G.R. No. L-38271 - Ramos, Jr. vs. Pamaran

Ramon Ramos, Jr. filed special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition.
The actions were directed against the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila, the People of the Philippines, and Jose Gamboa.
The petition sought to set aside Judge Manuel R. Pamaran’s order dated December 21, 1973, which denied Ramos’s motion to quash the information.

Ramos was charged with unlawful importation (smuggling) of ammonium sulphate (fertilizer).
The information alleged that, between July 29, 1966, and September 12, 1966, Ramos and co-accused engaged in fraudulent importation of 2,500 metric tons of ammonium sulphate contained in 55,000 bags.
The merchandise, valued at more than ₱150,000.00, was imported without a proper entry, thereby evading customs regulations and the payment of related duties and taxes.

The charge was primarily based on Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code (Republic Act No. 1937, as amended by Republic Act No. 4712).
The information detailed that if, upon trial, the defendant is shown to have had possession of the unlawfully imported article, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence for a conviction, unless properly explained to the satisfaction of the court.
Ramos’s offense was characterized as smuggling or unlawful importation, with incidental reference to the nonpayment of customs duties and taxes.

Ramos contended that the charge for fraudulent importation was effectively an indictment for nonpayment of customs duties and internal revenue taxes.
He argued that the prescriptive period for offenses under the Tax Code is five years, and, by drawing an analogy with Article 1149 of the Civil Code, he claimed the offense had prescribed by the time the information was filed (December 14, 1972).
Ramos maintained that the information was duplicitous by charging two distinct offenses – nonpayment of duties and nonpayment of taxes – alongside unlawful importation.
Lastly, he argued that the factual allegations did not amount to an offense because fertilizer is not a prohibited item and, in his view, is exempt from duties and taxes.

Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code specifically punishes unlawful importation (smuggling).
For offenses under special laws like the Tariff and Customs Code, Act No. 3326 (as amended by Act No. 3763) provides that, unless stated otherwise, such offenses prescribe in twelve years for offenses punishable by imprisonment for six years or more.
The petitioner’s reliance on a five-year period, as provided in the Tax Code and analogized from the Civil Code, was inconsistent with the prescribed period for the offense charged.

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Ramos’s motion to quash the information.

The issue centers on whether the denial amounted to a lack of jurisdiction by the lower court.

Whether the offense of unlawful importation, as charged under Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code, had already prescribed.

This involves determining the appropriate prescriptive period, i.e., whether the twelve-year period applies instead of the five-year period argued by Ramos.

Whether the information was duplicitous by charging what Ramos asserted were two distinct offenses (nonpayment of duties and nonpayment of taxes) in addition to unlawful importation.

The issue includes an assessment of whether such dual charging is legally improper or merely a misinterpretation of the factual basis.

Whether the facts alleged in the information are sufficient to constitute the offense of unlawful importation, considering the petitioner’s contention that fertilizer is an exempt item.

This raises the question of whether the lack of an import entry and the specifics of the charge adequately establish the commission of a smuggling offense.