Case Summary (G.R. No. 243517)
Key Dates
Arrival of shipment: March 16, 2007.
Declaration filed: April 12, 2007.
Warrant of Seizure and Detention issued: April 26, 2007.
RTC Decision convicting Opiniano and acquitting Tan: December 9, 2015.
CA Decision affirming RTC: May 7, 2018; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: December 12, 2018.
Supreme Court decision: December 5, 2022.
Applicable Law and Legal Standards
Primary statute charged: Section 3602, TCCP (proscribes various fraudulent practices against customs revenue; penalizes intentional misdeclaration, undervaluation, or other false practices to evade duties).
Related statutory provisions relied upon in analysis: Section 2503, TCCP (surcharge regime for undervaluation/misdeclaration and prima facie evidence threshold); Section 1301, TCCP (who may make import entry and effect of importer’s sworn statements); Section 2301 and Section 2305, TCCP (warrant for detention, release upon cash bond, description and appraisal of seized property).
Relevant administrative guidance and professional regulation: Sample IEIRD form (certification language), RA 9280 (Customs Brokers Act of 2004) — Section 27 on acts constituting the practice of customs brokers (customs broker signs import/export entry declarations under oath based on covering documents submitted by importers).
Jurisprudential precedent cited: Remigio v. Sandiganbayan (2002) — a decision holding that a customs broker is not required to go beyond documents presented to him in filing an entry.
Factual Background of the Shipment and Declaration
A single 5x20 container shipment of 4,600 bags of wheat flour arrived from China aboard Conti Germany V 703S. The IEIRD filed by Aiko Shine Fabric through Opiniano declared 4,600 bags with net weight 40,000 kgs (8.7 kg per bag) and declared duties and taxes of P99,521.00. Physical examination and ICE report showed bags marked “wheat 25 kgs net” per bag, yielding an actual total weight of approximately 115,000 kgs. The discrepancy was approximately 75,000 kgs or 65%, and the correct duties and taxes were recomputed to P274,539.00 (a discrepancy of P175,018.00 or 64%).
Criminal Information and Arraignment
An Information charged Opiniano and Tan with violating Section 3602 of the TCCP for fraudulently declaring the net weight of the shipment, thereby paying less customs duties than legally due. Both defendants pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
Prosecution’s Version and Evidence
The prosecution’s primary witness was Atty. Marlon Agaceta of the Bureau of Customs’ Run After the Smugglers (RATS) Program. Evidence included the IEIRD, bill of lading, commercial invoice, packing list, ICE report, warrant of seizure and detention, appraisement/recomputation by RATS, and results of the physical examination establishing the actual 25-kg bag marking and the 65% weight discrepancy. The prosecution argued that the entry was made by means of false or fraudulent declaration and, given the magnitude of under-declaration, amounted to intentional fraud to avoid payment of duties.
Defense’s Version and Testimony
Opiniano admitted being a licensed customs broker for Aiko Shine Fabric and having prepared and filed the IEIRD based on documents (bill of lading, commercial invoice, packing list) furnished by the consignee. He insisted he did not claim or receive the documents directly from the shipping lines and that after the Bureau of Customs issued the alert and seizure proceedings, he informed the importer/consignee about the misdeclaration and took no further action because the consignee handled follow-up with BOC to arrange reassessment or payment. He denied personally facilitating any release and denied involvement in any conspiracy with the consignee.
RTC Ruling
The RTC convicted Opiniano for violation of Section 3602 and acquitted Tan. The RTC found the first two elements of Section 3602 satisfied (entry and falsity in the IEIRD) and inferred the third element (intent to avoid payment of taxes) from Opiniano’s signature on the IEIRD, his admission of duties to verify documents under Sections 1301 and 1304 of the TCCP, and his conduct after discovery of the misdeclaration — specifically, the failure to request recomputation and his letter requesting tentative release to avoid demurrage and wastage. The RTC concluded that these facts negated good faith and evidenced intent to evade taxes. Tan was acquitted because prosecution witnesses did not identify her in court as the person named in the commerce documents.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction. It emphasized that the first two elements were indisputably present and held that Opiniano “knowingly failed to verify the veracity of the information” in the commercial documents. The CA relied in part on Opiniano’s subsequent letter requesting tentative release rather than requesting recomputation, treating his conduct after filing the entry as evidence of bad faith and intent to evade payment of duties. The CA also stated that Tan’s acquittal did not benefit Opiniano because the prosecution proved his direct participation in acts constituting the offense.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Opiniano’s conviction for violation of Section 3602 of the TCCP — specifically whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the essential third element of that offense: intent to avoid payment of taxes.
Supreme Court’s Legal Framework for the Offense
The Supreme Court reiterated the established elements of Section 3602: (1) entry of imported goods; (2) entry made by false or fraudulent invoice, declaration, document, or practice; and (3) intent to avoid payment of taxes. The Court observed that the first two elements were established by the documentary record and physical inspection. For the third element, the Court noted that Section 2503’s surcharge scheme indicates that misdeclaration or undervaluation generally leads to administrative surcharges, and only when misdeclaration is intentional does Section 3602 criminal liability attach. Thus, intent must be independently established and cannot be presumed from the mere existence of a misdeclaration.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Intent and Broker Liability
The Court carefully applied precedent and statutory context to analyze the culpability of a customs broker. It cited Remigio, which held that a customs broker is not required to go beyond the documents presented to him in filing an entry, and it referenced RA 9280 Section 27, which confines a customs broker’s oath and certification to knowledge based on the covering documents submitted by the importer. The Court further cited Section 1301, TCCP, establishing that prima facie knowledge of illegality flows to the importer if the entry is filed by a party other than the importer; this statutory scheme demonstrates that criminal knowledge is generally attributable first to the importer, not automatically to the broker.
The C
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 243517)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by petitioner Danilo L. Opiniano (Opiniano) assailing the Decision dated May 7, 2018 and Resolution dated December 12, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38982.
- The CA affirmed the conviction of Opiniano for violation of Section 3602 of the 1999 Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP) and denied his appeal and subsequent motion for reconsideration.
- The Supreme Court (Third Division) entertained the petition, directed the Office of the Solicitor General to comment, received petitioner’s reply, and ultimately rendered judgment reversing the CA and acquitting Opiniano.
Case Caption, Decision Author, and Concurrences
- Case caption as appearing in the source: DANILO L. OPIANIO a PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
- Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Caguioa.
- Justices Inting, Gaerlan, and Singh concurred in the decision; Justice Dimaampao was on official leave.
- The CA Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of the Supreme Court), with Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
Factual Antecedents (Importation, Documents, and Timeline)
- The subject importation consisted of a 5x20 container van shipment of bags of wheat flour consigned to Aiko Shine Fabric, arriving on March 16, 2007 at the Port of Manila from China on board Conti Germany V 703S, Registry No. MOS-011.
- On April 12, 2007, Aiko Shine Fabric, through Opiniano (a licensed customs broker), declared the shipment under:
- Import Entry & Internal Revenue Declaration (IEIRD) No. C36022;
- Bill of Lading No. MOLU489001962;
- Commercial Invoice No. 85214;
- Packing List; and
- Supplemental Declaration on Valuation.
- The IEIRD and related documents declared: 4,600 bags of wheat flour; Net Weight: 40,000 kgs; Dutiable Value: P488,962.22; Taxes & Duties paid: P99,521.00.
- Upon physical examination and verification, each bag bore the marking “wheat 25 kgs. net”; declared weight per bag in documents was 8.7 kgs per bag (total declared 40,000 kgs. vs. actual total 115,000 kgs.).
- Discrepancy in weight amounted to 75,000 kgs., or 65% of actual weight; duties paid were P99,521.00 instead of P274,539.00, a discrepancy of P175,018.00 or 64%.
- BOC procedures: the shipment was placed under the “Red Lane” and referred to Industry Commodity Experts (ICEs) for Wheat and Flour for verification pursuant to BOC Memorandum Order No. 9-99.
- A Warrant of Seizure and Detention was issued on April 26, 2007; seizure proceedings were instituted and a criminal case filed against Opiniano and Elenor (Elenor B.) Tan (Tan), the owner/proprietress of Aiko Shine Fabric.
Criminal Charge and Arraignment
- Information charged Opiniano and Tan with violation of Section 3602 of the TCCP for misdeclaring the weight of the wheat flour shipment, alleging a 65% under-declaration of weight and corresponding underpayment of duties.
- At arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution’s Version and Evidence
- Principal prosecution witness: Atty. Marlon Agaceta, member of the Run After the Smugglers (RATS) Program of the Bureau of Customs (BOC).
- Atty. Agaceta conducted investigation, produced ICE report finding misdeclaration of weight by as much as 65%, and testified to documentary and physical evidence (IEIRD, bill of lading, commercial invoice, packing list, Supplemental Declaration).
- Documentary evidence established that the IEIRD did not reflect the true weight; Cargo Manifest and Freight List showed total weight of 115,460 kilograms while IEIRD declared 42,500 kilograms (per the CA’s statement).
- RATS Program issued recomputation of customs duties and taxes due following the discovery of the misdeclaration.
Defense’s Version and Testimony of Opiniano
- Opiniano testified he was a customs broker for Aiko Shine Fabric from 2005 to 2007 and that he processed the release of the shipment by filing the IEIRD after receipt of documents from the consignee; he denied personally claiming or receiving documents from the shipping lines.
- He admitted inability to cause release because of the misdeclaration and that seizure proceedings were filed by the BOC; he asserted he had no further participation in facilitation after seizure and that he informed the importer/consignee of the discrepancy.
- In his testimony quoted by the CA, Opiniano described being notified by BOC of an “alert order” indicating a misdeclaration (declared 8 kg per bag vs. actual 25 kg per bag), that seizure proceedings were filed by the legal service of the BOC, and that after informing the consignee they (the consignee) facilitated discussions with legal and assessment or payment of duties and penalties; he ceased further action thereafter.
RTC Ruling (Trial Court)
- RTC Branch 21, Manila, issued Decision on December 9, 2015:
- Convicted Danilo L. Opiano (also indicated in some parts of record as “Opiano”) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3602, punished under paragraph 4 of Section 3601 of the TCCP, sentenced to indeterminate imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and fined P8,000.00.
- Acquitted Elenor B. Tan (a.k.a. “Leonora Bactong”) for failure of the prosecution to prove that the person in court was the same person named as consignee in the commercial documents.
- RTC reasoning for Opiniano’s conviction:
- Prosecution established gross under-declaration of weight;
- Opiniano signed the IEIRD and admitted being Aiko Shine Fabric’s broker, leading to presumption of culpability;
- RTC cited Opiniano’s failure to explain the method/source of verification for documents and his failure to request recomputation and payment of discrepancy; instead he requested tentative release of goods by letter dated April 18, 2007, to avoid demurrage and wastage.
CA Ruling (Appellate Court)
- CA, in Decision dated May 7, 2018, denied Opiniano’s appeal and affirmed RTC Decision and Order.
- CA’s findings and reasoning:
- IEIRD was filed and goods passed through customs (first element satisfied);
- Entry did not reflect true weight (second element satisfied);
- While a customs broker may rely on commercial documents, accused-appellant knowingly failed to verify the veracity of the informatio