People v. Edery
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Berti Hildegard Edery was charged with violation of Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code (Republic Act No. 1937) for allegedly bringing 28 pieces of gold bars into the Philippines without lawful declaration to customs authorities, thereby depriving the government of duties and taxes. The charge specified that the gold bars, valued at approximately P209,126.40, were concealed within her person and that she denied carrying valuable items and failed to declare them in her Baggage Declaration and Entry Form. Procedural History: Respondent Judge Francisco de la Rosa of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasay City Branch VII) quashed the information and amended information against Edery on February 12, 1969, finding that the facts alleged, when considered with admitted facts and evidence presented, did not constitute an offense. The judge reasoned that Edery's status as a tourist under Executive Order No. 408 exempted her from customs declaration requirements and that the gold bars were not 'imported articles' given her imminent departure from the country. The Petition: The People of the Philippines appealed the order of the respondent judge, arguing that the court erred in ruling that the facts charged did not constitute an offense and in quashing the criminal case. The People contended that a motion to quash should be decided solely on the allegations in the information, not on evidence presented outside of it.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court erred in ruling that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, considering Edery's status as a tourist and the nature of importation and customs declaration requirements. Whether the respondent court erred in quashing the criminal case filed against respondent Edery, focusing on the prosecutor's role, the effect of admitted facts and evidence on a motion to quash, and the distinction between bona fide and transiting tourists.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the order of the respondent judge quashing the amended information is affirmed, along with the order denying the People's Motion for Reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the facts charged constitute an offense: The Supreme Court affirmed the respondent judge's order quashing the information. The Court reiterated the principle that while a motion to quash is generally decided on the allegations within the information, this rule admits exceptions. Citing People vs. Navarro, the Court held that additional facts, not alleged in the information but admitted or not denied by the prosecution, may be invoked to support a motion to quash. In this case, the State Prosecutor admitted certain facts and participated in hearings where both parties presented documentary and testimonial evidence. The respondent court, therefore, was justified in considering these admitted facts and evidence in its resolution. The Court emphasized that to ignore such evidence, especially when presented at the prosecution's instance, would be "pure technicality" and contrary to the interest of speedy administration of justice. The Court found that Edery's status as a tourist under Executive Order No. 408, which aimed to encourage international tourism by suspending certain declaration and examination requirements for foreign tourists, exempted her from filing a customs declaration form. The Court noted that Edery had a confirmed booking for immediate departure to Taipei, indicating no intention to import the gold bars for local sale or use. The Court clarified that importation begins when a vessel enters Philippine jurisdiction with the intention to unlade therein, and in Edery's case, her brief overnight stay was merely a transit, with the gold bars intended for immediate departure. Therefore, the gold bars were not considered "imported articles" subject to duties and taxes. On the issue of whether the respondent court erred in quashing the criminal case filed against respondent Edery: The Court underscored the prosecutor's role is to see that justice is done, not merely to secure convictions. The Court found that the respondent judge's decision to consider admitted facts and evidence presented during the motion to quash hearing, even though it effectively led to a trial on the merits, was proper. To insist on a trial after the evidence already presented showed the weakness of the case would be a resort to mere technicality, a practice frowned upon by the courts and contrary to the principles of substantial justice and efficient judicial administration. The Court affirmed that when facts are brought out by evidence presented by both parties, and these facts destroy the prima facie truth accorded to the allegations of the information, it would be pure technicality for the court to ignore them. The Court cited People vs. Rodriguez to support the idea that facts brought out by the defense and not disputed by the prosecution can be considered. In this case, the facts established through evidence and admitted by the prosecution demonstrated that Edery was exempted from customs declaration requirements, thus negating the charge of illegal importation and defrauding the government of duties. The Court rejected the argument that Edery was a "transiting tourist" and not a "bona fide tourist" entitled to exemptions, stating it found no warrant in the context of Executive Order No. 408. The Court reasoned that a transiting tourist might even be considered more entitled to exemptions as they are not always required to possess a visa, unlike ordinary tourists. Regardless, both categories are considered tourists and should be treated as bona fide, at least implicitly.
Main Doctrine
A motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense may be resolved not only on the allegations in the information but also on admitted facts and evidence presented by both parties, especially when such evidence, admitted at the instance of the prosecution, destroys the prima facie truth of the information's allegations.