ELICIDAD VIERNEZA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT.

An appeal from the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (C. T. A.
Case No. 762) sustaining a decision of respondent Commissioner of Customs
forfeiting, in favor of the Government, 760 cartons of Chesterfield and Came’
cigarettes with blue seals but without internal revenue strip stamps.

Reproduced below are the undisputed findings of facts in the
decision’ appealed from:

“At about 2:00 a. m. on September 16, 1957, the M/V ‘Legaspi‘ a coastwise vessel coming from Jolo
docked at the port of Cebu on her way to Manila.  Acting upon a confidential telegraphic report
from an informer in Jolo that the said vessel was
carrying a substantial quantity of smuggled foreign cigarettes, the Customs
authorities of the port of Cebu conducted a search of
the vessel which eventually Ied to the discovery of
eight cases containing SIX HUNDRED FIFTY (650) CARTONS of Chesterfield
cigarettes and ONE HUNDRED TEN (110) CARTONS of Camel cigarettes without the
required Internal ‘Revenue strip stamps. 
Upon investigation it was also discovered that the subject merchandise
was covered by Bill of Lading No. 24-A (Exhibit B) with ‘personal belong­ings’
as its declaration and correspondingly entered into the manifest of the vessel
likewise with ‘personal belongings’ as the noted description, and with Sultan
Pula of Jolo as the consignor and a certain.  Carlos Valdez as the consignee in Manila.  Upon further in­vestigation, however, it was
found that a woman pas­senger was accompanying the subject merchandise
appearing later to be Mrs. Felicidad Vierneza, the present claimant, who all the while holds the
bill of lading.  It should be noted that
when Mrs. Vierneza was questioned during the course
of the search she disclaimed under oath (Exhibit H) ownership of the
merchandise.

“Believing that there is a strong evidence of violations of Customs laws, the Collector of
Customs of Cebu seized the merchandise and instituted
the forfeiture proceedings for violation of Section 2530 (f), (g) and (m)-4 of
the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines and Section 174 of the Internal
Revenue Code.  After complying with the
procedural requirements of the law, the Collector of Customs of Cebu conducted a hearing of the case x x
x (and) on Feb­ruary
5, 1958, x x x
rendered his decision forfeiting the subject merchandise in favor of the
Government x x x (pp. 42-43, Customs records.)

“The claimant of the merchandise, petitioner herein, appealed
in due time from the decision of the Collector of Customs of Cebu to the Commissioner of Customs who affirmed the
decision of the Collector, with the modification that the forfeiture was
sustained, among others, under paragraph (m-1) of Section 2530 of the Tariff
and Customs Code instead of under paragraph (m-4) of the same section.  x x x .”

Elevated to the Court of Tax Appeals, the decision of respondent
Com­missioner of Customs was affirmed,
the said court ” (f)inding that the Collector of
Customs of Cebu had jurisdiction to order the seizure
and forfeiture of said cigarettes and that the forfeiture of the same is in
accordance with Section 2530 (f) of the Tariff and Customs Code”.  Thus, petitioner, who claimed to have merely
purchased the cigarettes in the open market in Jolo);
now turns to us for relief, advancing the following assignment of errors:

“1. The Court of Tax Appeals erred in affirming the decision
of the respondent finding that the Col­lector of Customs for the port
of Cebu
acted with jurisdiction in instituting seizure proceedings against the
merchandise herein involved.

“2. The Court of Tax Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the
respondent finding that the merchandise involved are liable to the penalty of
forfeiture (under Section 2530 (f) of the Tariff and Customs Code).

“3. The Court of Tax Appeals erred in not finding that the
merchandise involved which were seized and libeled for alleged violation of
particular provisions of law can not be legally forfeited for violation of any other
provision of law.”

     All three
assigned errors are untenable.

1.  Petitioner argues that the Collector of
Customs of Jolo, who has “jurisdiction over all
matters arising from the enforcement of tariff and customs laws within his collection district” as
provided for in Section 703 of the Tariff and Customs Code, is exclusively authorized to proceed against the
cigarettes in question inasmuch as the smuggling was allegedly perpetrated in
his col­lection district.  Hence,
petitioner concludes that the seizure and forfeiture thereof by the Collector
of Customs of Cebu is irregular and illegal for lack of
jurisdiction.

We do not agree.  First, because Section 703, on which
petitioner’s conclusion is premised, is legally non-existent, the same having
been vetoed by the President.^[1] Secondly, the Tariff and Customs Code
clearly empowers, the Bureau of
Customs to prevent and suppress smuggling and other frauds upon the Customs
[Sec. 602 (b)] over all seas within the jurisdiction of the Philippines and over all coasts, ports, airports,
harbors, bays, rivers and inland waters navigable from the sea and, in case of
“hot pursuit”, even beyond the maritime zone (Sec. 603).  For the due enforcement of this function, a
Collector, among others, is authorized to search and seize (Sec. 2203), at any place within the jurisdiction
of the said Bureau (Sec. 2204, sec. par.), any vessel, aircraft, cargo, article, animal or other movable property
when the same is subject to forfeiture
or liable Lot any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws (Sec. 2205).  It is of no moment where the in­troduction of
the property subject to forfeiture took place. 
For, to our mind, “(i)t is the right of
an officer of the customs to seize goods which are sus­pected to have been
introduced into the country in violation
of the revenue laws not only in
his own district, but also in any other district than his own” [Taylor vs.
U. S., 44 U. S. (3 How.) 197, 11 L. ed. 559]. 
Any other cons­truction of the Tariff and Customs Code, such as the one proposed by peti­tioner, would
virtually place the Collector of Customs
in a straitjacket and
render inutile his police power of
search and seizure, thereby frustrating effective enforcement of the measures
provided in the Code to prevent and suppress smuggling and other frauds upon
the Customs.  This we can not sanction by
subscribing to petitioner’s conclusion. 
The Code, as a revenue law, is
to be construed to carry out the
intention of Congress in enacting it and as would most effectually accomplish
its objects (15 Am. Jur. 304).

Petitioner also attacks the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs of Cebu on
the ground that the forfeiture of the cigarettes is not in ac­cordance
‘with Section 2531 of the Code, as the same were, at the time of seizure, no longer in the custody and control of the
Bureau of Customs nor in the
hands, or subject to control, of the importer: 
original owner, consignee, agent
or person with knowledge dirt the same were imported contrary to law.

Again, we disagree.  The
forfeiture is effected precisely in accordance with Section 2531 afore-cited,
which plainly provides “that forfeiture shall be effected when and while the article is in the custody or within the jurisdiction of the customs authority … or in the
hands or subject to the control of some person who shall receive, conceal,
buy, sell or transport the same
…. with knowledge that the article was imported . . . . .contrary
to law” (Emphasis supplied). There can be no question that the cigarettes
involved were seized and forfeited at the port of Cebu
which is within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs and, as will be shown
later, while the cigarettes were subject to the control of petitioner, who
bought, concealed, and transported the same aboard the M/V “Legaspi” with knowledge that they were imported
contrary to law.  Besides, it is a
settled jurisprudence that forfeiture proceedings are in the nature of
proceedings in rem wherein the
jurisdiction to proceed against the res is
vested in the court of the
district where the same is found or seized (25 C. 572).  Therefore, the Collector of Customs of Cebu, who has the authority under the Tariff and Customs
Code to institute forfeiture proceedings, lawfully assume jurisdiction to
forfeit, in favor of the Government, the smuggled cigarettes found and seized
within his collection district.

2.  Petitioner next argues
that the cigarettes in question are not mer­chandise of prohibited importation
inasmuch as she had purchased the same in the open market in Jolo; which goes to show that she is not the importer,
original owner, consignee, agent or person who effected the importation
thereof; and that, in the absence of evidence that she bought the same with
knowledge that they were imported contrary to law in accordance with Section
2531, as the lack of internal revenue’ stamps is not evidence of illegal
importation much less her knowledge thereof, the said cigarettes are not
subject to forfeiture under Section 2530 (f) of the Code.

This is not the first time that this question has been posed
before us.  In the case of Gigare vs. Commissioner of Customs (G. R. No. L-21376,
August 29, 1966, 17 S. C. R. A. 1001), we disposed of the same by holding that “(s)ince, admittedly, ‘ale internal revenue tax on the cigarettes in dis­pute has not been
paid, it is clear that said cigarettes fall within the category of ‘merchandise
of prohibited importation,’ the importation of which is contrary to law and may justify its forfeiture, as
provided in Sections 1363 (f) and 1364 of the Revised Administrative
Code,” which correspond to Sections 2530 (f) an 2531, respectively, of the
Tariff and Customs Code. “Moreover, the blue se affixed on said commodities
prove satisfactorily that they are foreign products Again, the importation
thereof into the Philippines is attested by the presence of said products
within our jurisdiction” (Ibid.). 
And concerning petitioner’s knowledge
of these facts, the following disquisition by the Court of Tax Appeals lengthily quoted in the Gigare case, finds significant application in the case at
bar:

“Were the cigarettes in question illegally im­ported into the Philippines?  We are
of the opinion that the Commissioner of Customs should be sustained in
his finding that the cigarettes in question were im­ported illegally.  The absence of Philippine internal revenue
strip stamps on cigarettes indicates
that they are either manufactured clandestinely within the Philippines
or imported illegally into the country. 
In the case at bar, concomitant circumstances militate against the
manufacture clandestinely within the Philippines
of the cigarettes.  The affixture of blue
seals on the packs of the cigarettes, the wrappers, the purchase of the cigarettes
in the open market of Jolo, a place
where American and other foreign-made cigarettes are, of common knowledge,
frequently smuggled from Borneo ….. and the failure of-petitioner to show
that the cigarettes in question were locally
manufactured rule out the possibility that the cigarettes in question
were manufactured in the Philippines.  Consequently, we are constrained to conclude
that these cigarettes were foreign (American) made.  They were merchandise of prohibited
importation, the impartation of which was contrary to law, and should be
forfeited under Section 1363 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code.

xxxxxx                       xxxxx             xxxxx               xxxxx;

“The fact that petitioner is merely a buyer of the
cigarettes in the open market of Jolo does not-render
the cigarettes immune from the penalty of for­feiture.  This is so because forfeiture proceedings are
instituted-against the res (cigarettes) …..
and, by express provision of Section 1364 of the Revised Admin­istrative Code,
the forfeiture shall occur while the mer­chandise is in the hands or subject to
control of some person who shall
receive, conceal, buy, sell, or transport the same with knowledge that the
merchandise was imported contrary to law. 
Petitioner cannot but be charged with the knowledge that the cigarettes
in question were imported contrary to law, for if it were otherwise, why were
these cigarettes concealed on board the vessel . . . . ?  Why did she deny owner­ship over said
cigarettes? For what plausible reason was she afraid of detention? What impelled
her to believe that she would be detained by the customs authorities?  To uphold the claim of petitioner and forego
the forfeiture would be giving a chance
to accessories after the ‘fact of smugglers of foreign cigarettes to ply
their trade with impunity and with
sanction of the courts.  What the
executive department could not curb, that is rampant smuggling of foreign cigarettes, the courts should not
tolerate . . . . “

3.  Petitioner finally
contends that the decision of the Commissioner of Customs libeling and
forfeiting the cigarettes involved in the present case for violation of Section
2530 (m-1) of the Tariff and Customs Code is unconstitutional, in view of the
fact that she was allegedly not afforded an opportunity to defend the
cigarettes against such charge, said section not being one of the original
grounds cited by the Collector of Customs of Cebu in
forfeiting the same.

 The contention has no
merit.  Certainly, the appellate power of
the Commissioner of Customs to review seizure and protest cases is not limited
to a review of the issues raised on appeal. 
He may affirm, modify or reverse the
decision of the Collector (Section 2313) on other questions provided
that his findings and conclusions are, as in the case at bar, supported by
evidence It is of no consequence whatsoever what were the original grounds of
the seizure and forfeiture if, in point of fact, the goods are by law subject
to forfeiture [Wood vs. U. S., 16 Pet. (U.S.) 342, 10 L. ed. 987].  As there is evidence on record showing that
the cigarettes in question were imported and introduce into the country without passing through a customs house, the same may be forfeited under said Section
2530 (m-1.) of the Code, notwithstanding
that it is not one of the original charges. 
As we held in Que Po Lay vs. Central
Bank et al. (104 Phil. 853),
what counts is not the designation of the particular section of the law that
has been violated but the description of the violation in the seizure report.^[2]

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles and
Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
53 Off. Gaz. (No. 20) 7200.

^[2]
Also U. S. vs. Burns, 41
Phil 418; U. S. vs. Ondaro, 39 Phil. 70; U.S vs. Treyes, 14 Phil. 270; U. S. vs.
Jeffrey, 15 Phil. 391; Davis vs. Dir. of Prisons, 17 Phil. 168.