Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Commisioner of Customs Vs Encarnacion Digest

    Uploaded by

    Russell John Hipolito
    151 views1 page
    The Commissioner of Customs petitioned against a judge's order returning confiscated goods to an individual. Rodolfo Sadia arrived from abroad with undocumented dutiable goods that customs authorities seized, resulting in a forfeiture order. Sadia was acquitted in a criminal case for failure to declare the goods. However, the judge also ordered the return of the goods, overriding the final forfeiture order. The Supreme Court ruled the judge exceeded his jurisdiction, as the goods were already forfeited to the government under the law, and Sadia did not appeal the forfeiture order. Therefore, the petition was granted.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    5. Commisioner of Customs vs Encarnacion Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Commissioner of Customs petitioned against a judge's order returning confiscated goods to an individual. Rodolfo Sadia arrived from abroad with undocumented dutiable goods that customs authorities seized, resulting in a forfeiture order. Sadia was acquitted in a criminal case for failure to declare the goods. However, the judge also ordered the return of the goods, overriding the final forfeiture order. The Supreme Court ruled the judge exceeded his jurisdiction, as the goods were already forfeited to the government under the law, and Sadia did not appeal the forfeiture order. Therefore, the petition was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    151 views1 page

    Commisioner of Customs Vs Encarnacion Digest

    Uploaded by

    Russell John Hipolito
    The Commissioner of Customs petitioned against a judge's order returning confiscated goods to an individual. Rodolfo Sadia arrived from abroad with undocumented dutiable goods that customs authorities seized, resulting in a forfeiture order. Sadia was acquitted in a criminal case for failure to declare the goods. However, the judge also ordered the return of the goods, overriding the final forfeiture order. The Supreme Court ruled the judge exceeded his jurisdiction, as the goods were already forfeited to the government under the law, and Sadia did not appeal the forfeiture order. Therefore, the petition was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner, vs.

    HONORABLE JUDGE DEMETRIO ENCARNACION of the


    Court of First Instance of Rizal and RODOLFO SADIA, respondents.
    No. L-7598
    July 26, 1954
    BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

    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.

    You might also like