Case Digest (G.R. No. 62636)
Facts:
The case involves the Acting Commissioner of Customs as the petitioner and Charles Joseph Andrulis as the respondent. The events transpired on February 20, 1980, when Andrulis, who claimed to be an American businessman engaged in joint ventures with Filipino counterparts, arrived in Manila and checked into the Century Park Sheraton Hotel. On February 22, 1980, he left the hotel without settling his bill of P2,000.00. The hotel’s Chief Security Officer, Col. Felix Zerrudo, alerted Customs authorities about Andrulis's intention to abscond. At the Manila International Airport (MIA), Customs officials sought Andrulis among passengers boarding Philippine Airlines Flight No. 501 to Singapore. In an attempt to evade capture, Andrulis locked himself in the airplane's comfort room and, during negotiations, slipped out US$300.00. Eventually, he surrendered his luggage, which contained various foreign currencies: US$59,639.00, 53,100 Indonesian Rupiah, and Singapore $308.00.
A...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 62636)
Facts:
Background and Incident
- On February 20, 1980, Charles Joseph Andrulis, an American businessman, arrived in Manila and checked into the Century Park Sheraton Hotel.
- On February 22, 1980, Andrulis attempted to leave the hotel without paying his bill of P2,000.00.
- Col. Felix Zerrudo, the hotel's Chief Security Officer, alerted Customs authorities about Andrulis' intention to abscond.
- At the Manila International Airport (MIA), Customs authorities found Andrulis on board Philippine Airlines Flight No. 501 bound for Singapore.
- Andrulis locked himself in the airplane's restroom and attempted to dispose of US$300.00 by slipping it through an opening.
- Upon surrendering, Andrulis' luggage was inspected, revealing US$59,639.00, 53,100 Indonesian Rupiah, and Singapore $308.00.
Legal Proceedings
- A criminal charge was filed against Andrulis for violating Central Bank Circular No. 534 in relation to RA 265 (Central Bank Charter).
- On March 10, 1980, the Assistant City Fiscal dismissed the charge due to lack of evidence proving that the currencies were not brought into the country by Andrulis.
- Customs authorities initiated seizure proceedings (Seizure Identification No. 4162-80) for the foreign currencies.
- Andrulis submitted an affidavit claiming ownership of the currencies and relied on the dismissal of the criminal charge as evidence of no violation.
- The Acting District Collector of Customs ruled on June 3, 1980, that Andrulis violated Central Bank Circular No. 534 and ordered the forfeiture of the currencies.
- Andrulis appealed to the Acting Commissioner of Customs, who affirmed the decision.
- Andrulis then appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), which reversed the forfeiture decision on June 30, 1982, citing the legal presumption of ownership in favor of the possessor.
Key Evidence
- Andrulis' affidavit claiming ownership of the currencies.
- Certifications and affidavits from hotel officials showing Andrulis' history of unpaid bills.
- Customs officers' sworn statements detailing the seizure of the currencies.
Issue:
- Who bears the burden of proof in seizure or forfeiture proceedings under the Tariff and Customs Code?
- Whether Andrulis' acquittal in the criminal case bars the forfeiture proceedings.
- Whether Andrulis sufficiently proved that the foreign currencies were brought into the Philippines by him and fell under the exception for tourists under Central Bank Circular No. 534.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals and reinstated the Acting Commissioner of Customs' decision, ordering the forfeiture of the foreign currencies in favor of the government.
Ratio:
- Burden of Proof in Forfeiture Proceedings: Under Section 2535 of the Tariff and Customs Code, the burden of proof lies on the claimant (Andrulis) to show that the seized property is not subject to forfeiture. Probable cause for the seizure was established when Andrulis failed to produce Central Bank authorization for the foreign currencies.
- Acquittal in Criminal Case Not a Bar to Forfeiture: Forfeiture proceedings are in rem (against the property) and are independent of criminal proceedings in personam (against the person). Thus, Andrulis' acquittal in the criminal case does not preclude the forfeiture of the currencies.
- Failure to Prove Legitimacy of Currencies: Andrulis failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the foreign currencies were brought into the Philippines by him and fell under the exception for tourists under Central Bank Circular No. 534. His bare assertion of ownership and intent to invest was uncorroborated and lacked supporting documentation.
- Superseding Central Bank Regulations: The requirement for Central Bank authorization to take foreign currencies out of the Philippines, as per Resolution No. 1412, supersedes the earlier Resolution No. 594, which eliminated currency declarations for incoming and outgoing passengers.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that Andrulis failed to meet the burden of proof required in forfeiture proceedings. The forfeiture of the foreign currencies was justified under the Tariff and Customs Code and Central Bank regulations.