ANG FANG AND ANG KIM TIAO PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Two criminal cases against
petitioners are before this Court for review on certiorari: The first, a
violation of Section 2703, Revised Administrative Code [fraudulent practice
against customs revenues (smuggling)]; and, the second, a violation of Article
192, Revised Penal Code [illegal importation of prohibited drugs (opium)]. The
Manila court^[1] found petitioners
guilty on both counts. The sentence against each: For smuggling (violation of
Section 2703, Revised Administrative Code), “an indeterminate penalty ranging
from a minimum of not less than 1 year imprisonment (no maximum provided) and to
pay a fine of P2,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency”; and,
for illegal importation of opium (violation of Article 192, Revised Penal Code),
“an indeterminate penalty ranging from a minimum of 1 year and 1 day to a
maximum of 3 years, 6 months and 21 days of prision
correccional and to pay a fine of P2,000, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.” On appeal, the Court of Appeals
^[2] voted to affirm,
except for the smuggling case where an indeterminate prison term “consisting of
a minimum of not less than six (6) months and a maximum of not more than two (2)
years” was imposed, with costs.

The undisputed facts
are:

Sometime in March, 1955,
petitioner Ang Fang, a merchant with an annual
allocation of $1,000.00, opened a letter of credit with the China Banking
Corporation for $100.00 to be used for the importation of “joss” papers from
Hongkong. In accordance with the accepted firm offer
and the letter of credit, a bill of lading covering “joss” papers contained in
four bales was sent to, and received by, Ang Fang from
the shipper. Bee Chiong Hong in Hongkong.

On March 16, 1955, a shipment of
four bales supposedly consisting of “joss” papers, bearing identification mark
“BTC” and consigned to Ang Fang, was unloaded in the
Port of Manila from the steamer “S/S Schwabenstein”
which came from Hongkong. The shipment was placed
under customs’ custody pending release in due course to the
consignee.

After arrival of the bales
above-mentioned, petitioner Ang Kim Tiao, in representation of consignee Ang Fang, submitted to the Bureau of Customs the necessary
documents for the release of the shipment, which was later given Entry No.
23450. These documents consisted of the permit to deliver the imported goods;
the importer’s declaration for advance payment of sales tax; the official
receipt of cash deposit made to cover the estimated taxes; the release
certificate from the Central Bank through the China Banking Corporation as
agent; the bill of lading; the commercial invoices; and the Customs Consumption
Entry.

Prior to the arrival of the
shipment, there had been reports of illegal importation of dutiable merchandise.
Said shipment was, consequently, subjected to rigid inspection. Instead of
examining the bales at the pier where they were unloaded, the customs
authorities decided to inspect them thoroughly at the Parcel Section. Upon
opening the four bales -by a committee composed of Customs Examiner Alcantara, Chief Appraiser Aceron,
Deputy Collector Millares and Rizalino de Guzman of the Port Terminal Secret Service, in
the presence of other persons – it was found that two of the bales, Nos. 3 and
4, had holes in the center, 1/2 foot square (6×6 inches) and about 1 foot deep.
In bale No. 3, twenty-two packages containing ladies’ and men’s watches of
different makes, together with stainless steel and gold-filled bracelets and
watch crowns, were found, viz: 2,860 watches for men
and ladies; 973 gold-filled watch crowns, and 2,400 gold-filled and stainless
bracelets for men’s and ladies’ watches. In bale No. 4, 170 tins of opium (Dog
Brand) were discovered.

The tins of opium were submitted
for analysis to the National Bureau of Investigation. Its chemist, Lorenzo A.
Sunico, selected at random several tins from the six
packages submitted to him, found that the contents thereof were
opium.

Ang Kim Tiao – who submitted the papers for the release of the four
bales of supposed “joss” papers – was investigated. His statement was taken down
in writing. There, he stated that he is a cousin of Ang Fang who resides at 503 Nueva
St.; that the negotiable bill of lading was among the papers signed by him and
submitted to the Bureau of Customs for the release of the four bales. In none of
these papers were the goods in question declared. Only “joss” papers in four
packages were mentioned. Ang Fang, however, asserted
that he did not order them. Ang Kim Tiao testified that he took steps to have the goods
released; that he was not able to do so as he was informed on March 23, 1955 by
Mr. Aceron, Chief Appraiser, that they would not be
released; that he informed Ang Fang about the matter,
but that the latter did not do anything.

1. Our inquiry is mainly directed
at the question of whether the People had discharged its heavy burden. And this,
on the face of petitioners’ disclaimer.

But the facts just recited –
without more – will support the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that “[N]o
one else in the whole world could have ordered them to be shipped to
Manila”.^[3] Because there is no point in petitioners’ averment
that the innocuous documents show only an importation of “joss” papers. For,
documents would not recite the clandestinely imported goods. These are, as here,
ingeniously concealed with legally imported merchandise on the chance that the
former could escape detection. Or, if discovered, the importer could, by
improper methods, obtain delivery thereof just the same. Smugglers thrive on
their wits. Neither will it profit petitioners to throw the burden of illegal
shipment on their shipper. Reason: the shipper will not include it unless
ordered and paid; or, unless a secret understanding was had between him and the
local importer. Those undeclared goods could not have been planted either. The
value thereof leaves us unwilling to accept that a racketeer mixed them with the
genuinely imported “joss” papers. Unless, of course, an unholy alliance existed
between him and petitioners. So much is to be risked for so uncertain a
result.

Here is the picture that the
record projects: Ang Fang is the importer. The bales,
in which the smuggled items were discovered, were consigned to him. Previous
reports of illegal importation of dutiable merchandise reached the authorities.
The other petitioner, Ang Kim Tiao, is a longtime employee and cousin of Ang Fang. The two Angs are both
interested in the release because they imported the goods. Ang Kim Tiao pressed for the
immediate release of the goods. When told that the bales would undergo rigid
inspection at the Parcel Office, petitioners shied away; they did not appear at
the scheduled examination, despite the fact that both were duly notified
thereof. They did not bother to procure delivery of the joss papers, did not
even as much as inquire about the cause for refusal to release them; and this,
in spite of the fact that Ang Kim Tiao was at first insistent in prompt release. This pattern
of conduct does not comport with petitioners’ claim that they are ignorant of
the clandestine shipment and that they are but victims of an ingenious plot
concocted by others. Correctly, as the Court of Appeals observed, “[I]t would be
sheer naivete‘ if not pure infantilism of thought to
accept their pretensions”.^[4]

2. Next, we address ourselves to
the penalty. That imposed by the courts below for the illegal importation of
opium is fair. For the crime of fraudulent practice against customs revenues
(Section 2703, Revised Administrative Code), we feel that we should – under the
Indeterminate Sentence Act – elevate the minimum of the penalty to the level set
by the trial court.

Wherefore, the judgment under
review is modified in the sense that, for the violation of Section 2703 of the
Revised Administrative Code, petitioners are hereby sentenced each to
imprisonment for an indeterminate period ranging from one (1) year to two (2)
years,^[5] and to pay a fine of Two
Thousand Pesos (f 2,000), with the corresponding subsidiary subsidiary imprisonment. In all other respects, said
judgment is affirmed. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J. Reyes, J. B. L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1] Criminal Cases Nos. 32033 and
32034, Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled “People of the Philippines,
plaintiff, versus Ang Fang and Ang Kim Tiao,
accused.”

^[2] CA-G.R. Nos. 01893-R and
01894-R, “People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, versus Ang Fang and
Ang Kim Tiao,
defendants-appellants”.

^[3] Decision of the Court of
Appeals, Petitioners’ brief, p. 42.

^[4] Decision, Court of Appeals,
Petitioners’ brief, p. 44. Cf,: U. S. vs. Pow Sing, et al., 23 Phil. 421, 422; U. S. vs. Ah Tung, et al., 26 Phil. 321, 322-323; U. S. vs. Aztigarraga, et al., 36 Phil. 886,
887-888.

^[5] The corporal penalty in Sec.
2703, Revised Administrative Code, is from 6 months to 2 years.