Case Digest: Asaali v. Commissioner of Customs

ILLUH ASAALI, HATIB ABDURASID, INGKOH BANTALA, BASOK INGKIN, and MOHAMMAD BANTALA, petitioners, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.
No. L-24170,        December 16, 1968

Facts:

At noontime of September 10, 1950, five sailing vessels, from Borneo toward the ports of Tawi-tawi and Sulu, were spotted and intercepted in high seas by the Custom Patrol Team. The said patrol team aboard Boat ST-23 found out that the five vessels contained 181 cases of “Herald” cigarettes, 9 cases of “Camel” cigarettes, and some rattan chairs. The sailing vessels were all Philippine registered, owned and manned by Filipino residents from Sulu. Petitioners, however, possessed no permit from the Commissioner of Customs so that they can engage in the importation of the goods they carry (as required by Section 1363 [a] of the Revised Administrative Code). Also, the goods the petitioners carry were not covered by RA 426 or the Import Control Law. The Custom Patrol Team then seized the goods even if they were in the high seas. Petitioners claim that the interception and seizure of the items were illegal because they were intercepted outside the territory of the Philippines. Also, the petitioners contend that they could not have been engaged to the importation of the above-mentioned items to incur the forfeiture under Section 1363 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Court of Tax Appeals held that Section 1363 should be applied because all the vessels were all headed to Tawi-tawi. No import license and permit were carried violating RA 426. Their course, that is—they are about to enter the Philippine territory, announced loudly that they were about to import these items in the Philippines.

Issues:

Whether or not the interception and seizure by customs officials of the vessels valid in the contention that importation had not yet begun and that the seizure was effected outside our territorial waters.

Whether or not the Import Control Law was violated since it had expired when the offense was committed.

Ruling:

The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals stating that “it is quite irrational for Filipino sailors …to sneak out of the Philippines…and come a long way back laden with highly taxable goods only to turn about upon reaching the brink of our territorial waters and head for another country”. Further, the Court said that the contention, regarding the apprehension and seizure of the items, of the petitioner-appellant is without merit. The vessels are all Philippine registered and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the Philippines as expressed in the Revised Penal Code. The petitioners also violated Section 1363(a). Therefore, the action taken then by the Commissioner of Customs was in accordance to the law.

The Court also ruled that “The expiration of the Import Control Law ‘did not produce the effect the declaring legal the importation of goods which were illegally imported and the seizure and forefeiture thereof as ordered by the Collector of Customs illegal or null and void’.” The expiration of the law does not mean that the law had been abrogated, meaning even if the law had already expired, the Philippines should still have jurisdiction over this kinds of cases until their final determination.