8/3/2019 01 - Boac vs. People - Tax2(5)

1/2

BOAC V PEOPLE

G.R. No. 180597VELASCO; November 7, 2008

NATURE

Appeal by certiorari under Rule 45

FACTS

- Raul Basilio Boac, Ramon Betuin Golong, CesarFantone Beltran, Roger Alcantara Basadre, andBenjamin Castaneda Alfonso are members of thePNP-CIDG.- They were charged with violation of Sec. 2203 inrelation to Sec. 3612 of the Tariff and Customs Codein that without lawful authority or delegation fromthe Collector of Customs, they flagged down,searched and seized three (3) container vansconsigned to Japan Trak surplus (Kakiage Surplus).- Atty. Lourdes V. Mangaoang, then Customs DistrictCollector of Cagayan de Oro City, testified that theCIDG operatives (herein petitioners) did not have awritten authority from the Commissioner of Customsor the District Collector. According to her, Golongclaimed that they had clear orders from Boac to open

and search the vans. She instructed her personnel toopen the vans only to show that there was nothingillegal in their contents. She prepared a letter ofprotest addressed to Boac but it was ignored; hence,she filed the instant case.- For the defense, Boac testified that on July 27,2004, he was in Manila on leave. Beltran allegedlyinformed him that three container vans withcontrabands were released by the BOC; thus, Boacinstructed Golong and his team to flag down thesubject vans. After the inspection of the vans andwithout finding any contraband, Boac directedGolong to leave the premises.- The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioners. Theanti-graft court ruled that petitioners belong to thecategory of officers in Sec. 2203(d); thus, they

needed a written authority from the Commissioner ofCustoms or District Collector in order to conductsearches, seizures and arrests. In this case, thecourt said, the prosecution established the lack ofsaid written authority; even Beltran and Golongadmitted that they did not have any authorization tosearch the vans.- Petitioners assert that they did not conduct anysearch, seizure, or arrest; hence, there was noviolation of the Tariff and Customs Code. During thesearch conducted in the consignees warehouse on July 28, 2004, the employees of the owner of theshipment unloaded the goods under BOC personnelsupervision. Petitioners allege that they onlywitnessed the search; they did not make anyseizures or arrests. After searching the first van andhalf of the second van without any contraband being

found, Customs Police Yamit and Godoy decided tostop the search despite the request of petitioners tocontinue. Since the Customs Police were alreadyleaving the area, Boac instructed his team to leavethe vicinity.- Petitioners further claim that the polices authorityto stop, search, and effect seizure and arrest, ifnecessary, is no longer exclusively vested on theCollector of Customs. Regular PNP members aregenerally empowered by law to effect arrests inaccordance with Republic Act No. (RA) 6975.

- Petitioners contend that they were investigating apossible connivance of smugglers with some corruptcustoms personnel. They maintained that their actof flagging down the container vans was notconnected with the enforcement of the tariff andcustoms laws, smuggling being a form of economicsabotage which is within the powers of the PNP-CIDGto monitor and investigate. Thus, according to them,

no prior authority from the Collector of Customs isrequired in performing their duties as police officers.Besides, they said they immediately coordinated withthe Customs Police for the latter to conduct theactual search of the container vans; hence, there wasno violation of Sec. 2203.

ISSUE

WON petitioners are guilty of the crime charged

HELD

NOReasoning- Petitioners should be acquitted of the charge. Theprosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of theaccused beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, it isclear that petitioners neither searched the containervans nor effected seizure and arrest.- It should be noted that the container vans werebrought to the consignees warehouse and not to theCIDG headquarters. On July 28, 2004, the containervans were searched but not by petitioners. Thesearch was actually conducted by Customs Police Yamit and Godoy on July 28, 2004. The CustomsPolice held the keys of the vans. Furthermore, thevans were opened without the presence of the PNP-CIDGs team leader, Inspector Golong. The searchwas under the direction of the Customs Policebecause when the Customs Police decided to stopthe search, petitioners acceded and left thepremises.- The foregoing testimony, which Golongcorroborated, was not disputed by the prosecution.

It is thus very clear that the search was not done bypetitioners but by the Customs Police. Petitioners didnot seize anything nor arrested anybody. Theymerely observed the search which they requested tobe undertaken to check for contrabands. Notably, theconsignee did not file any complaint againstpetitioners.- The information charged petitioners for illegallyflagging down, searching, and seizing the threecontainer vans on July 27, 2004. Petitioners,however, could not also be held liable for these acts.It is a fact that no search and seizure of the vans wasdone on the night of July 27, 2004. The act offlagging down the vehicles is not among thoseproscribed by Sec. 2203 of the Tariff and CustomsCode. Mere flagging down of the container vans is

not punishable under the said law.- As regards the second issue, there is no conflictbetween the aforequoted provisions of the Tariff andCustoms Code and RA 6975, as amended. Thejurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs is clearlywith regard to customs duties. Should the PNPsuspect anything, it should coordinate with the BOCand obtain the written authority from the Collector ofCustoms in order to conduct searches, seizures, orarrests.

Disposition Decision reversed and set aside.

8/3/2019 01 - Boac vs. People - Tax2(5)

2/2