Case Digest (G.R. No. 104604)
Facts:
The case involves Narciso O. Jao and Bernardo M. Empeynado as petitioners against several respondents, including the Court of Appeals, Commissioner of Customs, and various officials from the Bureau of Customs and the Makati Police. It encompasses two petitions: G.R. No. 104604 and G.R. No. 111223, which were consolidated by the Court on August 26, 1993 due to the similarities of the issues presented. The factual backdrop dates to August 10, 1990, when the Bureau of Customs received intelligence regarding untaxed vehicles and parts at premises owned by a certain Pat Hao in Paranaque and Makati. Major Jaime Maglipon, an officer in the Enforcement and Security Services of the Bureau, recommended the issuance of warrants of seizure and detention, which were granted on August 13, 1990. Customs officials, assisted by local police, attempted to execute these warrants at the specified locations. While they faced resistance at the Makati site, some officials managed to enter and discove
Case Digest (G.R. No. 104604)
Facts:
- Procedural History and Consolidation
- The case involves two consolidated petitions:
- G.R. No. 104604 – A petition for certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals’ decision that set aside orders of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 90-2382.
- G.R. No. 111223 – A petition for certiorari challenging the Ombudsman’s resolution dismissing a criminal complaint filed against Customs and police officials.
- Consolidation was effected on August 26, 1993 because both cases arose from the same set of facts.
- Facts Underlying the Seizure Proceedings
- On August 10, 1990, intelligence was received by the Office of the Director, Enforcement and Security Services (ESS) of the Bureau of Customs regarding the presence of allegedly untaxed vehicles and parts at two locations:
- A premises owned by a certain Pat Hao along Quirino Avenue, Paranaque.
- A location on Honduras Street, Makati.
- A surveillance operation was conducted at the two premises by ESS personnel.
- Based on the surveillance, respondent Major Jaime Maglipon, Chief of Operations and Intelligence of the ESS, recommended the issuance of warrants of seizure and detention.
- On August 13, 1990, District Collector of Customs Titus Villanueva issued the respective warrants and coordinated with local police for their execution.
- Execution of the warrants:
- At the Paranaque location, the warrant was executed without major incident.
- At the Makati location, access was initially denied, although some team members forced entry, which revealed articles not on the original list.
- On August 15, 1990, amended warrants were issued to cover the additional articles not originally included.
- Seizure of the articles commenced on August 25, 1990, as customs personnel began hauling items based on the amended warrants.
- Civil and Criminal Proceedings Initiated by Petitioners
- Civil Case Initiation:
- Petitioners Narciso Jao and Bernardo Empeynado filed a case for Injunction and Damages (Civil Case No. 90-2382) on August 27, 1990.
- The Regional Trial Court of Makati Branch 56 issued a Temporary Restraining Order and subsequently granted a preliminary injunction on November 29, 1990, which included:
- Prohibiting further seizure, detention, transportation, and sale of petitioners’ properties located in Makati and Paranaque.
- Ordering the return of the seized items and an accounting thereof.
- Respondents filed motions to dismiss on the basis of lack of jurisdiction (arguing that the Bureau of Customs had exclusive jurisdiction) and later a motion for reconsideration, which were denied.
- The Court of Appeals set aside the trial court’s orders and dismissed Civil Case No. 90-2382.
- Criminal Complaint Initiation:
- Petitioners also filed criminal charges with the Ombudsman (G.R. No. 111223) alleging:
- Violation of domicile and robbery, in connection with the entry and seizure operations from August 11, 1990, to August 25, 1990.
- Violation of Republic Act No. 3019.
- The allegations included claims that respondents, posing as Meralco inspectors, unlawfully entered their premises and, under a warrant, seized various items without issuing proper receipts.
- Respondents countered:
- Arguing that the locations concerned were warehouses, not dwellings—thus negating a charge for violation of domicile.
- Insisting that the seizures were lawful since they were executed under the authority of seizure and detention warrants.
- Claiming that no robbery occurred as the complainants were not the rightful owners and that the seizures were part of collecting customs duties.
- Following a preliminary investigation and subsequent hearings, the Ombudsman recommended dismissal of the case for lack of merit. The petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Issues:
- Jurisdictional Questions
- Whether Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs.
- Whether the issuance of a second warrant of seizure for items previously seized (and subsequently released following amnesty payments) was within the powers of the Collector of Customs.
- Whether the seizure conducted by the Customs officials deprived the petitioners of their properties without due process of law.
- Legal and Procedural Grounds
- Whether the Bureau of Customs lost jurisdiction to order seizure after the importation had ceased.
- Whether petitioners were required to exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to judicial relief.
- Criminal Allegations
- Whether the conduct of the respondents in entering and searching the premises constituted a violation of domicile and robbery.
- Whether there was a ground for liability under Republic Act No. 3019 given the disputed facts and admitted defenses.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)