7/22/2019 Acting Customs Com vs. CTA, Andrulis

1/4

G.R. No. L-62636 April 27, 1984

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner,vs.

COURT OF TA A!!EALS "#$ C%ARLES AN&RULIS, respondents.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

Alentajan & Associates for respondents.

MELENCIO-%ERRERA, J.:+.wph!1

A proceeding for review on certiorari of the Decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals inCTA Case No. 3201, which reversed the Decision of petitioner, the Acting Coissioner ofCustos, decreeing the forfeiture of various foreign currencies found in the possession of

private respondent !Charles "oseph Andrulis# for violation of Central $an% Circular No. &3',in relation to section 2&30!f# of the (evised Tariff and Custos Code.

)n 20 *e+ruar 1-0, Andrulis representing hiself as an Aerican +usinessan /on ointventures with his *ilipino counterparts/, arrived in anila and chec%ed in at the Centur ar%heraton 4otel. Two das later, or on 22 *e+ruar 1-0, he left the hotel surreptitiouslwithout paing for his +ills in the aount of 2,000.00. Col. *elix 5errudo, Chief ecurit)fficer of the 4otel, tiel discovered the scheduled departure of Andrulis on that sae da,and iediatel tipped6off the Custos authorities on Andrulis7 intention to a+scond. At theanila 8nternational Airport !8A#, the Custos authorities loo%ed for Andrulis fro aongthe passengers who were alread on +oard hilippine Airlines *light No. &01 +ound for

ingapore. Apprehensive, Andrulis loc%ed hiself inside the airplane7s cofort roo. 8n thecourse of negotiations for hi to coe out, he slipped through an opening +ills worth9:300.00. Andrulis finall ielded to the authorities and surrendered the luggage he wascarring which, when opened + the authorities, contained various foreign currenciesconsisting of 9:&-,;3-.00< &3,100 8ndonesian (upiah, and ingapore :30.00.

A criinal charge was filed +efore the )ffice of the Cit *iscal, asa Cit, for violation of C$Circular No. &3' in relation to (A 2;&, the Central $an% Charter. )n 10 arch 1-0, the

Assistant Cit *iscal disissed the charge on the rationali=ation that the >overnent hadfailed to present evidence that the currencies were not +rought in + Andrulis.

roceedings for the sei=ure of the foreign currencies were also coenced at the Custos)ffice of the 8A in asa Cit, doc%eted as ei=ure 8dentification No. '1;20.

During the hearing, Andrulis su+itted the case for resolution on the +asis of the followingdocuentar evidence?t.hqw

1. worn Affidavit of Charles "oseph Andrulis, stating that the foreign exchange in @uestion areowned + claianteneral on thispoint finds relevance?t.hqw

8f it was reall his intention to invest, he could have presented docuents to support hisassertion. 4e could have produced papers re@uired + the >overnent of foreigners intendingto invest in the hilippines. 4e could have presented as witnesses *ilipino +usinessen withwho he entered into oint ventures or at least discussed the prospects thereof. 4e could at the

least have revealed the nature of the +usiness he intended to engage in, the capitalre@uireents thereof, the situs of the +usiness, the for of the entit he intended to for tocarr on the +usiness, etc. 4e had done none of these.

rivate respondent iplies that the foreign currencies sei=ed fro hi were intended to +einvested in +usiness ventures in the hilippines. 8f this is so, wh was it necessar for hi tohave three %inds of currencies? 9 dollars, 8ndonesian (upiah and ingapore dollars. $esides,+usinessen usuall do not personall carr the cash which the intend to invest. The reit

the through the +an%s. 9

Andrulis7 ac@uittal in the criinal charge +efore the Cit *iscal7s )ffice does not operate asres j!dicata in a sei=ure or forfeiture proceeding. A distinction exists +etween the proceedings

+efore the *iscal which are in persona since the are directed against the owner or holderof the thing, whereas, a forfeiture proceeding is one in re directed against the thingitself.t.hqw

There is a split of authorit as to whether a forer conviction of a criinal offense +ased uponthe sae facts aounts to a +ar. ... The authorities are + no eans agreed, however, that aprior conviction for a Criinal charge +ars an action for a forfeiture of propert. Thus, it has +eenheld that since the forfeiture proceedings is one in reunder which the offense is attachedpriaril to the thing rather than the offender, the forfeiture proceedings stands independent of,and wholl unaffected +, an criinal proceeding inpersonaand is not +arred + a convictionof the individual under a criinal charge. 1(

8n a siilar vein, it was also held in %.#. Sharp & %o., nc. /s. %oissioner of %!stos, 22C(A B;& !1-;# that the result of criinal proceedings in a separate case +efore a differenttri+unal, +eing dependent upon the evidence adduced therein, would not necessaril

7/22/2019 Acting Customs Com vs. CTA, Andrulis

4/4

influence the udgent in a forfeiture proceeding.

*inall, Andrulis contends that no foreign currenc declaration is re@uired of an incoing oroutgoing passenger and that it is not the intention of the >overnent to entrap unwarforeigners. True, (esolution No. &-', dated 1' April 1-;-, of the onetar $oard,provides?t.hqw

4enceforth, no currenc declaration of an %ind shall +e re@uired either fro outgoing orincoing passengers. 11

4owever, tourists are not precluded fro su+itting proof, other than a currenc declaration,to show the legitiate source of the currenc in their possession. $esides, (esolution No.&-' ust +e deeed superseded + (esolution No. 1'12, dated 1; "ul 1-B;, whichre@uires that persons ta%ing or transitting or attepting to ta%e or transit foreign exchangeout of the hilippines ust have authori=ation fro the Central $an% allowing the to do so.

4(*)(, the Decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals, proulgated on 30 "une1-2, is here+ reversed and set aside, and the Decision of the Acting Coissioner of

Custos, dated 1& Dece+er 1-0, here+ ordered reinstated. No costs.

) )(D(D.