THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FRED C. BRUHEZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS. IGNACIO VELASCO, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT.

This is a proceeding to recover from the Court of First Instance of the city
of Manila the sum of P3,500, consisting of seven P500 bills which had been used
in that court by the prosecution in the case of the United States vs.
Joaqum Lorenzo Uy Yjo as evidence tending to establish the crime of illegal
importation of opium, said sum of money having been delivered to a certain
customs official by the accused as a bribe whereby the illegal importation was
effected.

The trial court, after a hearing at which considerable testimony was taken,
denied the return of the money to the applicant. This js an appeal from the
order denying the application.

Some time before the proceeding in question was instituted Joaquin Lorenzo Uy
Yjo, by bribing Fred C. Bruhez, at that time a customs inspector, by delivering
to him P3,500, consisting of seven P500 bills, obtained the importation of a
considerable quantity of opium into the Philippine Islands. The bribery and the
consequent importation were discovered and both parties were arrested charged
with the illegal importation of opium. The P3,500 was found in the possession of
Bruhez, was seized by the customs officials and was presented in the Court of
First Instance as evidence upon the trial of Joaquin Lorenzo Uy Yjo. He was duly
convicted and sentenced, but the money was still left in the hands of the court
to be used as evidence upon the trial of the other accused, Fred C. Bruhez. He,
however, eluded detention, escaped from the Philippine Islands and has never
been brought to trial. The information filed against him was later dismissed on
the application of the prosecuting attorney.

It was at this point that the present application was made for the recovery
of the P3,500. Such application, however, was not made by Joaquin Lorenzo Uy
Yjo, who delivered the money to the customs official, but by one Ignacio
Velasco, who asserts that Joaquin Lorenzo Uy Yjo, at the time of the illegal
importation complained of, was in his employ as a trusted and confidential
servant and that, during the absence of Velasco from Manila, and without his
knowledge or consent, Joaquin Lorenzo Uy Yjo drew a check upon Velasco’s bank
account for the sum of P3,500, by means of which there was turned over to said
Joaquin Lorenzo Uy Yjo by the bank seven P500 bills; that said bills belonged to
Velasco and the identical bills involved in this application were used in
bribing Fred C. Bruhez to permit the illegal importation of opium. He asserts
that that identical money belongs to him, and that he himself not having been
iif anw wise engaged in the commission of the crime, and being wholly ignorant
of the fact of its commission, he is entitled to recover possession of the money
from the Court of First Instance under the provisions of article 62 of the Penal
Code.

This petition was denied by the court and application was made for a new
trial. A new trial was granted and a rehearing of the whole matter had. Upon
that hearing testimony was presented by Velasco for the purpose of demonstrating
his ownership of the P3,500 in question. On the termination of the hearing the
court denied the petition and refused to deliver the money to Velasco but,
instead, stated its determination to turn it over to the Collector of Customs
for confiscation. The court said:

“I am of the opinion that my refusal to deliver it to the Insular Collector
of Customs after the complaint against Bruhez had been dismissed, because it
should be confiscated, was erroneous.

“I am of opinion that the court has
no authority to confiscate this money which came in the possession of the court
in the way in which this did. It was not money used, or a part of the means used
to procure an unlawful importation into the Philippine Islands. It having come
in the hands of the Insular Collector of Customs in the transaction of the
business of the Customs Bureau it belongs to that Bureau, and this court has no
jurisdiction to determine in this action that it be delivered to the
petitioner.

“Counsel for the petitioner insist that, the issues having been submitted to
this court in relation to the ownership of the money, that the court has
jurisdiction to dispose of it but I am unable to reach such
conclusion.”

While the proceedings to determine to whom the P3,500 should be delivered
were pending, it appears that there was also before the Insular Collector of
Customs a proceeding relative to the same subject matter. Certain customs
officials having seized the money, the Insular Collector of Customs sent to Fred
C. Bruhez the following notice:

“You are hereby informed that P3,500 Philippine currency, used by you in
attempting to bribe a customs officer, has this day been seized for violation of
section 333, of Act No. 355.

“A hearing will be held at this customhouse at 10 o’clock a. m., Monday
morning, December 11, 1911. If you desire to make claim for same, you should be
present at that time in person or by attorney, with whatever relevant evidence
you may care to offer.”

Nothing was ever done in this proceeding further than the giving of the
notice referred to and, so far as the record shows, it is still pending. It is
our opinion that the court below should have resolved all of the questions
presented by the issues, among them being the ownership of the P3,500. If that
money was owned by Joaquin Lorenzo Uy Yjo and was by him used to bribe a customs
official to permit the illegal importation of opium, it became an instrument
used in the commission of that crime and would be susceptible to the
dispositions provided for in articles 25 and 62 of the Penal Code. Article 25
provides, among other things, that, as an accessory penalty, there shall be “a
forfeiture of the instruments and proceeds of the offense” and article 62
provides that “every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry
with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instrument with
which it was committed. ‘ Such proceeds and instruments shall be forfeited
unless they be the property of a third person not liable for the offense.”

These articles constitute the law which governs the disposition of the money
in question. If Joaquin Lorenzo Uy Yjo had been convicted of the crime of
bribery, then the money paid as a bribe would have been forfeited by virtue of
article 389. The crime charged and prosecuted, how ever, being that of illegal
importation of opium, the money became an instrument used in the commission of
the crime and, therefore, became subject to the articles of the Penal Code
already referred to.

Under these articles of the Penal Code the court trying the cause has
jurisdiction to determine the ownership and disposition of the instrument used
in the commission of the crime, and any person claiming this instrument has a
right to take his proceeding in that court for the purpose of determining his
rights in the premises.

We have been cited ,to no statute or other authority which gives the Insular
Collector of Customs any jurisdiction whatever over the money involved in this
litigation.

To be sure, it was used in corrupting one of the officials of that bureau,
but it is not subject to seizure and confiscation by the Insular Collector of
Customs for that reason. So far as we have been able to ascertain from the
meager citations and references presented on Ihis hearing, the right to seize
property and declare it forfeited by the Insular Collector of Customs is
restricted to merchandise which is imported or which it is attempted to import
illegally and does not extend to the money which may be used as a bribe to
corrupt the officials of that bureau.

The judgment of the court below is hereby set aside and vacated and the cause
returned to the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, with instructions
to determine the questions presented by the issues framed with respect to the
sum of P3,500 which is the subject matter of the action.

This court expresses no opinion as to whom the said sum belongs. That is a
matter, which is left to the judgment of the trial court from the evidence
presented to it.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.

Carson, J., dissents.