Jardeleza v. People G.R. No.

165265, 6 February
2006
MARIBEL B. JARDELEZA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Taxation; Tariff and Customs Code (TCC); Smuggling; A person arriving in the Philippines with
baggages containing dutiable articles is bound to declare the same in all respects; Adequate
reporting of dutiable merchandise being brought into the country is absolutely necessary for
the enforcement of customs laws and failure to comply with those requisites is as condemnable
as failure to pay customs fees.—A person arriving in the Philippines with baggages containing
dutiable articles is bound to declare the same in all respects. In order to meet the convenience
of the travelers, a simple and more expeditious method of customs clearance is provided for
baggages occupying the passage therein for goods imported in the regular manner. Official
entry forms and forms of baggage declaration are supplied to the passengers to be filled before
the customs officer. The traveler has the burden of carrying forward items that have to be
declared before examination of the cargo has begun. Adequate reporting of dutiable
merchandise being brought into the country is absolutely necessary to the enforcement of
customs laws, and failure to comply with those requisites is as condemnable as failure to pay
customs fees.

Same; Same; Same; Any administrative penalty imposed on the person arriving in the
Philippines with undeclared dutiable articles is separate from and independent of criminal
liability for smuggling under Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code and for violation of
other provisions in the Tariff and Customs Code (TCC).—The provision is Part 4 of Title VI,
Section 2505, of the TCC which enumerates the administrative penalties in the form of
surcharges, fines and forfeitures imposed by law on imported dutiable goods. It does not define
a crime. It merely provides, inter alia, for the administrative remedies which can be resorted to
by the Bureau of Customs when seizing the dutiable articles found in the baggage of any person
arriving in the Philippines which is not included in the accomplished baggage declaration
submitted to the customs authorities, and the
administrative penalties that such person must pay for the release of such goods if not
imported contrary to law. Any administrative penalty that may be imposed on the person
arriving in the Philippines with undeclared dutiable articles is separate from and independent of
the criminal liability for smuggling under Section 3601 of the TCC and for violation of other
penal provisions in the TCC. The criminal liability of such person can only be determined in the
appropriate criminal proceedings, prescinding from the outcome in any administrative case that
may have been filed and disposed of by the customs authorities. Indeed, the second paragraph
of Section 2505 provides that nothing in this Section shall prevent the bringing of criminal
action against the offender for smuggling under Section 3601 of the TCC.

Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code (TCC) is a
penal provision—it was designed to supplement the existing provisions of the Tariff and
Customs Code (TCC) against the means leading up to smuggling, which might render it
beneficial by a substantive and criminal statement separately providing for the punishment of
smuggling; Smuggling is committed by any person who (1) fraudulently imports or brings into
the Philippines any article contrary to law, (2) assists in so doing any article contrary to law, or
(3) receives, conceals, buys or sells or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment
or sale of such goods after importation, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to
law.—In contrast to Section 2505, Section 3601 of the TCC is a penal provision. It defines the
crime of smuggling and provides compound penalties of graduated fine and imprisonment
based on the appraised values of the imported articles to be determined in the manner
provided in the TCC. There is no conflict between Section 2505 and Section 3601. In point of
fact, the two sections and Section 3602 complement each other. Section 3601 of the TCC was
designed to supplement the existing provisions of the TCC against the means leading up to
smuggling, which might render it beneficial by a substantive and criminal statement separately
providing for the punishment of smuggling. The law was intended not to merge into one and
the same offense all the many acts which are classified and punished by different penalties,
penal or administrative, but to legislate against the overt act of smuggling itself. This is
manifested by the use of the words “fraudulently” and “contrary to law” in the law. Smuggling
is committed by any person who: (1) fraudulently imports or brings into the Philippines any
article contrary to law; (2) assists in so doing any article contrary to law; or (3) receives,
conceals, buys, sells or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment or sale of such
goods after importation, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The phrase “contrary to law” in Section 3601 qualifies the phrases
“imports or brings into the Philippines” and “assists in so doing,” and not the word “article”;
The word “law” includes regulations having the force and effect of law, meaning substantive or
legislative type rules as opposed to general statements of policy or rules of agency,
organization, procedures or positions.—The phrase “contrary to law” in Section 3601 qualifies
the phrases “imports or brings into the Philippines” and “assists in so doing,” and not the word
“article.” The law penalizes the importation of any merchandise in any manner contrary to law.
The word “law” includes regulations having the force and effect of law, meaning substantive or
legislative type rules as opposed to general statements of policy or rules of agency,
organization, procedures or positions. An inherent characteristic of a substantive rule is one
affecting individual rights and obligations; the regulation must have been promulgated
pursuant to a congressional grant of quasi-legislative authority; the regulation must have been
promulgated in conformity to with congressionally-imposed procedural requisites.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Importation consists of bringing an article into the country from the
outside; Importation is complete when the taxable, dutiable commodity is brought within the
limits of the port of entry.—Importation consists of bringing an article into the country from the
outside. The crime of unlawful importation is complete, in the absence of a bona fide intent to
make entry and pay duties when the prohibited article enters Philippine territory. Importation
is complete when the taxable, dutiable commodity is brought within the limits of the port of
entry. Entry through a customs house is not the essence of the act.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Fraud; The fraud contemplated by law must be intentional fraud,
consisting of deception, willfully and deliberately dared or resorted to in order to give up some
right; Fraudulent concealment presupposes a duty to disclose the truth and that disclosure was
not made when opportunity to speak and inform was present; Fraud is not confined to words
or positive assertions—it may consist as well of deeds, acts or artifice of a nature calculated to
mislead another and thus allow one to obtain an undue advantage.—The fraud contemplated
by law must be intentional fraud, consisting of deception, willfully and deliberately dared or
resorted to in order to give up some right. The offender must have acted knowingly and with
the specific intent to deceive for the purpose of causing financial loss to another; even false
representations or statements or omissions of material facts come within fraudulent intent. The
fraud envisaged in the law includes the suppression of a material fact which a party is bound in
good faith to disclose. Fraudulent nondis-closure and fraudulent concealment are of the same
genre. Fraudulent concealment presupposes a duty to disclose the truth and that disclosure
was not made when opportunity to speak and inform was present, and that the party to whom
the duty of disclosure as to a material fact was due was thereby induced to act to his injury.
Fraud is not confined to words or positive assertions; it may consist as well of deeds, acts or
artifice of a nature calculated to mislead another and thus allow one to obtain an undue
advantage.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The term “entry” in Customs law has a triple meaning—(1) the
documents filed at Customs house, (2) the submission and acceptance of those documents,
and, (3) procedure of passing goods through the Customs house.—The term “entry” in Customs
law has a triple meaning. It means (1) the documents filed at the Customs house; (2) the
submission and acceptance of the documents; and (3) the procedure of passing goods through
the Customs house. Customs declaration forms or customs entry forms required to be
accomplished by passengers of incoming vessels or passenger planes are envisaged in the
section. There is thus no conflict between Sections 2505, 3601 and 3602 of the TCC. In point of
fact, the three provisions complement each other.

Evidence; Witnesses; One witness may give testimony that reads in print as if falling from the
lips of an angel of light, and yet not a soul who heard it, nisi, believe a word of it, and another
witness may testify so that it reads brokenly and obscurely in print, and yet there was that
about the witness that carried conviction of every truth to every soul who heard him testify.—
The CA affirmed the trial court’s findings on appeal, as well as its calibration of the testimony of
the witnesses. Jurisprudence has it that the findings of facts of the trial court, which the CA
affirmed on appeal, are conclusive on this Court unless it can be shown that cogent facts and
circumstances of substance were misunderstood or misinterpreted which, if considered, would
alter or reverse the outcome of the case. Indeed, as aptly stated by the Supreme Court of
Missouri in Creamer v. Bivert:x x x We well know there are things of pith that cannot be
preserved in or shown by the written page of a bill of exceptions. Truth does not always stalk
bodily forth naked, but modest withal, in a printed abstract in a court of last resort. She oft
hides in nooks and crannies visible only to the mind’s eye of the judge who tries the case. To
him appears the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the
flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it,
the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien. The brazen face
of the liar, the glibness of the schooled witness in reciting a lesson, or the itching overeagerness
of the swift witness, as well as honest face of the truthful one, are alone seen by him. In short,
one witness may give testimony that reads in print, here, as if falling from the lips of an angel of
light, and yet not a soul who heard it, nisi, believed a word of it; and another witness may
testify so that it reads brokenly and obscurely in print, and yet there was that about the witness
that carried conviction of truth to every soul who heard him testify. Therefore, where an issue
in equity rests alone on the credibility of witnesses, the upper court may with entire propriety
rest somewhat on the superior advantage of the lower court in determining a fact. x x x

Same; Same; A person cannot purge herself of the consequences of her fraud even by
confessing when she saw that she was on the point of being discovered or, as might have been
found, after she had been.—Petitioner cannot evade criminal liability for her claim that when
Nario was about to unzip the leatherette envelopes and discover the jewelries contained
therein, she told Nario and Rañada that she imported jewelries. Petitioner made her revelation
to avoid being embarrassed, as there were media in the area where Nario and Rañada
discovered that she had imported the jewelries which she did not declare in the Customs
Declaration Form. To paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, petitioner cannot get rid of the
duty of declaring the jewelries to the customs examiner by hiding the jewelries in the
leatherette envelopes covered by brochures and beneath the lining of the envelopes. She
cannot purge herself of the consequences of her fraud even by confessing when she saw that
she was on the point of being discovered or, as might have been found, after she had been.