Case Digest (G.R. No. 243517)
Facts:
The case revolves around G.R. No. 243517, where petitioner Danilo L. Opiniano filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari against the People of the Philippines regarding his conviction under Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines. The events date back to March 1-6, 2007, when an Information charged Opiniano and co-accused Elenor Tan for misdeclaring the weight of a wheat flour shipment intended for Aiko Shine Fabric. The Information stated that the shipment of 4,600 bags was falsely declared at 40,000 kgs when its actual weight was 115,000 kgs. This misrepresentation resulted in the payment of only P99,521.00 in duties instead of the correct amount of P274,539.00.
When arraigned, both accused pleaded not guilty. During the trial, Atty. Marlon Agaceta, a key witness from the Bureau of Customs, testified regarding his investigation into the matter. The shipment, having arrived at the Port of Manila from China, was approved for clearance based on the submitte
...Case Digest (G.R. No. 243517)
Facts:
In 2007, an Information was filed before the RTC charging customs broker Danilo L. Opiniano and co-accused Elenor Tan with violation of Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines. The case centered on the importation of 4,600 bags of wheat flour by Aiko Shine Fabric, wherein the shipment’s weight was falsely declared: the IEIRD, supported by the bill of lading, commercial invoice, and packing list, stated a net weight of 8.7 kg per bag (totaling 40,000 kgs), whereas the actual weight was 25 kg per bag (totaling 115,000 kgs). This misdeclaration resulted in an underpayment of customs duties and taxes (P99,521.00 paid instead of the legally due P274,539.00). After the discrepancy was detected by the Bureau of Customs’ Industry Commodity Experts, a seizure proceeding was initiated. During the investigation and subsequent trial, Opiniano testified that he processed the import entry and relied on the documents provided by the importer, while he later informed the consignee of the misdeclaration. Notably, after the seizure, Opiniano did not pursue recomputation of duties but sought the tentative release of the shipment to avoid additional charges and demurrage costs.Issues:
The central issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Opiniano’s conviction for violation of Section 3602 of the TCCP. More specifically, the case turns on whether the prosecution successfully established the third essential element of the offense—namely, the intent to evade the payment of duties and taxes—beyond a mere procedural misdeclaration.Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)