Ramos v. Pamaran
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ramon Ramos, Jr. (Ramos) was charged with smuggling in Criminal Case No. CCC-VI-1386 before the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila, along with Fortunato P. Encinas. The information alleged that between July 29, 1966, and September 12, 1966, the accused conspired to fraudulently import 2,500 metric tons of Ammonium Sulphate, valued at over P150,000.00, without proper import entry and without payment of duties and taxes. Procedural History: Ramos filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that the charge had prescribed, that the information was duplicitous, and that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense. The respondent judge, Hon. Manuel R. Pamaran, denied the motion to quash. The Petition: Ramos filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to set aside the order denying his motion to quash, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the charge of unlawful importation had prescribed. Whether the information was duplicitous, charging two offenses. Whether the facts alleged in the information constitute an offense.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The order of the respondent judge denying the motion to quash is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription: The Court held that the charge against Ramos is based on Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code (Republic Act No. 1937), as amended by Republic Act No. 4712. While the Tariff and Customs Code itself does not provide a prescriptive period for its violations, Act No. 3326, as amended by Act No. 3763, supplies this deficiency. Specifically, Section 1(d) of Act No. 3326 provides a prescriptive period of twelve years for offenses punished by imprisonment of six years or more. Since the offense under Section 3601(4) of the Tariff and Customs Code is penalized with imprisonment of eight years and one day to twelve years, the applicable prescriptive period is twelve years. The information was filed on December 14, 1972, for an offense allegedly committed between July 29, 1966, and September 12, 1966, which is well within the twelve-year prescriptive period. The Court clarified that the reference to nonpayment of duties and taxes is incidental to the gravamen of smuggling, which is unlawful importation, and that Article 1149 of the Civil Code, concerning prescription of civil actions, is inapplicable. On the issue of duplicity: The Court found no merit in Ramos' contention that the information was duplicitous. The information explicitly stated that the offense charged was that penalized in Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code, which refers to unlawful importation or smuggling. The averment that the imported fertilizer had no import entry implies that the importation was contrary to customs laws, specifically Sections 1201 and 1301 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as it was not entered through a customhouse. Therefore, the information correctly charged a single offense of smuggling. On the issue of whether the facts constitute an offense: The Court ruled that the facts alleged do constitute an offense. By invoking the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, Ramos made a hypothetical admission of the allegations in the information. The indictment clearly alleges the crime of unlawful importation as defined and penalized in Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Whether the prosecution can prove this charge during trial is a separate matter. The Court emphasized that its ruling was not intended to prejudge the merits of the criminal case but merely to determine if the lower court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to quash.
Main Doctrine
The prescriptive period for violations of the Tariff and Customs Code, when not provided for in the Code itself, is governed by Act No. 3326, as amended. For offenses penalized with imprisonment of six years or more, the prescriptive period is twelve years. A charge of unlawful importation under Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code, which carries a penalty of imprisonment of eight years and one day to twelve years, is subject to this twelve-year prescriptive period. The reference to nonpayment of duties and taxes is incidental to the gravamen of smuggling.