View full case

ANGEL O. RODRIGUEZ v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition to review the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in a criminal case against Angel, Eulogio, Jose Rodriguez, and Tomas Ngo. They were charged with violating the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines by attempting to make an entry of imported goods without properly declaring them and paying the corresponding duties. Two other accused, Manuel Pena and Alfredo Fiesta, were also charged but Pena died before the case was filed and Fiesta was at large.

According to the prosecution's evidence, a container van containing cotton dyed fabric arrived at the Manila International Port and was consigned to "Philippine Inter-Fashion, Inc." Eulogio Rodriguez, who resided in the same compound as Manuel Pena, transferred the cargo to their compound after it got stalled in a truck. The next day, the petitioners, along with Tomas Ngo, transported some of the textile to Paranaque. However, they were intercepted by Customs agents, and the textile was found in their delivery van. Upon further investigation, the agents discovered a room behind Pena's house filled with similar textile. Pena claimed that the textile belonged to someone named "Rolly" and that he was temporarily keeping it until it could be delivered. The Customs agents then went to Ngo's residence and found rolls of the same textile in his warehouse. It was also revealed that the container van, from which the textile was taken, did not belong to the consignee and was released from the port with forged documents.

The Rodriguez brothers and Ngo claimed that they were helping transport the textile for "Rolly" and that they believed the customs duties and taxes had already been paid. However, the trial court found them guilty of violating customs laws and sentenced them to pay a fine and imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, leading the accused to file a petition arguing their innocence as substitute truckers and alleging errors by the lower court in convicting them.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused-appellants were merely innocent substitute truckers and an innocent prospective buyer of the textile goods.

  2. Whether the alleged fake special permit to transfer appeared genuine.

  3. Whether the petitioners can be convicted for the unlawful importation and facilitation of the smuggled textile.

  4. Whether the petitioners' possession of the smuggled textile is sufficient to authorize conviction.

  5. Whether the petitioners' claim of good faith and lack of knowledge of the origin of the textile can be given credence.

  6. Whether the petitioners have successfully rebutted the presumption that they were engaged in smuggling.

RULING:

  1. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision and found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Sections 3601 and 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code. They were sentenced to pay a fine of P8,000.00 and to suffer imprisonment for an indeterminate period of eight (8) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum.

  2. Yes, the petitioners can be convicted for the unlawful importation and facilitation of the smuggled textile. The textile was passed through the Customs house and released by means of a Special Permit to Transfer, which was later found to have forged signatures. The fraudulent entry of the textile falls under Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code, making it punishable under Section 3601 of the Code.

  3. Yes, the petitioners' possession of the smuggled textile is sufficient to authorize conviction. The burden of proof shifted to the petitioners to rebut the presumption of their engagement in smuggling. However, they failed to sufficiently explain how they came into possession of the smuggled textile. Their version of their participation was self-serving and lacked credibility. Therefore, their possession of the textile is considered sufficient evidence for conviction under the last paragraph of Section 3601 of the Code.

  4. The Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petitioners' claim of good faith and lack of knowledge of the origin of the textile cannot be given credence. The court also found that the petitioners have failed to rebut the presumption that they were engaged in smuggling at the time they were apprehended.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Smuggling is committed by any person who fraudulently imports or brings into the Philippines any article contrary to law, or who receives, conceals, buys, sells, or facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such article after importation, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law. (Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code)

  • Various fraudulent practices against customs revenue, such as making false or fraudulent entries, knowingly effecting entries at lower weights or measures, and making false claims for drawback or refund of duties, are punishable under Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code.

  • Importation begins when the carrying vessel or aircraft enters the jurisdiction of the Philippines with intention to unload and is terminated upon payment of duties and other charges or when the articles legally leave the jurisdiction of the customs.

  • The act of facilitating the transportation, concealment, or sale of unlawfully imported articles must be done with knowledge that the article was smuggled.

  • The term "entry" in customs law has a triple meaning: the documents filed at the Customs house, the submission and acceptance of the documents, and the procedure of passing goods through the Customs house.

  • The receipt, concealment, sale, purchase, or facilitation thereof after unlawful importation, with knowledge that the goods are smuggled, is punishable under Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code.

  • Possession of smuggled articles after importation is sufficient to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains their possession to the satisfaction of the court.

  • Hearsay evidence, such as testimony of a witness about what they heard other persons say about certain facts in dispute, cannot be admitted.

  • Evidence, to be believed, must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself as when it conforms to the common experience and observation of mankind.