Case Summary (G.R. No. L-38271)
Petitioner’s Claims and Background
Ramon Ramos, Jr. initiated special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition seeking to annul the order of Judge Pamaran dated December 21, 1973, which denied Ramos' motion to quash an information in Criminal Case No. CCC-VI-1386 concerning charges of unlawful importation of fertilizer. Ramos contended that the charge had already prescribed, that the information was duplicitous, and that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense. The information alleged that Ramos and his co-accused conspired to fraudulently import a significant quantity of ammonium sulfate without the appropriate import entries and unpaid duties.
Applicable Law
The foundational legal framework arises from the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, specifically Section 3601, which addresses unlawful importation. In this situation, the law outlines penalties for importation exceeding an appraised value of P150,000. Ramos' defenses also reference provisions from the Civil Code regarding the prescription of actions, which he argued should apply to his alleged offenses.
Motion to Quash Denial and Jurisdiction
The ruling highlighted that the court did not commit grave abuse of discretion by denying Ramos' motion to quash since the trial court (Circuit Criminal Court of Manila) retained jurisdiction over the case. According to established case law, a denial of a motion to quash is not typically subject to certiorari or prohibition unless it involves a lack of jurisdiction. As per Section 1, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, upon the denial of such a motion, the accused must immediately plead, indicating that the criminal proceedings should advance.
Prescriptive Period Argument
Ramos argued that the alleged fraudulent importation was effectively a case of nonpayment of duties and taxes, which, according to him, should be subject to a five-year prescriptive period defined by the Tax Code. However, the Court rejected this argument, clarifying that the relevant provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code classify unlawful importation as a distinct crime, asserting a twelve-year prescriptive period under Act No. 3326. This establishes that the claim of unlawful importation had not prescribed when the information was filed.
Duplicitous Nature of Information
Ramos asserted that the information was duplicitous as it charged two distinct offenses: nonpayment of customs duties and nonpayment of taxes. The Court declined this assertion, affirming that the information clearly charges unlawful importation as delineated in Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code. The Court interpreted Ramos's focus on duties and taxes as ancillary to the primary charge of smuggling.
Allegation of Facts Not Constituting an Offense
Ramos further contended that the allegations in the information did not constitute an offense, arguing that fertilizers were not prohibite
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-38271)
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Ramon Ramos, Jr.
- Respondents: Hon. Manuel R. Pamaran, Presiding Judge, Circuit Criminal Court of Manila; People of the Philippines; City Fiscal of Manila; Jose Gamboa.
- Court: Second Division
- G.R. No.: L-38271
- Date of Decision: October 28, 1974
- Legal Action: Petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the order of the Circuit Criminal Court.
Factual Background
- Ramon Ramos, Jr. filed a special civil action of certiorari and prohibition against the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila concerning the denial of his motion to quash the information for smuggling in Criminal Case No. CCC-VI-1386.
- The information alleged that, during the period from July 29, 1966, to September 12, 1966, Ramos, along with Fortunato P. Encinas, unlawfully imported 2,500 metric tons of Ammonium Sulphate without proper customs declaration, intending to defraud the government of its duties.
Legal Issues Presented
- Primary Assertions by Ramos:
- The charge of unlawful importation had already prescribed.
- The information was duplicitous, charging two offenses.
- The facts alleged did not constitute an offense as fertilizer was not prohibited and was exempt from duties and taxes.
Court's Analysis
On Prescription of the Offens