G.R. No.

L-62636 April 27, 1984

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF TA A!!EALS "#$ C%ARLES AN&RULIS, respondents.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Alentajan & Associates for respondents.

MELENCIO-%ERRERA, J.:+.wph!1
A proceeding for review on certiorari of the Decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals in
CTA Case No. 3201, which reversed the Decision of petitioner, the Acting Coissioner of
Custos, decreeing the forfeiture of various foreign currencies found in the possession of
private respondent !Charles "oseph Andrulis# for violation of Central $an% Circular No. &3',
in relation to section 2&30!f# of the (evised Tariff and Custos Code.
)n 20 *e+ruar, 1-.0, Andrulis representing hiself as an Aerican +usinessan /on 0oint
ventures with his *ilipino counterparts/, arrived in 1anila and chec%ed in at the Centur, 2ar%
3heraton 4otel. Two da,s later, or on 22 *e+ruar, 1-.0, he left the hotel surreptitiousl,
without pa,ing for his +ills in the aount of 22,000.00. Col. *elix 5errudo, Chief 3ecurit,
)fficer of the 4otel, tiel, discovered the scheduled departure of Andrulis on that sae da,,
and iediatel, tipped6off the Custos authorities on Andrulis7 intention to a+scond. At the
1anila 8nternational Airport !18A#, the Custos authorities loo%ed for Andrulis fro aong
the passengers who were alread, on +oard 2hilippine Airlines *light No. &01 +ound for
3ingapore. Apprehensive, Andrulis loc%ed hiself inside the airplane7s cofort roo. 8n the
course of negotiations for hi to coe out, he slipped through an opening +ills worth
93:300.00. Andrulis finall, ,ielded to the authorities and surrendered the luggage he was
carr,ing which, when opened +, the authorities, contained various foreign currencies
consisting of 93:&-,;3-.00< &3,100 8ndonesian (upiah, and 3ingapore :30..00.
A criinal charge was filed +efore the )ffice of the Cit, *iscal, 2asa, Cit,, for violation of C$
Circular No. &3' in relation to (A 2;&, the Central $an% Charter. )n 10 1arch 1-.0, the
Assistant Cit, *iscal disissed the charge on the rationali=ation that the >overnent had
failed to present evidence that the currencies were not +rought in +, Andrulis.
2roceedings for the sei=ure of the foreign currencies were also coenced at the Custos
)ffice of the 18A in 2asa, Cit,, doc%eted as 3ei=ure 8dentification No. '1;2.0.
During the hearing, Andrulis su+itted the case for resolution on the +asis of the following
docuentar, evidence?t.hqw
1. 3worn Affidavit of Charles "oseph Andrulis, stating that the foreign exchange in @uestion are
owned +, claiant<
2. (esolution of the Cit, *iscal of 2asa, Cit, in 8.3. No. .06-'112, entitled 18A Custohouse
vs. Charles "oseph Andrulis, disissing the alleged charge of violation of Central $an% Circular
No. &3', in relation to Central $an% Circular No. 2;&, to show that there was no violation as
charged. 1
*or its part, the prosecution su+itted the case on the +asis of the following?t.hqw
A. Affidavit of Col. *elix A. 5errudo !(et.# Chief 3ecurit, )fficer of the Centur, 2ar% 3heraton6
1anila 4otel, executed on *e+ruar, 2-, 1-.0<
$. Certification issued +, Col. *elix A. 5errudo !(et.# dated *e+ruar, 2-, 1-.0<
C. Certification of 1r. Doingo ". >alicia, Acting Credit 1anager of the 1anila 4otel dated
*e+ruar, 2., 1-.0<
D. Aetter of Deand dated "ul, -, 1-B- issued +, (o+ert A. 1ani@ui=, Credit and Collection
1anager of the (esort 4otels Corporation addressed to 1r. Charles Andrulis<
C. 3worn stateent dated *e+ruar, 22, 1-.0 of 1r. (aonchito Aiongson, a Custos )fficer,
who apprehended the various foreign currencies herein su+0ect to sei=ure./
2
8tes /C/ and /D/ a+ove6listed tended to show that Andrulis had, on previous occasions, also
tried to a+scond without pa,ent of his +ills fro the 1anila 4otel and the 2ines 4otel in
$aguio.
)n 3 "une 1-.0, the Acting District Collector of Custos rendered a Decision, which found
Andrulis to have violated Central $an% Circular No. &3' in relation to section 2&30!f# of the
Tariff and Custos Code, and decreed?t.hqw
D4C(C*)(C, +, authorit, of law vested in this )ffice, it is ordered and decreed that the
various foreign currencies confiscated fro herein claiant, covered +, 38D No. '1;26.0 +e, as
the, are here+, declared forfeited in favor of the >overnent of the (epu+lic of the 2hilippines,
the sae to +e turned over to the Central $an% of the 2hilippines and exchanged with their
e@uivalent in 2hilippine pesos which shall +e deposited with the National Treasur, and
accounted for as Custos receipts.
Aet copies of this Decision +e furnished all offices and parties concerned for their inforation
and guidance.
The Chief, Auction and Cargo Disposal Division, this Custohouse, shall infor this )ffice of
the action ta%en thereon.
3) )(DC(CD.
3
Andrulis appealed to the Acting Coissioner of Custos, who affired the sae.
)n 23 "anuar, 1-.1, Andrulis filed a Notice of Appeal and on 1; *e+ruar, 1-.1, a 2etition
for (eview with the Court of Tax Appeals, doc%eted as CTA Case No. 3201. )n 30 "une
1-.2, respondent Court reversed the appealed Decision on the theor, that the legal
presuption of ownership has to +e accorded the possessor of the res, who need not +e
o+liged to show or prove it pursuant to 3ection &!0# of (ule 131 of the (ules of Court and
Article &'1 of the Civil Code. The dispositive portion of the CTA Decision decreed?t.
hqw
D4C(C*)(C, the decision appealed fro is reversed and respondent ordered to effect the
restitution of the forfeited currencies to petitioner. No pronounceent as to costs.
3) )(DC(CD.
4
)n 10 3epte+er 1-.2, petitioner filed a 1otion for (econsideration on the principal ground
that respondent Court had failed to consider that claiant Andrulis had the +urden of proof to
show that the foreign currencies sei=ed fro hi were +rought into the 2hilippines +, hi.
The otion was denied on 2 Dece+er 1-.2. 4ence, the instant 2etition for (eview on
certiorari +, the Acting Coissioner of Custos represented +, the 3olicitor >eneral.
The pertinent legal provisions provide?t.hqw
3ection 3. 9nless specificall, authori=ed +, the Central $an% or allowed under existing
international agreeents or Central $an% regulations, no person shall ta%e or attept to ta%e or
transit foreign exchanges, in an, for, out of the 2hilippines, directl,, through other persons,
through ails, or through international carriers<
The provisions of this section shall not appl, to tourists and non6resident teporar, visitors who
are ta%ing or sending out of the 2hilippines their own foreign exchange +rought in +, the. !C$
Circular No. &3'#
3ection 2&30. Propert S!"ject to #orfeit!re $nder Tariff and %!sto&s 'aw. E An, vehicle,
vessel or aircraft, cargo, article and other o+0ects shall, under the following condition +e su+0ect
to forfeiture<
xxx xxx xxxt.hqw
!f# An, article the iportation or e(portation of which is effected or atte&pted
contrar to law, or an, article of prohi+ited iportation or exportation, and au
other articles which, in the opinion of the Collector, have +een used, are or were
entered to +e used as instruents in the iportation or exportation of the
forer.
'
!Cphais supplied#
8n his defense, private respondent see%s refuge +ehind the exception in the afore@uoted C$
Circular No. &3' giving tourists the right to ta%e out of the 2hilippines their own foreign
exchange +rought in +, the. 2rivate respondent also relies heavil, on his ac@uittal in the
criinal charge filed against hi for violation of C$ Circular No. &3'.
The core issue is who has the +urden of proof in sei=ure or forfeiture proceedingsF The
applica+le law, 3ection 2&3& of the Tariff and Custos Code, is explicit in this regard.t.
hqw
3CC. 2&3&. )!rden of Proof in Sei*!re and+or #orfeit!re. , 8n all proceedings ta%en for the
sei=ure andGor forfeiture of an, vehicle, vessel, aircraft, +east or articles under the provisions of
the tariff and custos laws, the "!rden of proof shall lie !pon the clai&ant- 2rovided, That
pro+a+le cause shall +e first shown for the institution of such proceedings and that sei=ure
andGor forfeiture was ade under the circustances and in the anner descri+ed in the
preceding sections of this Code
6
!Cphais ours#.
9pon the facts of the case, the re@uireent of the law that the existence of pro+a+le cause
should first +e shown +efore firing of the forfeiture proceedings, had +een full, et. Dhen
Andrulis was apprehended at the 18A and was found to have in his possession the various
foreign currencies, he could not produce the re@uired Central $an% authori=ation allowing hi
to +ring the out of the countr,. This constituted pri&a facie evidence of infringeent of the
provisions of C$ Circular No. &3' and provided sufficient +asis for the sei=ure 7of the said
foreign exchange. 2ro+a+le cause having +een shown, the +urden of proof was upon
Andrulis to esta+lish that he fell within the purview of the exception prescri+ed in the second
paragraph of the afore@uoted 3ection 3 of C$ Circular No. &3' in that he actuall, +rought into
the countr, the foreign currencies and was 0ust ta%ing the out.
7
This +urden, Andrulis had
failed to satisfactoril, discharge. The legal presuption in 3ection &!0#, (ule 131 of the (ules
of Court and Article &'1 of the Civil Code, relied upon +, respondent Court, are of a general
character and cannot prevail over the specific provisions of the Tariff and Custos Code.
Aside fro Andrulis7 suspicious actuations when a+out to +e apprehended on +oard the
plane, which cast dou+t on his alleged "ona fide possession of the foreign currencies, his
+are assertion in his Affidavit, claiing that /he cae into the countr, with the intention of
investing here and of going into 0oint ventures with local counterparts/ ., has not +een
corro+orated +, other convincing evidence. The o+servations of the 3olicitor >eneral on this
point finds relevance?t.hqw
8f it was reall, his intention to invest, he could have presented docuents to support his
assertion. 4e could have produced papers re@uired +, the >overnent of foreigners intending
to invest in the 2hilippines. 4e could have presented as witnesses *ilipino +usinessen with
who he entered into 0oint ventures or at least discussed the prospects thereof. 4e could at the
least have revealed the nature of the +usiness he intended to engage in, the capital
re@uireents thereof, the situs of the +usiness, the for of the entit, he intended to for to
carr, on the +usiness, etc. 4e had done none of these.
2rivate respondent iplies that the foreign currencies sei=ed fro hi were intended to +e
invested in +usiness ventures in the 2hilippines. 8f this is so, wh, was it necessar, for hi to
have three %inds of currencies? 93 dollars, 8ndonesian (upiah and 3ingapore dollars. $esides,
+usinessen usuall, do not personall, carr, the cash which the, intend to invest. The, reit
the through the +an%s.
9
Andrulis7 ac@uittal in the criinal charge +efore the Cit, *iscal7s )ffice does not operate as
res j!dicata in a sei=ure or forfeiture proceeding. A distinction exists +etween the proceedings
+efore the *iscal which are in persona since the, are directed against the owner or holder
of the thing, whereas, a forfeiture proceeding is one in re directed against the thing
itself.t.hqw
There is a split of authorit, as to whether a forer conviction of a criinal offense +ased upon
the sae facts aounts to a +ar. ... The authorities are +, no eans agreed, however, that a
prior conviction for a Criinal charge +ars an action for a forfeiture of propert,. Thus, it has +een
held that since the forfeiture proceedings is one in re& under which the offense is attached
priaril, to the thing rather than the offender, the forfeiture proceedings stands independent of,
and wholl, unaffected +,, an, criinal proceeding in persona& and is not +arred +, a conviction
of the individual under a criinal charge. 1(
8n a siilar vein, it was also held in %.#. Sharp & %o., .nc. /s. %o&&issioner of %!sto&s, 22
3C(A B;& !1-;.# that the result of criinal proceedings in a separate case +efore a different
tri+unal, +eing dependent upon the evidence adduced therein, would not necessaril,
influence the 0udgent in a forfeiture proceeding.
*inall,, Andrulis contends that no foreign currenc, declaration is re@uired of an, incoing or
outgoing passenger and that it is not the intention of the >overnent to entrap unwar,
foreigners. True, (esolution No. &-', dated 1' April 1-;-, of the 1onetar, $oard,
provides?t.hqw
4enceforth, no currenc, declaration of an, %ind shall +e re@uired either fro outgoing or
incoing passengers. 11
4owever, tourists are not precluded fro su+itting proof, other than a currenc, declaration,
to show the legitiate source of the currenc, in their possession. $esides, (esolution No.
&-' ust +e deeed superseded +, (esolution No. 1'12, dated 1; "ul, 1-B;, which
re@uires that persons ta%ing or transitting or attepting to ta%e or transit foreign exchange
out of the 2hilippines ust have authori=ation fro the Central $an% allowing the to do so.
D4C(C*)(C, the Decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals, proulgated on 30 "une
1-.2, is here+, reversed and set aside, and the Decision of the Acting Coissioner of
Custos, dated 1& Dece+er 1-.0, here+, ordered reinstated. No costs.
3) )(DC(CD.