COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS V.

VILLALUZ file a complaint for "Open Disobedience" under Article 231 of the Revised
G.R. No. L-34038 / JUNE 18, 1976 / MAKASIAR, J. / CRIMPRO – Return of property Penal Code, before the City Fiscal of Pasay City.
illegally seized/ GRACEGAR  Hence, this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, seeking to
NATURE annul and set aside the order dated July 6, 1971 on the ground that
PETITIONERS Collector of Customs respondent Judge has no power to conduct a preliminary investigation of
RESPONDENTS Hon. Onofre Villaluz et. al. criminal complaints directly filed with him, cannot legally order the
dismissal "with prejudice" of a criminal case after conducting a
SUMMARY. Collector of Customs, Salvador T. Mascardo, filed against preliminary investigation thereon, and is without authority to order the
Cesar T. Makapugay, a letter complaint with respondent Judge of the return of articles subject of seizure proceedings before Customs
Circuit Criminal Court for violation of: (a) Section 174 of the National authorities.
Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4713, (b)  In these six cases, one common legal issue is whether a Circuit Criminal
Central Bank Circular No. 265, in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act Court possesses the power to conduct preliminary investigations which is
No. 265, otherwise known as The Central Bank Act, and (c) Section 3601 significant to determine whether items may be returned or not.
and 3602 of Republic Act No. 1937, in relation to Sections 2505 and
2530 (m) 1 of the same Act. Respondent Judge ordered the return of the ISSUE & RATIO.
properties. Petitioner Collector of Customs refused to obey the order due WON the items seized may be returned – NO
to the “prior institution of seizure proceedings thereon.” The refusal
prompted respondent Makapugay to file a complaint for “Open The dismissal of a case, even with prejudice, during the stage of
Disobedience” under Article 231 of the Revised Penal Code, before the preliminary investigation does not bar subsequent prosecution and
City Fiscal of Pasay City. SC ruled in favor of the Collector of Customs. conviction if the evidence warrants the re-filing of the same becomes next
to impossible. For the enforcement of such order would virtually deprive
DOCTRINE. A circuit court judge cannot order return to importer of herein petitioner Collector of Customs of the evidence indispensable to a
goods seized by the Collector of Customs even if the criminal complaint successful prosecution of the case against the private respondent. Worse,
against the importer is dismissed by said judge. Jurisdiction to replevin the order nullified the power of seizure of the customs official.
seized imported articles belongs exclusively to the Bureau of Customs
subject to appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. Respondent Judge ignored the established principle that from the moment
imported goods are actually in the possession or control of the
FACTS. Customs authorities, even if no warrant of seizure had previously
 Petitioner Collector of Customs, Salvador T. Mascardo filed against Cesar T. been issued by the Collector of Customs in connection with seizure
Makapugay, a letter complaint with respondent Judge of the Circuit and forfeiture proceedings, the Bureau of Customs acquires
Criminal Court for violation of NIRC, Central Bank Circular 265 and RA exclusive jurisdiction over such imported goods for the purpose of
1937 claiming that Cesar T. Makapugay "with malicious intention to enforcing the Customs laws, subject to an appeal only to the Court of
defraud the government criminally, willfully and feloniously brought into Tax Appeals and to final review by the Supreme Court.
the country FORTY (40) cartons of "untaxed blue seal" Salem cigarettes
and FIVE (5) bottles of Johny Walker Scotch Whiskey, also "untaxed", Such exclusive jurisdiction precludes the Court of First Instance as
without the necessary permit from the proper authorities. The well as the Circuit Criminal Court from assuming cognizance of the
respondent submitted a Baggage Declaration Entry which did not declare subject matter and divests such courts of the prerogative to
the said articles. replevin properties subject to seizure and forfeiture proceedings
 Respondent Judge assumed jurisdiction to conduct and did conduct the for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code because proceedings
preliminary investigation, and on July 6, 1971, issued the challenged for the forfeiture of goods illegally imported are not criminal in
order, dismissing "the case with prejudice and ordering the return to nature since they do not result in the conviction of wrongdoer nor
private respondent the amount of P2,280.00, his passport No. Ag-2456 in the imposition upon him of a penalty.
FA - No. B103813, and one (1) box of air-conditioning evaporator only, as
well as the forfeiture of forty (40) cartons of untaxed blue seal Salem
cigarettes and five (5) bottles of Johnny Walker Scotch Whiskey" (p. 13, DECISION.
rec.). Petitions dismissed. Writs lifted.
 Armed with said order, private respondent Makapugay demanded NOTES.
Fernando, J., concurring:
that petitioner release the articles so stated. Petitioner Collector of
Constitutional law; Preliminary examination; Constitution confers of circuit
Customs refused to obey the order due to the "prior institution of seizure
criminal judge power to conduct preliminary examination, but said judges
proceedings thereon." The refusal prompted respondent Makapugay to
should curb any eagerness to make use of such competence. It is my
understanding then that the decision reached is at most an affirmation that investigations. Notwithstanding the scholarly and extended main opinion, I
the present Constitution, as did the 1935 Constitution, confers the power to am not persuaded that the legislature ever intended to confer upon Circuit
conduct preliminary examination preparatory to issuing a warrant of arrest, Criminal Courts the power to conduct preliminary investigations. Not only
to a circuit criminal court judge. Even then, however, he should for sound the specific words of the above provision, but the development of the law
policy reasons curb any eagerness or propensity to make use of such on preliminary investigations and circumstances obtaining at the time R.A.
competence. x x x As to his competence regarding a preliminary 5179 was enacted point unmistakably, in my considered opinion, to this
investigation, it is my understanding that the question has been left open. conclusion.

Barredo, J., concurring in result: