G.R. No. L-42540. November 15, 1982.
Victor Nepomuceno and Carlos Nepomuceno, petitioners, vs. Hon. Juan B. Montecillo, as Presiding Judge of Branch III, Court of First Instance of Quezon at Gumaca; Hon. Dante M. Diamante, as the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon; Hon. Felix B. Marasigan, as Assistant Provincial Fiscal, Gumaca, Quezon; and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were prosecuted for smuggling 30,000 cartons of blue seal cigarettes under the Tariff and Customs Code. Pending trial, they filed a motion to dismiss, claiming they had availed of amnesty under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 370. The respondent judge denied the motion, ruling that the case fell under P.D. No. 80, a separate amnesty decree for liabilities from importation, which expressly excludes from its coverage tax violators with pending criminal cases and articles subject to unpaid specific tax.
Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the orders denying their motion to dismiss and to restrain the trial. This Court issued a temporary restraining order against further proceedings in the criminal case.

ISSUE

Whether the criminal case for smuggling against the petitioners has been extinguished by their alleged availment of amnesty under P.D. No. 370.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The criminal case has not been extinguished. The legal logic is clear from the distinct scopes of the applicable amnesty decrees. P.D. No. 370 grants amnesty for the non-payment of national internal revenue taxes on previously untaxed income or wealth, condoning liabilities arising from such non-payment. In contrast, liabilities from importation and non-payment of customs duties are governed by a separate legal regime, initially by P.D. No. 53 and later by P.D. No. 80.
P.D. No. 80, which specifically covers importation delinquencies, explicitly excludes from its benefits two categories: (1) articles subject to specific tax where such tax has not been paid, and (2) violators with pending criminal, civil, or administrative cases. The petitioners’ case, involving smuggled cigarettes (articles subject to specific tax) and a pending criminal prosecution, squarely falls under both exclusions. Therefore, even under P.D. No. 80, they are not entitled to amnesty. Assuming arguendo that P.D. No. 370 could apply, petitioners still fail to qualify as they could not make a “voluntary disclosure” of the smuggled items, which had already been discovered by authorities, and their alleged tax payment did not conform to the decree’s requirement of 15% on the untaxed income or wealth. The respondent judge committed no grave abuse of discretion. The temporary restraining order is lifted, and the trial court is ordered to proceed.