within the prescriptive period. Article 1149 of the Civil Code governs civil, not criminal, actions.
On duplicity, the Court held the information charged only one offense—smuggling under Section 3601. The references to non-payment of duties and taxes were incidental allegations describing how the importation was unlawful, not separate charges. The heading and body of the information explicitly cited the single provision on unlawful importation.
Finally, on the sufficiency of the allegations, the Court stated that a motion to quash on this ground hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged. The information clearly alleged elements of smuggling: fraudulent importation without the required entry and without payment of duties. Whether the prosecution could prove these allegations, including whether the fertilizer was exempt, was a matter for trial. The denial of the motion to quash was thus proper, and the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition were unavailable as appeal was the adequate remedy.