26. Customs v.
Judge Villaluz
G.R. No, L-34038 June 18, 1976
FACTS:
On July 1, 1971, petitioner Collector of Customs, Salvador T. Mascardo filed against Cesar T.
Makapugay, a letter complaint with respondent Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court for violation of:
Section 174 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 4713
Central Bank Circular No. 265, in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265,
otherwise known as The Central Bank Act
Section 3601 and 3602 of Republic Act No. 1937, in relation to Sections 2505
and 2530 (m) 1 of the same Act
The petitioner contended that Makapugay "with malicious intention to defraud the government
criminally, willfully and feloniously brought into the country FORTY (40) cartons of "untaxed blue
seal" Salem cigarettes and FIVE (5) bottles of Johny Walker Scotch Whiskey, also "untaxed",
without the necessary permit from the proper authorities.
Makapugay submitted a Baggage Declaration Entry which did not declare the said articles.
And in utter disregard of existing Central Bank Circulars particularly C.B. Circular 265, as
amended, Makapugay brought into the country various Philippine Money in the amount of Two
Thousand Two Hundred Eighty (P2,280.00) Pesos cleverly hidden in one of the pieces of
baggage examined by the assigned customs examiner, without any prior permit from the Central
Bank authorities.
The respondent Judge assumed jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation, and, on on
July 6, 1971, issued the challenged order, dismissing "the case with prejudice and ordering the
return to private respondent the amount of P2,280.00, his passport No. Ag-2456 FA - No.
B103813, and one (1) box of air-conditioning evaporator only, as well as the forfeiture of forty (40)
cartons of untaxed blue seal Salem cigarettes and five (5) bottles of Johnny Walker Scotch
Whiskey."
Customs refused to obey the order due to the "prior institution of seizure proceedings thereon."
The refusal prompted respondent Makapugay to file a complaint for "Open Disobedience" under
Article 231 of the Revised Penal Code, before the City Fiscal of Pasay City.
Hence, this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, seeking to annul and set aside the
order dated July 6, 1971 on the ground that respondent Judge has no power to conduct a
preliminary investigation of criminal complaints directly filed with him, cannot legally order the
dismissal "with prejudice" of a criminal case after conducting a preliminary investigation thereon,
and is without authority to order the return of articles subject of seizure proceedings before
Customs authorities.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent Judge has the power to conduct a preliminary investigation and
committed a grave abuse of discretion.
HELD:
The respondent judge has no power and he committed a grave abuse of discretion.
Circuit Criminal Courts are of limited jurisdiction, only because they cannot try and decide all criminal
cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance as courts of general jurisdiction. They
can only take cognizance of cages expressly specified in Section 1 of Republic Act No. 5179, as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 126.
The jurisdiction of the circuit criminal courts is thus dependent not only on the type of cases but
also on the penalties provided for those cases. Inasmuch as the case at bar falls within exclusive and
original jurisdiction of the City Court, it cannot, even if it involves a violation of section 174 of the Tax
Code, be taken cognizance of by circuit criminal courts, the jurisdiction of which is concurrent with that of
courts of first instance where the latter's jurisdiction is original and exclusive.
The respondent Judge seriously erred in so issuing said order, contravening as it does a basic
legal principle on double jeopardy, and committing thereby a grave abuse of discretion. The respondent
judge also ignored the established principle that from the moment imported goods are actually in the
possession or control of the Customs authorities, even if no warrant of seizure had previously been
issued by the Collector of Customs in connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedings, the Bureau of
Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over such imported goods for the purpose of enforcing the
Customs laws, subject to an appeal only to the Court of Tax Appeals and to final review by the Supreme
Court.
The decision of the respondent Judge has been SET ASIDE and DECLARED NULL and VOID.
