GR L 24170; (February, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24170 February 28, 1969
ILLUH ASAALI, HATIB ABDURASID, INGKOH BANTALA, BASOK INGKIN, and MOHAMMAD BANTALLA, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners are the owners of five sailing vessels and their cargo, which were declared forfeited by the respondent Commissioner of Customs for smuggling. The facts, as found by the Court of Tax Appeals and not controverted, are that on September 10, 1950, a customs patrol team intercepted the five vessels on the high seas between British North Borneo and Sulu while they were heading towards Tawi-tawi, Sulu. The vessels were of Philippine registry, owned and manned by Filipino residents of Sulu, and of less than thirty tons burden. They came from Sandakan, British North Borneo, but did not possess any permit from the Commissioner of Customs to engage in importation into any port of the Sulu sea as required by the Revised Administrative Code. Their cargoes, consisting of foreign manufactured cigarettes, were not covered by the required import license under the Import Control Law. The Court of Tax Appeals found that the vessels’ course announced their intention to enter Philippine limits and land in Tawi-tawi, and it would be irrational to think they were not bound for a Philippine port.
ISSUE
Whether the seizure of the vessels and cargo by customs officials on the high seas, outside Philippine territorial jurisdiction, is valid.
RULING
Yes, the seizure is valid. The Supreme Court sustained the action of the Commissioner of Customs, as affirmed by the Court of Tax Appeals. The ruling is based on several grounds: First, all vessels seized are of Philippine registry, and Philippine law applies to offenses committed on Philippine ships even outside its jurisdiction. Second, under principles of International Law, a state has the right to protect itself and its revenues, a right extending to the high seas, as established in the doctrine from Church v. Hubbart. Third, considering the circumstances and the factual findings of the Court of Tax Appeals—that the vessels, laden with taxable goods, had come from a foreign port and were headed towards a domestic port—there is ample justification to apply the legal fiction that the seizure could be considered as having taken place within Philippine waters to prevent the government from being rendered powerless against smuggling. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied.