COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE JUDGE DEMETRIO ENCARNACION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL AND RODOLFO SADIA, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner seeks to set aside a portion of the decision of
respondent Judge which orders the return of certain dutiable goods to
an accused in a criminal case despite the fact that they had been
legally forfeited to the Republic of the Philippines.

On September 7, 1951, one Rodolfo Sadia, a crew member of the
Philippine Air Lines, arrived from Madrid on a PAL plane bringing with
him certain dutiable articles. These articles were not declared in the
baggage declaration and were brought without the corresponding import
license. Accordingly, they were seized by the customs authorities.

After due hearing, of which Sadia and other necessary parties were
duly notified, the Collector of Customs, in a decision rendered on
April 14, 1952, decreed that said articles be forfeited to the
Government as required by law. Said decision was approved on May 3,
1952 by the Commissioner of Customs, and as Sadia did not appeal
therefrom, nor ask for a reconsideration thereof, the order of
forfeiture became final.

On October 17, 1952, Rodolfo Sadia was charged before the Court of
First Instance of Rizal with a violation of section 2703 of the Revised
Administrative Code for his failure to declare the dutiable articles
above referred to in his baggage declaration (Criminal Case No. 3794),
and, after trial, the court, then presided over by respondent Judge, in
a decision rendered on June 29, 1953, acquitted the accused on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence, ordering at the same time the
Bureau of Customs to return to him said articles upon prior payment of
the customs duties due thereon.

On July 20, 1953, the Government filed a motion for reconsideration
of that portion of the decision which orders the Bureau of Customs to
release the dutiable articles to the accused on the ground that the
order is illegal because it modifies a final order of forfeiture of the
Collector of Customs who has exclusive and original jurisdiction to act
on the matter under the law, and this motion having been denied, the
Commissioner of Customs instituted the present proceedings.

In his answer, respondent Rodolfo Sadia tries to justify the
disposition made of the articles by respondent Judge contending that
the Commissioner of Customs had no jurisdiction to order their seizure
and that all the proceedings conducted by him on the matter are null
and void.

This claim cannot now be invoked by respondent, nor can he dispute
the validity of the seizure decree, it appearing that he failed to
appeal from the decision of the Collector of Customs as approved by the
Commissioner for Customs, as required by law. It appears that,
following the seizure of the dutiable articles, a hearing was held
after giving due notice to respondent Sadia and other necessary
parties, and after the hearing the Collector of Customs, in a decision
rendered on April 14, 1952, decreed the forfeiture of the articles in
favor of the Government. From this decision Sadia did not appeal. He
cannot therefore dispute now the validity of said decision which had
long become final. (Section 1383, Revised Administrative Code.)

The question now to be determined is whether the respondent Judge
has acted properly in ordering the return of the dutiable articles to
Rodolfo Sadia in view of his acquittal in the criminal case on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove criminal intent to defraud
the Government.

Under the law, “Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony
shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the
instruments or tools with which it was committed. Such proceeds and
instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
Government, unless they be the property of a third person not liable
for the offense * * *.” (Article 45, Revised Penal Code). As a
corollary, it may be said that the court has the power to determine to
whom the said instruments or tools should be adjudicated in case of
acquittal. And so it has been held that the court having jurisdiction
of the offense has also the jurisdiction to determine the disposition
of such proceeds, instruments or tools, and it is its duty to dispose
of same upon the application of any person interested (U. S. vs.
Bruhez, 28 Phil., 305). But in order that the court may exercise this
jurisdiction it is necessary that such instruments or tools be
submitted in evidence or be placed at the disposal of the court in such
manner that it can be said that they are within its jurisdiction.
Otherwise, the court is bereft of power to pass upon the disposition of
said instruments or tools. (U. S. vs. Filart and Singson, 30 Phil., 80.)

Several reasons may be advanced why the respondent Judge erred in
ordering the release of the dutiable articles in question to Rodolfo
Sadia even if he is acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence. One of them is the fact that said articles have ceased to
belong to Sadia. It is undisputed that they had been forfeited to the
Government by the Commissioner of Customs by virtue of the power
conferred upon him by law after Sadia and other necessary parties had
been duly heard. (Sections 1379-1380, Revised Administrative Code.)
This order became final in view of the failure of Sadia to appeal as
required by law. He cannot therefore now dispute that said articles had
passed to the control of the Government. Much less can the court decree
that said articles be delivered to him.

Another reason is the fact that the controversial articles had never
been submitted in evidence nor placed at the disposal of the court in
the criminal case instituted against Sadia. This fact appears in the
very decision of the court and is a matter that has contributed to
creating the doubt which resulted in the acquittal of the accused. Said
articles, not having been submitted in evidence’, were not within the
jurisdiction of the court and as such could not have been subject to
its disposition. It is therefore evident that, in ordering their return
to Sadia, the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or at least
with grave abuse of discretion.

Petition is granted, with costs against respondent Rodolfo Sadia.
The objectionable portion is ordered deleted from the decision rendered
in Criminal Case No. 3794.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Labrador, Concepcion and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.