Remigio v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A shipment from Hongkong arrived at the Port of Manila, declared as 25 MT of Sodium Bicarbonate consigned to BORHAM TRADING. Petitioner Erwin C. Remigio, a customs broker, filed the Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration. A customs examiner initially noted the contents as Sodium Bicarbonate and recommended clearance. After payment of duties and taxes amounting to P22,972.00, the container van was released. However, agents intercepted the van and an inventory revealed it contained significantly different items, including various goods and only 185 bags of sodium bicarbonate. The estimated correct duties and taxes amounted to P1,643,057.00. An investigation found the address of the consignee, Borham Trading, to be non-existent. Procedural History: Two Informations were filed against Arthur Sevilla, Jr. (customs examiner) and Erwin Remigio (customs broker) for violation of Sections 3604, 3602, in relation to Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code. The Sandiganbayan acquitted Arthur Sevilla, Jr. in both cases and dismissed Criminal Case No. 16772 against Erwin Remigio. However, in Criminal Case No. 16773, the Sandiganbayan found Erwin Remigio guilty of violation of Section 3602 in relation to Section 3601, sentencing him to imprisonment and a fine, and revoking his license. The Petition: Petitioner Erwin C. Remigio filed a petition for review on certiorari, questioning his conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Erwin C. Remigio was guilty of violation of Section 3602, in relation to Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in applying a law (Section 3407) that was enacted after the commission of the offense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Sandiganbayan and acquitted the petitioner of the offense charged. The Court found no evidence to prove that petitioner Remigio committed fraudulent practices against customs revenue or that he knowingly assisted in the importation of articles contrary to law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of violation of Section 3602, in relation to Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, as a customs broker, did not make or attempt to make an entry of imported articles by means of any false or fraudulent invoice, declaration, affidavit, letter, paper, or by means of any false statement, verbal or oral, or by means of any false or fraudulent practice whatsoever. The Court emphasized that the fraud contemplated by law must be actual and not constructive; it must be intentional fraud, consisting of deception willfully and deliberately dared or resorted to in order to give up some right. In this case, the petitioner prepared the import entry based on the bill of lading, invoice, packing list, letter of credit, import entry declaration, and Central Bank Release Certificate provided to him. There was nothing in these documents to indicate anything amiss with the shipment or its covering documents. A customs broker is not required to go beyond the documents presented to him in filing an entry. Furthermore, the Court noted that Section 3601, which defines smuggling, requires that the person must have "knowingly" assisted in the importation of any article contrary to law or facilitated its transportation, concealment, or sale, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law. The prosecution failed to present evidence that petitioner Remigio possessed such knowledge. The Court also pointed out that the Sandiganbayan's finding that the address of the consignee was fictitious was not sufficient to establish the petitioner's guilt, as there was no evidence that the petitioner knew this or that he participated in any fraudulent scheme. The Court reiterated the principle that the import entry was prepared on the basis of the shipping documents provided by the foreign supplier or shipper, and thus, the petitioner could be considered to have acted in good faith when he relied on these documents, citing Farolan v. Court of Tax Appeals. On the issue of the Sandiganbayan applying a law enacted after the offense: The Supreme Court clarified that the Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioner under Section 3602, in relation to Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code, not Section 3407 as erroneously stated in a portion of the decision. However, the Court noted that the Sandiganbayan's reference to Section 3407, which deals with fictitious consignees, was problematic because this provision was introduced in 1993 by R.A. No. 7651, while the offense occurred in 1988. The law is settled that no statute, decree, ordinance, rule, or regulation shall be given retrospective effect unless expressly so provided or favorable to the accused. Since Section 3407 was not in effect at the time of the alleged offense and was not favorable to the accused, it could not be applied. Moreover, an accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is charged in the complaint or information. The Court found it ironic that the customs examiner, who failed to perform his duty of conducting a 100% examination, was acquitted, while the petitioner was convicted of acts that did not constitute a statutory offense at the time of their commission.
Main Doctrine
A customs broker cannot be convicted of smuggling under Section 3602 in relation to Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code if the prosecution fails to prove actual and intentional fraud, and if the broker acted in good faith based on the documents provided by the shipper. Furthermore, a law cannot be applied retroactively if it was enacted after the commission of the offense and is not favorable to the accused.