Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Commisioner of Customs Vs Encarnacion Digest
Commisioner of Customs Vs Encarnacion Digest
FACTS:
On September 7, 1951, one Rodolfo Sadia, a crew member of the Philippine Air Lines, arrived
from Madrid on a PAL plane bringing with him certain dutiable articles. These articles were not declared
in the baggage declaration and were brought without the corresponding import license. Accordingly,
they were seized by the customs authorities. The Collector of Customs, in a decision rendered on April
14, 1952, decreed that said articles be forfeited to the Government as required by law. Said decision was
approved on May 3, 1952 by the Commissioner of Customs, and as Sadia did not appeal there from, nor
ask for a reconsideration thereof, the order of forfeiture became final.
On October 17, 1952, Rodolfo Sadia was charged before the Court of First Instance of Rizal with
a violation of section 2703 of the Revised Administrative Code for his failure to declare the dutiable
articles above referred to in his baggage declaration (Criminal Case No. 3794) and after trial the court
then presided over by respondent Judge, in a decision rendered on June 29, 1953, acquitted the accused
on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, ordering at the same time the Bureau of Customs to return
to him said articles upon prior payment of the customs duties due thereon. On July 20, 1953, the
Government filed a motion for reconsideration of that portion of the decision which orders the Bureau
of Customs to release the dutiable articles to the accused on the ground that the order is illegal to
modify the final order of a Collector of Customs. Sadia then claimed that the customs has no jurisdiction
over the confiscation, and it is null and void. Hence the petition for prohibition and certiorari with
preliminary injunction.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent Judge has acted properly in ordering the return of the dutiable articles to
Rodolfo Sadia in view of his acquittal in the criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to
prove criminal intent to defraud the Government.
RULING:
Under the law, "Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of
the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed. Such proceeds and
instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be the
property of a third person not liable for the offense.
Sadia failed to appeal and the subjected articles were not used as evidence for it to be under the
disposal of the court. the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or at least with grave abuse of
discretion. Petition is granted.