Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Papa v. Mago
Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized
member of the Bureau of Customs, together with Alagao and
other elements of the counter-intelligence unit, seized 9 bales of
goods from two trucks. Said items, according to an information,
were misdeclared and undervalued. The cargo owner,
respondent in this case, claimed that the MPD seized said goods
without a search warrant.
Facts:
Petitioner Martin Alagao (head of the counter-
intelligence unit of the MPD), having received a reliable
information that a certain shipment of personal effects were
allegedly misdeclared and undervalued and were to be released
from the customs zone of the port of Manila, conducted
surveillance of said zone. With him were petitioner Ricardo
Papa, the Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized member
of the BOC, and other elements of the counter-intelligence unit.
The information which reached Alagao specified that said
misdeclared and undervalued items were loaded on two trucks.
The trucks left the gate where Alagao’s group conducted
surveillance. However, such trucks were later intercepted. The
load of the two trucks consisted of 9 bales of goods.
The cargo was owned by Remedios Mago while the truck
was owned by Valentin Lanopa. In their petition in the CFI of
Manila, they claimed that the MPD seized the goods without
search warrant issued by a competent court, and that Papa
denied the request of Mago’s counsel that the bales be not
opened and the goods not examined.
The respondent judge issued an order restraining
petitioners from opening the nine bales in question. However,
some bales were already opened by examiners of the BOC when
the restraining order was received.
Respondent contended that, since the inventory of the
goods seized did not show any article of prohibited importation,
such articles should be released upon her posting of the bond to
be determined by court. Petitioners contended however that
most of the goods, as shown in the inventory, were not declared
and were thus subject to forfeiture. Respondent judge issued an
order releasing the good upon the filing of the bond in the
amount of Php 40,000.00 to which the respondent complied
with.
Ruling:
The Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction
over imported goods, for the purposes of enforcement of the
customs laws, from the moment the goods are actually in
possession or control, even if no warrant of seizure or detention
had previously been issued by the Collector of Customs in
connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedings. In the case at
bar, the moment the BOC actually seized the goods in question,
the BOC acquired jurisdiction over the goods for the purposes of
enforcement of the tariff and customs laws, to the exclusion of
the regular courts.
Petitioner Alagao and his companion policemen had
authority to effect the seizure without any search warrant issued
by a competent court. The Tariff and Customs Code does not
require said warrant in the instant case. The Code authorizes
persons having police authority under Section 2203 to enter, pass
through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or