VOL.

73, OCTOBER 29, 1976 553

Viduya vs. Berdiago
*
No. L-29218. October 29, 1976.

JOSE T VIDUYA, as collector of Customs of the Port of

Manila petitioner, vs. EDUARDO BERDIAGO alias
EDUARDO BERTIAGO; and HON. ANDRES REYES, as
Presiding Judge of Branch VI, Court of First Instance of
Rizal, respondents.

Constitutional law; Search and seizure; Requisites for issuance

of valid search warrant; Existence of probable cause; Case at bar.·
While therefore, it is to be admitted that his warrant of seizure and
detention came later, on July 5, 1968 to be exact, than the search
warrant which was issued on May 30, 1968, there were indubitable
facts in existence at that time to call for its issuance. Certainly
there was probable cause as defined in United States vs. Addison
identifying it with „such reasons, supported by facts and
circumstances, as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his
action and the means taken in prosecuting it, are legally just and
proper.‰ There was evidently a need for the issuance of a search
warrant.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Failure to pay correct amount of
customs duties constitute, probable cause.·It is undoubted that
prior to the issuance of a search warrant, there was a previous
discovery of

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION

554

554 SUPREME COURT REPORT ANNOTATED

 Viduya vs. Berdiago

the failure to pay the correct amount of customs duties. That was
probable cause enough. It led to the institution of a seizure and
forfeiture proceeding.
Same; Same; Persons with police authority under Tariff and
Customs Code may effect search and seizure without a search
warrant in enforcement of customs laws; Exception.·„The Code
authorizes persons having police authority under Section 2203 of
the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through or search any
land, inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling
house and also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft
and any trunk, package, box or envelope or any person on board, or
stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected
of holding or conveying any ditiable or prohibited article introduced
into the Philippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of
a search warrant in said cases. But in the search of a dwelling
house, the Code provides that said Âdwelling house may be entered
and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the
peace * * *.Ê It is our considered view, therefore, that except in the
cause of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police
authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure
without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Reason.·„Theseizure of stolen
goods is authorized by the common law; and the seizure of goods
forfeited for a breach of the revenue laws or concealed to avoid the
duties payable on them, has been authorized by English statutes for
at least two centuries past; and the like seizures have been
authorized by our own revenue acts from the commencement of the
government.‰ So it is in this jurisdiction·and for a very good
reason. It is not for this Court to do less than it can to implement
and enfore the mandates of the customs and revenues laws. The
evils associated with tax evasion must be stamped out·without
any disregard, it is to be affirmed, of any constitutional right.
Importation; When importation deemed terminated.·As long as
the importation has not been terminated the imported goods remain
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs. Importation is
deemed terminated only upon the payment of the duties, taxes and
other charges upon the articles, or secured to be paid, at the port of
entry and the legal permit for withdrawal shall have been granted.
The payment of the duties, taxes, fees and other charges must be in
full.
Same; Seizure of merchandise imported contrary to law.·This
Court has held that merchandise, the importation of which is
effected

555

VOL. 73, OCTOBER 29, 1976 555

Viduya vs. Berdiago

contrary to law, is subject to forfeiture, and that goods released

contrary to law are subject to seizure and forfeiture.

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court, Certiorari and

mandamus with preliminary injunction.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo and Solicitor
Augusto M. Amores for petitioner.
Amelito R. Mutuc for respondents.

FERNANDO, J.:

An order of the lower court quashing a search warrant

issued at the instance of petitioner Jose T. Viduya, then
Collector of Customs of Manila, to gain custody of a seized
vehicle pursuant to a warrant of seizure and 1
detention
against private respondent Eduardo Berdiago was assailed
in this certiorari and mandamus proceeding
2
with a prayer
for mandatory preliminary injunction . The invocation by
the then Solicitor General, now Associate Justice of this
Court, Antonio
3
P. Barredo, of the controlling force of Papa
v. Mago and the persuasive character attached to the
ruling 4of an American leading decision, Carroll v. United
States, clearly indicative of the tenuous nature of the
claim of private respondent that there was a violation of his
constitutional
5
right to be free from unreasonable search
and seizure, led to a resolution by the

_______________

1 The caption of the petition stated that such a name is an alias for
Eduardo Bertiago. The other respondent is the then Judge Andres Reyes
of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, now an Associate Justice of the
Court of Appeals.
2 Pars. II, IV, IX, Annex K.
 3 L-27360, February 28, 1968, 22 SCRA 857.
4 267 US 132 (1925).
5 According to Article III, section 1, par. 3 of the 1935 Constitution
then enforced: „The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable
cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complaint and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.‰ Under the present Constitution, Article IV, section 3,
this provision has been expressly

556

556 SUPREME COURT REPORT ANNOTATED

Viduya vs. Berdiago

Court of July 12, 1968, requiring that respondents answer

the petition and issuing the preliminary mandatory
injunction sought requiring respondent Berdiago „to deliver
the custody and possession of said car to respondent court;
and furthermore requiring respondent court to take
possession and custody of the said Rolls Royce car from
respondent Berdiago or from whomsoever has possession
and custody thereof and let petitioner
6
to take delivery and
custody thereof; * * *.‰ The stress, and quite
understandably, in the extensively-researched answer filed
on behalf of respondents by their able counsel, former
Ambassador Amelito R. Mutuc, was on the primacy of the
immunity the Constitution guarantees against an
unreasonable search and seizure. More specifically, it was
contended with vigor and plausibility that respondent
Judge quashed the search warrant on a showing of lack of
probable cause, a requirement7
not only of the Constitution
but of8 the Rules of Court and the Tariff and Customs
Code. While no objection could validly be raised against
such a proposition, it cannot apply to this controversy. It is
undoubted that prior to the issuance of a search warrant,
there was a previous discovery of the failure to pay the
correct amount of customs duties. That was probable cause
enough. It let to the institution of a seizure and forfeiture
proceeding. Moreover, the law has always looked with
disfavor on attempts at nonpayment or underpayment of
_______________

modified to include a warrant of arrest. Also, now for the issuance of

warrant, not only a judge but also „such other responsible officer may be
authorized by law.‰
6 Petition, 15.
7 Rule 126, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides: „Requisites for
issuing search warrant.·Asearch warrant shall not issue but upon
probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined
by the municipal or city judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized. No search warrant shall issue for more than one specific
offense.‰
8 Section 2209 of the Tariff and Customs Code, Rep. Act No. 1937
reads: „Search of Dwelling House.·Adwelling house may be entered and
searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace,
upon sworn application showing probable cause and particularly
describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized.‰

557

VOL. 73, OCTOBER 29, 1976 557

Viduya vs. Berdiago

customs duties. It is essential that no undue obstacle be

placed on intensive efforts to assure the collection of what
is properly due the government. The Mago decision was
thus merely a reflection of what has long been the settled
doctrine on the matter in the Philippines. It is futile to
assert then, considering the circumstances to be more
specifically referred to, that the requirement of lack of
probable cause was not met. We find for petitioner.
The petition includes as9 one of its Annexes the warrant
of seizure and detention. It was issued on the basis of
reliable intelligence that fraudulent documents were used
by respondent Berdiago in securing the release from the
Bureau of Customs of a Rolls Royce car, Model 1966, 2 door,
Hardtop with Motor No. CRX 1379, which arrived in the
Port of Manila on January 8, 1968 on board the vessel, Jose
Abad Santos, it being made to appear that such car was a
1961 model instead of a 1966 one, thus enabling
respondent to pay a much lower customs duty in the
amount of P3,255.00,
10
when the correct amount due was
P219,783.00. There was, accordingly, a formal demand for
the payment of the sum to cover the deficiency, respondent
manifesting his willingness to do so but failing to live up to
his promise contained in a letter of April 24, 1968, leading 11
to Seizure Identification Case No. 10941 against the car.
As it was kept in a dwelling house at the Yabut Compound,
Wakas, Barrio San Dionisio, Parañaque, Rizal, two officials
of the Customs Police Service as duly authorized agents of
petitioner, applied to respondent Judge for a warrant to
search said dwelling house and to seize the Rolls Royce car
found therein,

_______________

9 Petition, Annex C of the Petition reads: ‰[Greetings:] [Whereas,] the

above-described article is subject to forfeiture for having been imported
in violation of 2530(m) 3, 4 and 5 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
[Whereas,] the said articles are at present in the custody of Eduardo
Berdiago alias Eduardo Bertiago, with given address at 70 Estrella St.,
Bel-Aire Village, Makati, Rizal. [Wherefore,] by virtue of the authority
vested in me by law, and in compliance with Finance Department Order
No. 96-67 as published in Customs Memorandum Circular No. 133-67
dated July 25, 1967, you are hereby ordered to forthwith seize the
aformentioned articles and detain them under your custody pending
termination of the seizure proceedings thereof and/or until further
orders. [So Ordered.]‰
10 Ibid, par. II.
11 Ibid.

558

558 SUPREME COURT REPORT ANNOTATED

Viduya vs. Berdiago

pursuant to Section 2209 of the Tariff and Customs Code; 12

he issued the search warrant on May 30, 1968.
Thereafter, on June 3, 1968, there was an 13
urgent motion to
quash the same by respondent Berdiago. Then, on June 6,
1968, an opposition to said motion to quash was filed by
petitioner, based on the allegation of a 14
violation of Section
2209 of the Tariff and Customs Code. It was moreover
pointed out that respondent Berdiago could not rely on the
constitutional right against unreasonable search and
seizure because it was not shown that15 he owned the
dwelling, house which was searched. Nonetheless,
respondent Judge in the challenged order quashed such
 16
search warrant. Hence this petition.
To repeat, the plea of petitioner must be heeded. A case
of a grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent
Judge when he quashed the search warrant had been
shown. What lessens the gravity of such lapse from
controlling doctrines was the commendable attitude
displayed in stressing the worth of a constitional right.
Where attempts at evasion of payment of customs duties
are concerned, however, this Court has not been disposed to
be as receptive to claims of its violation, especially where
they rest on no substantial basis. 17
1. In the leading case of Papa v. Mago, with Justice
Zaldivar as ponente, there is this pronouncement, which he
aptly noted by the then Solicitor-General Barredo, calls for
application: „The Bureau of Customs has the duties,
powers and jurisdiction, among others, (1) to assess and
collect all lawful revenues from imported articles, and all
other dues, fees, charges, fines and penalties, accruing
under the tariff and customs laws; (2) to prevent and
suppress smuggling and other frauds upon the customs;
and (3) to enforce tariff and customs laws. The goods in
question were imported from Hongkong, as shown in the
ÂStatement and Receipts of Duties Collected on Informal
Entry.Ê As long as the importation has not been terminated
the imported goods remain under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Customs. Importation is deemed terminated only

_______________

12 Ibid, par. III.

13 Ibid, par. IV.
14 Ibid, par. VI.
15 Ibid, par. VII.
16 Ibid, Annex K.
17 L-27360, February 28, 1968, 22 SCRA 857.

559

VOL. 73, OCTOBER 29, 1976 559

Viduya vs. Berdiago

upon payment of the duties, taxes and other charges upon

the articles, or secured to be paid, at the port of entry and
the legal permit for withdrawal shall have been
granted.The payment of the duties, taxes, fees and other
charges must be in full. The record shows, * * * that the
duties, taxes and other charges had not been paid in full.
Furthermore, a comparison of the goods on which duties
had been assessed, as shown in the „Statement and
Receipts of Duties Collected on Informal EntryÊ and the
ÂcomplianceÊ itemizing the articles found in the bales upon
examination and inventory, shows that the quantity of the
goods was underdeclared, presumably to avoid the payment
of duties thereon. * * * The articles contained in the nine
bales in question, were, therefore, subject to forfeiture * * *.
And this Court has held that merchandise, the importation
of which is effected contrary to law, is subject to forfeiture,
and that goods released 18
contrary to law are subject to
seizure and forfeiture.‰
2. Nor did Mago announce a novel doctrine. It is merely
a recognition of the state power to assure that fraudulent
schemes resorted to by importers would be doomed to
failure. That19same year in 1968, in Asaali v. Commissioner
of Customs, the opinion stressed in rather emphatic
language why it must be thus: „The policy relentlessly
adhered to and unhesitatingly pursued to minimize, if not
to do away entirely, with the evil and corruption that
smuggling brings in its wake would be frustrated and set at
naught if the action taken by respondent Commissioner of
Customs in this case, as affirmed by the Court of Tax
Appeals, were to be set aside and this appeal from the
decision of the latter were to succeed. Fortunately, the
controlling principles of law do not call for a contrary
conclusion. It cannot be otherwise if the legitimate
authority vested in the government were not to be reduced
to futility and impotence in the face of an admittedly
serious malady,
20
that at times has assumed epidemic
proportions.‰ Moreover,
21
as far back as 1920, in Uy
Kheytin v. Villareal, there was the explicit affirmation of
the principle that „dutiable articles on which the

_______________

18 Ibid, 865-867. In support of the view that seizure and forfeiture

proceedings lie: Pascual v. Commissioner of Customs, 105 Phil. 1039
(1959) and De Joya v. Lantin, L-24037, April 27, 1967, 19 SCRA 893.
19 L-24170, December 16, 1968, 26 SCRA 382.
20 Ibid, 385.
21 42 Phil. 886.
 560

560 SUPREME COURT REPORT ANNOTATED

Viduya vs. Berdiago

duties have not been paid‰ belong to a different category

from the search and seizure „of a manÊs private 22papers‰ as
they „rightfully belong to the custody of the law.‰
3. There is this clarification of the matter in the opinion
of Justice Zaldivar in Mago: „Petitioner Martin Alagao and
his companion policemen had authority to effect the seizure
without any search warrant issued by a competent court.
The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant
in the instant case. The Code authorizes persons having
police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and
Customs Code to enter, pass through or search any land,
inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a
dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and examine
any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or
envelope or any person on board, or stop and search and
examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding
or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced
into the Philippines contrary to law without mentioning
the need of a search warrant in said cases. But in the
search of a dwelling house, the Code provides that said
Âdwelling house may be entered and searched only upon
warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace * * *.Ê It is
our considered view, therefore, that except in the case of
the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police
authority under the customs law may effect search and
seizure without23a search warrant in the enforcement of
customs laws.‰ There is justification then for the
insistence on the24
part of private respondent that probable
cause be shown. So respondent Judge found in issuing the
search warrant. Apparently he was

_______________

22 Ibid, 899 citing Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616 (1886).

23 22 SCRA 857, 871-872.
24 Cf. Alvarez v. Court of First Instance, 64 Phil. 33 (1937) People v. Sy
Juco, 64 Phil. 667 (1937); Rodriguez v. Villamiel, 65 Phil. 230 (1937);
Pasion Vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689 (1938); Yee Sue Koy v.
Almeda, 70 Phil. 141 (1940); Cruz v. Dinglasan, 83 Phil. 333 (1949);
People v. De la Peña, 97 Phil. 669 (1955); Oca v. Maiquez, L-20749, July
30, 1965, 14 SCRA 735; Stonehill v. Diokno, L-19550, June 19, 1967, 20
SCRA 383; Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, L-32409, Feb. 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 823;
Asian Surety & Insurance Co. v. Herrera, L-25232, Dec. 20, 1973, 54
SCRA 312; Roldan, Jr. v. Arca, L-25434, July 25, 1975, 65 SCRA 336; Lim
v. Ponce de Leon, L-22554, Aug. 29, 1975, 66 SCRA 299; Lopez v.
Commissioner of Customs, L-27968, Dec. 3, 1975, 68 SCRA 320.

561

VOL. 73, OCTOBER 29, 1976 561

Viduya vs. Berdiago

persuaded to quash it when he noted that the warrant for

seizure and detention came later than its issuance. In thus
acting, respondent Judge apparently overlooked that long
before the search warrant was applied for, to be specific on
April 15, 1968, the misdeclaration and underpayment was
already noted and that thereafter on April 24, 1968, private
respondent himself agreed to make good 25
the further
amount due but not in the sum demanded. As the car was
kept in a dwelling house in Wakas, Barrio San Dionisio,
Parañaque, Rizal, petitioner26 through two of his officers in
the Customs Police Service applied for and was able to
obtain the search warrant. Had there been no such move
on the part of petitioner, the duties expressly enjoined on
him by law noted in the Mago opinion namely to assess and
collect all lawful revenues, to prevent and suppress
smuggling and other frauds, and to enforce tariff and
customs law would not have been performed. While
therefore, it is to be admitted that his warrant of seizure
and detention came later, on July 5, 1968 to be exact, than
the search warrant, which was issued on May 30, 1968,
there were indubitable facts in existence at that time to call
for its issuance. Certainly there was 27
probable cause as
defined in United States v. Addison, identifying it with
„such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances, as
will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action,
and the 28means taken in prosecuting it, are legally just and
proper.‰ There was evidently need for the issuance of a
search warrant. It ought not to have been thereafter
quashed.
4. That is about all, except for a reference 29in the petition
to an excerpt from Carroll v. United States, tracing such
an approach to the landmark Boyd decision cited in Uy
Kheytin. It was emphasized therein in the opinion of Chief
Justice Taft that what was said by Justice Bradley in Boyd
stated the doctrine that had gained approval and
acceptance. It was summarized thus: „The seizure of stolen
goods is authorized by the common law; and the seizure of
goods forfeited for a breach of the

_______________

25 Petition, par. II and Answer II, 2nd paragraph.

26 Major Enricus Figueroa and Lieutenant Colonel Osmundo
Victoriano.
27 28 Phil. 566 (1914).
28 Ibid, 570.
29 267 US 132 (1925). Boyd, as previously noted, was an 1886
American Supreme Court decision reported in 116 US 616.

562

562 SUPREME COURT REPORT ANNOTATED

Viduya vs. Berdiago

revenue laws or concealed to avoid the duties payable on

them, has been authorized by English statutes for at least
two centuries past; and the like seizures have been
authorized by our own revenue 30
acts from the
commencement of the government.‰ It is not for this Court
to do less than it can to implement and enforce the
mandates of the customs and revenues laws. The evils
associated with tax evasion must be stamped out·without
any disregard, it is to be affirmed, of any constitutional
right. The facts, appreciated in their true light, fail to show
that the issuance of the search warrant contravened the
immunity against unreasonable search and seizure. Its
being quashed then amounted to a grave abuse of
discretion.
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted and the
order of June 20, 1968 of respondent Judge denying the
petition for custody of the car by petitioner and quashing
the search warrant nullified and set aside. The writ of
preliminary mandatory injuction issued by this Court is
maintained in full force and effect, the custody and
possession of the Rolls Royce car, model 1966, 2 door
Hardtop with Motor No. CRX 1379 to remain in the
custody of the Customs authorities until the termination
according to law of the seizure and forfeiture proceeding.
Costs against private respondent.

Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Martin, JJ.,

concur.
Barredo, J., did not take part.

Writ granted and order nullified and set aside.

Notes.·a)Requisites for issuance of valid search

warrant.·Asearch and seizure to be reasonable, must be
effected by means of a valid search warrant. And for a
search warrant to be valid: (1) it must be issued upon
probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined
by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other
person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the
judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the
complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce;
and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the
place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.
(Lim vs. Ponce de Leon, L-22554, August 29, 1975).

_______________

30 Ibid, 149-150.

563

VOL. 73, OCTOBER 29, 1976 563

Viduya vs. Berdiago

b) Only party affected may contest legality of seizure

effected by search warrants.·Officers of certain
corporations, from which documents, papers and
things were seized by means of search warrants,
have no cause of action to assail the legality of the
seizures because said corporations have
personalities distinct and separate from those of
said officers. The legality of a seizure can be
contested only by the party whose rights have been
impaired thereby. The objection to an unlawful
search is purely personal and cannot be availed of
by third parties. (Stonehill vs.Diokno, L-19550,
June 19, 1967).
c) Functions of Bureau of Customs.·Thefunctions of
 the Bureau of Customs include the assessment and
collection of the lawful revenues from imported
articles and all other dues, fees, charges, fines and
penalties accruing under the tariff and customs
laws; and the prevention and suppression of
smuggling and other frauds upon the customs. It is
the duty of the Collector of Customs to cause all
articles entering the jurisdiction of his district and
destined for importation through his port to be
entered at the customshouse, to have all such
articles appraised and classified, and to asssess and
collect the duties, taxes and other charges thereon,
and have possession of all imported articles upon
which duties, taxes and other charges have not
been paid or received to be paid, disposing of the
same according to law. For the enforcement of the
customs and tariff laws, he is authorized to effect
searches and seizures conformably with the
provisions of said laws. It shall be his duty to make
seizure of any article when the same is subject to
forfeiture. A package or article 13 subject to
forfeiture if it is found by the examining official to
contain any article not specified in the invoice or
entry, provided the Collector is of the opinion that
the misdirection, was caused with fraudulent
intent; or if it was sought to be imported on the
strength of a false declaration or affidavit, or a false
invoice or other document, executed by the owner,
importer, exporter or consignee concerning the
importation. (General Travel Service, Ltd. vs. David,
L-19259, September 23, 1966).

··o0o··

564

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.