Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24170)
Facts:
Illuh Asaali, Hatib Abdrasid, Ingkoh Bantala, Basok Ingkin, and Mohammad Bantalla v. The Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L-24170. February 28, 1969, the Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners were the owners of five Philippine-registered sailing vessels and their cargoes, which the Commissioner of Customs declared forfeited for smuggling. On September 10, 1950, a customs patrol aboard Patrol Boat ST-23 intercepted the five vessels on the high seas between British North Borneo (Sandakan) and Sulu while the vessels were heading toward Tawi‑tawi, Sulu. Customs officers boarded and found 181 cases of “Herald” cigarettes, 9 cases of “Camel” cigarettes, and some pieces of rattan chairs. The vessels were less than thirty tons, Filipino‑owned and manned, had come from Sandakan, and did not carry permits from the Commissioner of Customs required by Section 1363(a) of the Revised Administrative Code nor import licenses under Republic Act No. 426 (Import Control Law).
The Commissioner seized and declared forfeited the vessels and cargo; petitioners challenged the seizure arguing lack of jurisdiction because the interception occurred on the high seas and asserting denial of due process. The Court of Tax Appeals, in an opinion by Associate Judge Augusto M. Luciano (November 19, 1964), found the facts uncontroverted, held the seizure valid under Section 1363(a) and RA 426, and sustained forfeiture. The case was brought to the Supreme Court in a petition for review of the Court of Tax Appeals’ decision; the Supreme Court affirmed in an opinion dated December 16, 1968. Petitioners filed a printed motion for reconsideration dated January 14, 1969, largely rearguing the jurisdictional and due process points; the present Resolution (February 28, 1969) denies that motion. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Commissioner of Customs have jurisdiction to intercept and seize the petitioners’ Philippine-registered vessels and cargo on the high seas?
- Did the seizure and forfeiture of the vessels and cargo deny petitioners due ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)