TOMAS CHIA, OWNER-MANAGER OF THE SONY-MERCHANDISING (PHIL.) OF NO. 691 CALLE RAON, QUIAPO, MANILA, AND TOM’S ELECTRONICS OF NO. 690 CALLE RAON, QUIAPO, MANILA, PETITIONER, VS. T…

This petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus
and injunction seeks: (1) to nullify
the warrants of seizure and detention issued and signed by the Collector of
Customs; and (2) to recover the confiscated goods seized under these general
warrants, as well as damages.

Acting on a verified report of a confidential informant that
assorted electronic and electrical equipment and other articles illegally
imported into the Philippines by a syndicate engaged in unlawful “shipside” activities (foreign
goods are unloaded from foreign ships in transit through Philippine waters into
motorized bancas and landed on Philippine soil without passing through the
Bureau of Customs, thereby evading payment of the corresponding customs duties
and taxes thereon) were found inside “Tom’s Electronics” and
“Sony Merchandising (Philippines)” stores located at 690 and 691 Gonzalo
Puyat corner Evangelista Street, Quiapo, Manila, a letter-request dated April
23, 1976 was addressed to the Collector of Customs by the Deputy Director of
the Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center, Manila Bay Area (RASAC-MBA) for the
issuance of warrants of seizure and detention. After evaluation, the Collector of Customs issued Warrants of Seizure
and Detention Nos. 14925 and 14925-A, directing the Anti-Smuggling Action
Center to seize the goods mentioned therein, which read as follows:

“Republic of
the Philippines,

-versus-

Various electronic
equipments

like cassette tape
recorders,

car stereos,
phonograph

needles (diamond),
portable

TV sets, imported
long playing

records, spare
parts of

TVs and radios and other

electrical appliances.

“TOM’S ELECTRONICS

Claimant

Seizure
Identification

No. 14925-A

­_____________

SONY
MERCHANDISING (PHIL.)

Claimant

Seizure
Identification

NO. 14925

“To: The Director or his duly-

authorized
representative ASAC

Camp
Aguinaldo, Quezon City

“GREETINGS:

“WHEREAS, the above-described articles are liable for
forfeiture for having been imported in violation of Section 2536 of the Tariff
and Customs Code as amended in relation to Section 2530 (m)-1 of the same Code;

“WHEREAS, the said articles are at present in the custody
of Tom’s Electronics/Sony Merchandising (Phil.);

“WHEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by law
and in compliance with
Finance Department Order No. 96-67 as published in Customs Memorandum Circular
No. 133-67 dated July 25, 1967, you are hereby ordered to forthwith seize the
aforementioned articles and turn them over to the custody of the Auction and
Cargo Disposal Division of this Bureau.” (Annexes A & A-1, pp. 10-11,
Rollo.)

A RASAC team was formed and given a mission order to enforce the warrants, which
it implemented with the assistance of: (1) the National Customs Police (augmenting the team with two members),
(2) the Detective Bureau of the Manila Western Police District Headquarters (with
three detectives), as well as, (3) Precinct 3 of the Manila Western Police
District which exercised jurisdictional control over the place to be raided. The intended raid was entered in the respective police blotters of the
police detective bureaus.

On the strength of the
warrants of seizure and detention, the raid was conducted in the afternoon of
April 25, 1976 at the two stores of the petitioner. ASAC team leader Gener Sula, together with his agents Badron Dobli, Arturo Manuel, Rodolfo Molina and Servillano
Florentin of Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, assisted by two customs policemen, Val Martinez and
Renato Sorima, and Manila policemen Rogelio Vinas and John Peralta, recovered
from the stores, assorted electronic equipment and other articles,
listed in Annex B of the petition, the customs duties on which allegedly had not been paid (p. 12, Rollo). They were turned over to the Customs Auction
and Cargo Disposal Unit of the Bureau of Customs.

On May 17, 1976, in the afternoon, the hearing officer of Acting
Collector of Customs Alfredo Francisco conducted a hearing on the confiscation
of the goods taken by Gener Sula and
his agents.

Two days later, petitioner Tomas Chia filed this petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus to enjoin the Collector of Customs and/or his
agents from further proceeding with the forefeiture hearing and prayed that the
search warrants be declared null and void, that the respondents be ordered to
return the confiscated articles to the petitioner, and to pay damages. Upon filing a P1,000-bond, the Court issued
a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the forfeiture proceedings.

The pivotal issue raised
in the petition is whether the warrants of seizure and detention (or Seizure
Identifications Nos. 14925 and 14925-A) are general warrants issued in
violation of Rule 126, Section 3, of the Rules of Court which provides that:

“A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause
in connection with one specific offense to be determined by the judge or justice of the peace after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized. No
search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.”

and
under Section 3 of the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution which provided
that:

“The right of the people to be secured in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be
violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined by
the judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by
law after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.” (Underscoring supplied.)

On the other hand, the
respondents contend that the goods seized from petitioner’s stores by the
RASAC-MBA team were only those subject to customs duties and taxes but which
were not supported by any evidence of payment of those duties and taxes. Those goods are subject to forfeiture for
having been imported in violation of Section 2536 of the Tariff and Customs
Code, as amended, in relation to Section 2530 (m)-1, which provides:

“SEC. 2536. SEIZURES OF OTHER ARTICLES. – The Commissioner of Customs and Collector
of Customs and/or any other customs officer, with the prior authorization in writing by the Commissioner, may demand
evidence of payment of duties and taxes on foreign articles openly
offered for sale or kept in storage, and if no such evidence can be produced,
such articles may be seized and subjected to forfeiture proceedings: Provided, however, that during such
proceedings the person or entity from whom such articles have been seized shall
be given the opportunity to prove or show the source of such articles and the
payment of duties and taxes thereon.”

The petition is devoid of
merit.

Not only may goods be
seized without a search and seizure warrant under Section 2536
of the Customs and Tariff Code, when
they (the goods) are openly offered for sale or kept in storage in a store as
in this case, but the fact is that petitioner’s stores – “Tom’s
Electronics” and “Sony Merchandising (Phil.)” – were searched
upon warrants of search and detention issued by the Collector of Customs, who,
under the 1973 Constitution, was “a responsible officer authorized by
law” to issue them. Sections 2208
and 2209 of the Tariff and Customs Code provide when a search may be made
without a warrant and when a warrant is necessary:

“SEC. 2208. RIGHT
OF POLICE OFFICER TO ENTER INCLOSURE. – For the more effective discharge of his
official duties, any person exercising the powers herein conferred, may at any
time enter, pass through or search any land or inclosure or any warehouse,
store or other building, not being a dwelling house.

“A warehouse, store or other building or inclosure used for
the keeping or storage of articles does not become a dwelling house within the
meaning hereof merely by reason of the fact that a person employed as watchman
lives in the place, nor will the fact that his family stays there with him alter the case.”

“SEC. 2209. – SEARCH OF A DWELLING HOUSE. – A dwelling house
may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a Judge of the Court or such other
responsible officers as may be authorized by law, upon sworn
application showing probable cause and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the person
or thing to be seized.”

The warrants issued by
the Collector of Customs in this case were not general warrants, as erroneously
alleged by the petitioner for they identified the stores to be searched, described the articles to be
seized and specified the provision of
the Tariff and Customs Code violated.

Upon effecting the
seizure of the goods, the Bureau of Customs acquired exclusive jurisdiction not
only over the case but also over the goods seized for the purpose of enforcing
the tariff and customs laws.

A party dissatisfied with
the decision of the Collector may appeal to the Commissioner of Customs, whose
decision is appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals in the manner and within the period prescribed by law and
regulations. The decision of the Court
of Tax Appeals may be elevated to the Supreme Court for review (Secs.
2309-2316; 2401 & 2402 of the Tariff and Customs Code; Collector of Customs
vs. Torres, et al., 45 SCRA 272).

Since petitioner did not exhaust
his administrative remedies, his recourse to this Court is premature (Acting
Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila vs. Caluag, 20 SCRA 204;
Laganapan vs. Asedillo, 154 SCRA 377; National Development Co. vs. Hervilla,
151 SCRA 520). If for no other reason,
the petition is dismissible on that score.

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The writ of preliminary injunction which we issued on May 28, 1976 is hereby
lifted and set aside. Costs against
petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.