G.R. No.

147817             August 12, 2004 Reconsideration was denied in the April 16, 2001 CA Resolution, which
6 

petitioner also assails.

FELICISIMO RIETA, petitioner,
vs. Petitioner and his six co-accused -- Arturo Rimorin, Fidel Balita, Gonzalo
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. Vargas, Robartolo Alincastre, Guillermo Ferrer and Ernesto Miaco --
were charged in an Information, which reads:
DECISION
"That on or about October 15, 1979, in the City of Manila,
PANGANIBAN, J.: Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating
together and helping one another, with the evident intent to
Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime. It may be defraud the government of the Republic of the Philippines of the
proven by the credible testimonies of witnesses, not necessarily by legitimate duties accruing to it from merchandise imported into
physical evidence. In-court identification of the offender is not essential, this country, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully [and]
as long as the identity of the accused is determined with certainty by fraudulently import or bring into the Philippines or assist in so
relevant evidence. In the present case, there is no doubt that petitioner doing contrary to law, three hundred five (305) cases of assorted
was the same person apprehended by the authorities and mentioned in brands of blue seal cigarettes which are foreign articles valued at
the Information. His possession of the smuggled cigarettes carried the P513,663.47 including duties and taxes, and/or buy, sell,
prima facie presumption that he was engaged in smuggling. Having failed transport or assist and facilitate the buying, selling and
to rebut this presumption, he may thus be convicted of the crime transporting of the above-named foreign articles after importation
charged. knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law which
was found in the possession of said accused and under their
The Case control which articles said accused fully well knew have not been
properly declared and that the duties and specific taxes thereon
have not been paid to the proper authorities in violation of said
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
1 

Sec. 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as

seeking to set aside the December 22, 2000 Decision of the Court of
2 

amended by Presidential Decree No. 34, in relation to Sec. 3602

Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CR No. 17338. The CA affirmed with
of said Code and Sec. 184 of the National Internal Revenue
modification the February 18, 1994 Consolidated Judgment of the
3 

Code." 7

Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Branch 46) in Criminal Case Nos.
4 

CCC-VI-137(79) and CCC-VI-138(79), finding Felicisimo Rieta guilty of

smuggling. The assailed CA Decision disposed as follows: The Facts
Version of the Prosecution (Respondent)
"WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is hereby MODIFIED as
follows: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents the prosecution's
8 

version of the facts as follows:

(a) The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the trial court finding
Felicisimo Rieta, Arturo Rimorin, Pacifico Teruel and Carmelo "On October 12, 1979, Col. Panfilo Lacson, the[n] Chief of the
Manaois GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime Police Intelligence Branch of the Metrocom Intelligence and
charged. Security Group (MISG for brevity), received information that
certain syndicated groups were engaged in smuggling activities
somewhere in Port Area, Manila. It was further revealed that the
(b) Appellants Ernesto Miaco, Guillermo Ferrer, Fidel Balita,
activities [were being] done at nighttime and the smuggled goods
Robartolo Alincastre and Ernesto de Castro are ACQUITTED as
in a delivery panel and delivery truck [were] being escorted by
recommended by the Solicitor General." 5

some police and military personnel. He fielded three surveillance

stake-out teams the following night along Roxas Boulevard and while the other passengers or riders of said truck were
Bonifacio Drive near Del Pan Bridge, whereby they were to watch apprehended, namely: Police Sgt. Arturo Rimorin of Pasay City
out for a cargo truck with Plate No. T-SY-167 bound for Malabon. Police Force, Pat. Felicisimo Rieta of Kawit Police Force, and
Nothing came out of it. On the basis of his investigation, [it was Gonzalo Vargas, a civilian.
discovered that] the truck was registered in the name of Teresita
Estacio of Pasay City. "x x x       x x x       x x x

"At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of October 14, 1979, Col. "Lacson's men hauled the intercepted vehicles, the arrested men
Lacson and his men returned to the same area, with Col. Lacson and confiscated goods to Camp Crame, Quezon City. All the 371
posting himself at the immediate vicinity of the 2nd COSAC cases (305 + 66) of blue seal cigarettes were turned over to the
Detachment in Port Area, Manila, because as per information Bureau of Customs. Sgt. Bienvenido Balaba executed an Affidavit
given to him, the said cargo truck will come out from the premises of Arrest together with Arnel Acuba. The Booking and Information
of the 2nd COSAC Detachment. COSAC stands for Constabulary Sheet of Ernesto de Castro showed that he was arrested by the
Off-Shore Anti-Crime Battalion. The night watch lasted till the wee MISG after delivering assorted blue seal cigarettes at 185
hours of the following morning. About 3:00 a.m. an Isuzu panel Sanciangco St., Tonsuya, Malabon." 9

came out from the place of the 2nd COSAC Detachment. It

returned before 4:00 a.m. of [the] same day. Version of the Defense (Petitioner)

"At around 5 minutes before 4:00 o'clock that morning, a green Petitioner, on the other hand, denied any knowledge of the alleged
cargo truck with Plate No. T-SY-167 came out from the 2nd smuggling of the blue-seal cigarettes. He sets forth his version of the
COSAC Detachment followed and escorted closely by a light facts as follows:
brown Toyota Corona car with Plate No. GR-433 and with 4 men
on board. At that time, Lt. Col. Panfilo Lacson had no information
"Petitioner Rieta testified that he was a policeman assigned at
whatsoever about the car, so he gave an order by radio to his
Kawit Cavite. In the early morning of October 15, 1979, he was in
men to intercept only the cargo truck. The cargo truck was
Manila together with Boy. He met Boy in 1978 when the latter
intercepted. Col. Lacson noticed that the Toyota car following the
figured in a vehicular accident in Kawit, Cavite. x x x After a week,
cargo truck suddenly made a sharp U-turn towards the North,
Boy visited him at the Kawit Police Station and thereafter, met
unlike the cargo truck [that] was going south. Almost by impulse,
him four to five times. He learned that Boy was a businessman
Col. Lacson's car also made a U-turn and gave chase to the
hauling slippers, fish and vegetables from Divisoria. For several
speeding Toyota car, which was running between 100 KPH to
times, he had accompanied Boy on his business trips when [the
120 KPH. Col. Lacson sounded his siren. The chase lasted for
latter] hauled fish, vegetables and slippers from Divisoria to
less than 5 minutes until said car made a stop along Bonifacio
Cavite. He was requested by Boy to accompany him on his
Drive, at the foot of Del Pan Bridge. Col. Lacson and his men
various trips because there were times when policemen on patrol
searched the car and they found several firearms, particularly:
were demanding money from [the latter]. At other times, other
three (3) .45 cal. Pistols and one (1) armalite M-16 rifle. He also
policemen accompanied Boy aside from him, on his trips.
discovered that T/Sgt. Ernesto Miaco was the driver of the Toyota
car, and his companions inside the car were Sgt. Guillermo
Ferrer, Sgt. Fidel Balita and Sgt. Robartolo Alincastre, [all] "In the early morning of October 15, 1979 he met Boy in front of
belonging to the 2nd COSAC Detachment. They were found not the Kawit Town Hall. He learned that Boy will haul household
to be equipped with mission orders. appliances from Divisoria. They boarded a jeep driven by Boy
and they proceeded to Cartimar, Pasay City. At Cartimar, Boy left
him at a gasoline station, and told him to standby because Boy
"When the cargo truck with Plate No. T-SY-167 was searched,
will get the cargo truck they will use. When Boy returned, he had
305 cases of blue seal or untaxed cigarettes were found inside.
companions, who were introduced to him as Gonzalo Vargas and
The cargo truck driver known only as 'Boy' was able to escape
Sgt. Rimorin, the petitioner's co-accused in Criminal Case No. by on several occasions at the Pasay Police Station to request for
CC-VI-138 (79). From Cartimar, the four (4) of them proceeded to assistance. Prior to October 15, 1979, Boy again dropped by at
Divisoria and they passed under the Del Pan Bridge. While the police station and asked him if he had an appointment on the
passing therein, he told Boy that he was hungry, so that when next day. He told Boy that he had no appointment, and the latter
they passed by a small restaurant, he alighted and Sgt. Rimorin requested to accompany him to Sta. Maria, Bulacan to get some
followed. Boy told them that he and Gonzalo will proceed to the rice. Prior thereto, in one of their casual conversations, he
Port Area and will be back. After thirty to forty five minutes, Boy learned that Boy was a businessman engaged in hauling various
and Gonzalo returned, and he and Sgt. Rimorin boarded the truck merchandise. He agreed to the request of Boy to accompany him
and proceeded to Roxas Boulevard. While they were along to Sta. Maria, Bulacan. At Sta. Maria, Bulacan, they proceeded to
Roxas Boulevard near the Daily Express Building, two (2) a warehouse containing bags of rice, and they hauled several
vehicles intercepted them and ordered them to pull-over. The bags into a truck, and thereafter, proceed[ed] to Quezon City. As
passengers of the said vehicles introduced themselves as compensation Boy gave him a sack of rice. The said transaction
Metrocom soldiers, and ordered them to alight and to raise their was followed by another on October 15, 1979. In the afternoon of
hands while poking guns at them. They were ordered to l[ie down] October 14, 1979, Boy again dropped by at the police station and
flat on their belly on the pavement and were bodily frisked and requested him to accompany him to haul household fixtures.
searched. The Metrocom soldiers did not find anything from their They usually haul vegetables and rice early in the morning to
bodies. Thereafter, they (Rieta, Rimorin and Gonzalo) were avoid the traffic and that was the reason why they met in the early
ordered by the Metrocom soldiers to transfer to a jeep. While they morning of October 15, 1979. He told [Boy] that he will see if he
were aboard the jeep, he overheard from the Metrocom soldiers will have [the] time, but just the same they made arrangements
that their driver was able to escape. Likewise, they were also that they will see each other at Cartimar, Pasay City not later than
informed by the Metrocom soldiers that the cargo truck was 2:30 a.m. in the early morning of October 15, 1979. At the
loaded with blue seal cigarettes. The cargo truck was not opened appointed time and place, he met Boy with a companion, who
in their presence, nor were the contents thereof shown to them was introduced to him as Gonzalo Vargas, his co-accused in the
upon their apprehension. From the time he boarded the cargo instant case. Thereafter, they proceeded to a gasoline station
truck in Cartimar until he and Sgt. Rimorin alighted to take their nearby. At the gasoline station, at the corner of Taylo and Taft
snacks, up to the time they were apprehended by the Metrocom Avenue, near Cartimar, they picked up another person who was
soldiers, he had not seen a pack of blue cigarette in the cargo later on introduced to him as Felicisimo Rieta. Then the four of
truck. He did not notice whether the Metrocom soldiers opened them (Boy, Gonzalo, Rieta and Rimorin) boarded the cargo truck
the cargo truck. At Camp Crame, he was investigated without the and they proceeded to Divisoria. It was Boy who drove the cargo
benefit of counsel, but, nonetheless, he executed and signed a truck, while petitioner was seated next to Boy while accused
statement because as far as he was concerned he has done Rimorin and Gonzalo to his right. While enroute to Divisoria,
nothing wrong. He was detained at Bicutan for more than a year. along Roxas Boulevard before reaching Del Pan Bridge, Boy
turned right under the bridge. He commented that it was not the
"In the early morning of October 15, 1979 he was not carrying route to Divisoria, and Boy answered 'meron lang ikakarga dito'.
any firearm because he has no mission order to do so, and On the other hand, Rieta told Boy that he was hungry, and thus,
besides Manila was not his jurisdiction. He was suspended from Boy pulled-over at a carinderia at Del Pan Bridge near Delgado
the service, but was reinstated in January 1981. After he was Bros. When Rieta alighted he followed, while Boy and Gonzalo
released from Bicutan, he looked for Boy so that he could clear proceeded. After less than an hour, Boy and Gonzalo returned.
the matter, but he [did not find] Boy anymore. They then proceeded towards Roxas Boulevard, Bonifacio Drive,
and Boy drove straight at the corner of Aduana to Roxas
"In corroboration with the testimony of petitioner Rieta, accused Boulevard. When he noticed that the truck was not bound for
Rimorin, a policeman assigned at Pasay City, testified that the Divisoria as earlier informed, he asked Boy why they were not
first time he met Boy was in 1978 in the wake and internment of taking the route going to Divisoria. Boy replied 'bukas na lang
the Late Police Officer Ricardo Escobal. Thereafter, Boy dropped wala ng espasyo'. Immediately, they were intercepted by two
 vehicles and one of the occupants thereof ordered the driver to overwhelming testimonial and documentary evidence of respondent.
pull over. The driver pulled over, and they were ordered to raise Further, the appellate court ruled that the non-presentation in court of the
their hands and to lay flat on their belly on the pavement right in seized blue-seal cigarettes was not fatal to respondent's cause, since the
front of the truck, and they were bodily frisked but they found crime had sufficiently been established by other competent evidence.
nothing. He asked the Metrocom soldiers what was it all about,
but the Metrocom soldiers were shouting 'asan ang blue seal'. The CA rejected the belated claim of petitioner that his arrest was
Then they were ordered to board a jeep owned by the Metrocom irregular. It ruled that the alleged defect could not be raised for the first
soldiers, and they were brought to Camp Crame. Before they left time on appeal, especially in the light of his voluntary submission to and
the area, he did not see the Metrocom soldiers open the cargo participation in the proceedings before the trial court.
truck. He was brought to the MISG at Camp Crame. When they
arrived at Camp Crame, the soldiers thereat were clapping their The appellate court, however, found no sufficient evidence against the
hands, thus he asked 'ano ba talaga ito' and he got an answer other co-accused who, unlike petitioner, had not been found to be in
from Barrameda, 'yun ang dahilan kung bakit ka makukulong', possession of blue-seal cigarettes.
pointing to a truck. When he saw the truck, it was not the same
truck they boarded in the early morning of October 15, 1979. The
Hence, this Petition. 11

truck they boarded was galvanized iron pale sheet covered with
canvass while the one at Camp Crame was color red and not
covered. He entertained the idea that they were being framed-up. Issues
Two days after, he was interrogated and the alleged blue seal
cigarettes were shown to him, and he was informed by the In his Memorandum, petitioner submits the following issues for the
investigator that the same blue seal cigarettes were the contents Court's consideration:
of the cargo truck. When the alleged blue seal cigarettes were
taken out of the cargo truck, he was not asked to be present. He "1. The respondents trial and appellate courts committed grave
asked for the whereabouts of Boy, but he was informed that the abuse of discretion tantamount to lack and/or excess of
latter escaped. The more he believed that there was something jurisdiction when [they] convicted herein petitioner
fishy or wrong in their apprehension. It was very [conspicuous] notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to prove the guilt of the
that the driver was able to escape because at the time they were petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
apprehended they were the only people at Bonifacio Drive, and
thus the possibility of escape was very remote, considering that "2. The evidence obtained against the accused is inadmissible in
they were unarmed and the Metrocom soldiers were all fully evidence because petitioner and his co-accused were arrested
armed. In both cases at bar, there were about three Pasay without a warrant but by virtue of an arrest and seizure order
policemen who were apprehended. He was detained at Camp (ASSO) which was subsequently declared illegal and invalid by
Bagong Diwa for more than a year. He knew nothing about the this Honorable Supreme Court." 12

charge against him. When he was at Camp Crame he tried

getting in touch with a lawyer and his family, but the MISG did not The Court's Ruling
let him use the telephone."
The Petition has no merit.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
First Issue:
Affirming the RTC, the CA noted that while petitioner and his co-accused Sufficiency of Evidence
had mainly raised questions of fact, they had nonetheless failed to point
out specific errors committed by the trial court in upholding the credibility Petitioner contends that the existence of the untaxed blue seal cigarettes
of the prosecution's witnesses. The defense of denial proffered by was not established, because the prosecution had not presented them as
petitioner was considered weak and incapable of overturning the
evidence. He further argues that there was no crime committed, as the A       We took them to the place where the cargo truck
corpus delicti was never proven during the trial. was intercepted, Sir.

Corpus Delicti Established Q       What did you notice thereat?

by Other Evidence
A       Inside the truck were hundreds of cases of blue seal
We do not agree. Corpus delicti refers to the specific injury or loss cigarettes, and I also found out that my men were able to
sustained. It is the fact of the commission of the crime that may be
13  14 
apprehend the occupants of the cargo truck although they
proved by the testimony of eyewitnesses. In its legal sense, corpus
15 
reported to me that the driver managed to make good
delicti does not necessarily refer to the body of the person murdered, to 16 
escape, Sir.
the firearms in the crime of homicide with the use of unlicensed
firearms, to the ransom money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom, or
17  18 
Q       Now you stated that a search was made on the
-- in the present case -- to the seized contraband cigarettes. 19
truck and you found how many cases of blue seal
cigarettes?
In Rimorin v. People, the petitioner therein similarly equated the actual
20 

physical evidence -- 305 cases of blue-seal cigarettes -- with the corpus A       Three hundred five (305) cases, Sir.
delicti. The appellate court allegedly erred in not acquitting him on
reasonable doubt arising from the non-presentation in court of the Q       Blue seal cigarettes?
confiscated contraband cigarettes. Holding that corpus delicti could be
established by circumstantial evidence, the Court debunked his argument
A       Yes, Sir.
thus:
Q       What do you mean by blue seal cigarettes?
"Since the corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the
crime, this Court has ruled that even a single witness'
uncorroborated testimony, if credible, may suffice to prove it and A       Blue seal cigarettes are untaxed cigarettes, Sir.
warrant a conviction therefor. Corpus delicti may even be
established by circumstantial evidence. Q       Did you find out how many were there on board the
truck which was intercepted by your men per your order?
"Both the RTC and the CA ruled that the corpus delicti had been
competently established by respondent's evidence, which A       Yes, Sir, [there] were three.
consisted of the testimonies of credible witnesses and the
Custody Receipt issued by the Bureau of Customs for the Q       Who?
confiscated goods.
A       They were P/Sgt. Arturo Rimorin, Sr.
"Col. Panfilo Lacson's testimony on the apprehension of petitioner
and on the seizure of the blue seal cigarettes was clear and Q       P/Sgt. Of what department?
straightforward. He categorically testified as follows:
A       Of Pasay City Police Force, Sir, and Pat. Felicisimo
Q       Let us go back to the truck after you apprehended Rieta.
the COSAC soldiers on board the [C]orona car, what did
you do thereafter? Q       Of that police department?
A       Of Kawit, Cavite Police Force, and Gonzalo Vargas, Q       Do you have copies of these photographs?
Sir.
A       The copies are with our evidence custodian, Sir.
Q       Who is this Gonzalo Vargas?
Q       Can you bring those pictures if required next time?
A       Civilian Sir.
A       Yes, Sir.
xxx   xxx   xxx
"So, too, did Gregorio Abrigo –customs warehouse storekeeper
Fiscal Macaraeg: of the Bureau –categorically testify that the MISG had turned over
to him the seized blue seal cigarettes, for which he issued a
I am showing to you a Custody Receipt dated Custody Receipt dated October 15, 1979.
October 15, 1979, which states: Received from Lt.
Col. Rolando N. Abadilla, AC of S, M2/CC, MISG. "We find no reason to depart from the oft repeated doctrine of
PC METROCOM giving credence to the narration of prosecution witnesses,
especially when they are public officers who are presumed to
(Thru S/Sgt. Rodolfo Bucao, PC) THREE have performed their duties in a regular manner." 21

HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE (371) cases of

assorted brands of 'Blue Seal' Cigarettes, which Petitioner argues that the receipt issued by Abrigo, a customs official,
were intercepted and confiscated by elements of was beset with doubt because: 1) it did not state specifically that the
the MISG, PC METROCOM on or about 0400 15 blue-seal cigarettes identified therein had been confiscated from
October 79 along Bonifacio Drive, Manila, which petitioner and turned over to Abrigo by Colonel Lacson and/or his men;
for [purposes] of identification we respectfully and 2) it mentioned 371 (instead of 305) cases of confiscated blue-seal
request that it be marked [on] evidence as Exhibit cigarettes.
'A'.
We note, however, that Colonel Lacson himself identified the Custody
COURT: Receipt as the same one issued for the 305 cases of cigarettes found in
the cargo truck, in which petitioner and his co-accused rode, and from
Mark it Exhibit 'A'. which the 66 cases of cigarettes -- subject of Criminal Case No. CCC-VI-
138(79) -- were confiscated in Malabon, Metro Manila. This fact (305
22 

Fiscal Macaraeg: plus 66) explains why 371 cases were indicated therein. At any rate,
petitioner argues on minor discrepancies that do not affect the integrity of
the Receipt, issued in due course by a customs official who was duty-
Q       Will you please do examine Exhibit 'A' and tell us
bound to put the seized contraband cigarettes in safekeeping.
whether this is the same receipt?
The existence of the 305 cases of blue-seal cigarettes found in the
A       This is the same receipt, Sir.
possession of petitioner and his co-accused was duly proven by the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses -- Lacson and Abrigo. They had
Q       By the way, were photographs taken of the car as testified in compliance with their duty as enforcers of the law. Their
well as the vehicle involved in this case, together with the testimonies were rightly entitled to full faith and credit, especially because
blue seal cigarettes that were confiscated? there was no showing of any improper motive on their part to testify
23 

falsely against petitioner. Further, the Court accords great respect to the
A       Yes, Sir.
factual conclusions drawn by the trial court, especially when affirmed by Courtroom Identification Unnecessary
the appellate court as in this case.
24

Next, petitioner belabors the failure of the prosecution to ask Colonel

Absurd is the claim of petitioner that, because Colonel Lacson was not Lacson to identify him in open court. However, the colonel's positive and
the officer who had actually intercepted the cargo truck in which the categorical testimony pointing to him as one of the passengers of the
former rode, the latter's testimony was therefore hearsay. The testimony cargo truck, as well as petitioner's own admission of his presence therein,
of the colonel on his participation in the apprehension of the truck dispelled the need for a courtroom identification. In People v. Quezada,
sufficiently rebutted this contention. the Court said:

Lacson testified that he had personally received information regarding the "x x x. While positive identification by a witness is required by the
smuggling activities being conducted by a syndicated group in that place. law to convict an accused, it need not always be by means of a
He was also informed that smuggled items would be transported from the physical courtroom identification. As the Court held in People v.
2nd COSAC Detachment in the Port Area to Malabon by a cargo truck Paglinawan:
with Plate No. T-SY-167. During the stakeout surveillance on the night of
October 14, 1979, he saw -- from his post within the vicinity of the 2nd 'x x x. Although it is routine procedure for witnesses to
COSAC Detachment -- the identified cargo truck coming out of the Port point out the accused in open court by way of
Area. While trailing behind, he radioed his men posted along Roxas identification, the fact that the witness x x x did not do so
Boulevard to stop the truck. Later in court, he described how his men had in this case was because the public prosecutor failed to
actually intercepted it.
25
ask her to point out appellant, hence such omission does
not in any way affect or diminish the truth or weight of her
Petitioner insists that Colonel Lacson, who had given chase to a Toyota testimony.'
car and was not among the officers who had intercepted the truck, could
not have seen him as one of the passengers of the latter vehicle. "In-court identification of the offender is essential only when there
Notably, however, the chase of the Toyota car had lasted no more than 5 is a question or doubt on whether the one alleged to have
minutes, and the colonel's team immediately returned to the subject truck committed the crime is the same person who is charged in the
after the chase. Lacson, however, categorically said that he had seen
26 
information and subject of the trial."
27

305 cases of blue-seal cigarettes inside the cargo vehicle, and that
petitioner was one of its passengers. In the present case, there is no doubt that petitioner was a passenger of
the truck, that he was apprehended by the authorities, and that he was
It should be borne in mind that Colonel Lacson -- as head of that the same individual charged under the Information in Criminal Case No.
particular surveillance operation -- had full knowledge, control and CCC-VI-137(79).
supervision of the whole process. He had organized the surveillance
teams and given orders to his men prior to the apprehension of the Prima Facie Proof of
vehicles suspected of carrying smuggled items. Furthermore, he was Nonpayment of Taxes Sufficient
present during the surveillance operations until the apprehension of the
cargo truck. Thus, he was clearly competent to testify on the matter.
There is no merit, either, in the claim of petitioner that the prosecution
failed to prove the nonpayment of the taxes and duties on the confiscated
The denial by petitioner that he was among the occupants of the truck is cigarettes. There is an exception to the general rule requiring the
highly self-serving and riddled with inconsistencies. He had been directly prosecution to prove a criminal charge predicated on a negative
identified as one of its passengers. Besides, he himself admitted that he allegation, or a negative averment constituting an essential element of a
had been on board the vehicle when it was intercepted, and that there crime. In People v. Julian-Fernandez, we held:
were no other person in the area.
 "Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, have presented evidence to support his claim and to convince the court
or where the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of of his non-complicity.
the accused, the onus probandi rests upon him. Stated
otherwise, it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to In the case adverted to earlier, Rimorin v. People, we held thus:
adduce positive evidence to support a negative averment the
truth of which is fairly indicated by established "In his discussion of a similarly worded provision of Republic Act
circumstances and which, if untrue, could readily be No. 455, a criminal law authority explained thus:
disproved by the production of documents or other evidence
within the defendant's knowledge or control. For example,
'In order that a person may be deemed guilty of
where a charge is made that a defendant carried on a certain
smuggling or illegal importation under the foregoing
business without a license x x x, the fact that he has a license is a
statute three requisites must concur: (1) that the
matter which is peculiar[ly] within his knowledge and he must
merchandise must have been fraudulently or knowingly
establish that fact or suffer conviction." (Emphasis supplied)
28 

imported contrary to law; (2) that the defendant, if he is

not the importer himself, must have received, concealed,
The truth of the negative averment that the duties and specific taxes on bought, sold or in any manner facilitated the
the cigarettes were not paid to the proper authorities is fairly indicated by transportation, concealment or sale of the merchandise;
the following circumstances that have been established: (1) the cargo and (3) that the defendant must be shown to have
truck, which carried the contraband cigarettes and some passengers knowledge that the merchandise had been illegally
including petitioner, immediately came from the 2nd COSAC imported. If the defendant, however, is shown to have
Detachment; (2) the truck was intercepted at the unholy hour of 4:00 had possession of the illegally imported merchandise,
a.m.; (3) it fitted the undisclosed informer's earlier description of it as one without satisfactory explanation, such possession shall be
that was carrying contraband; and (4) the driver ran away. Hence, it was deemed sufficient to authorize conviction.'" (Emphasis
30 

up to petitioner to disprove these damning circumstances, simply by supplied)

presenting the receipts showing payment of the taxes. But he did not do
so; all that he could offer was his bare and self-serving denial.
In the present case, the explanation given by petitioner was found to be
unacceptable and incredible by both the RTC and the CA, which said:
Knowledge of the Illegal
Nature of Goods
"Now on the explanations of Police Sgt. Rimorin of Pasay City
Police Force and Pat. Rieta of Kawit Police Force, riders in the
The fact that 305 cases of blue-seal cigarettes were found in the cargo loaded cargo truck driven by 'Boy.' Their claim that they did not
truck, in which petitioner and his co-accused were riding, was properly have any knowledge about the cargo of blue seal cigarettes is not
established. Nonetheless, he insists that his presence there was not given credence by the court. They tried to show lack of
enough to convict him of smuggling, because the element of illegal knowledge by claiming that along the way, 'Boy' and Gonzalo
possession had not been duly proved. He adds that he had no Vargas left them behind at a certain point for snacks and picked
knowledge that untaxed cigarettes were in the truck. them up later after the cargo had been loaded. The Court cannot
see its way through how two policemen, joining 'Boy' in the dead
Petitioner's contention is untenable. Persons found to be in possession of of the night, explicitly to give him and his goods some protection,
smuggled items are presumed to be engaged in smuggling, pursuant to which service would be paid, yet would not know what they are
the last paragraph of Section 3601 of the out to protect. And neither could the Court see reason in 'Boy's'
leaving them behind when he was going to pick up and load the
Tariff and Customs Code. The burden of proof is thus shifted to them. To
29 
blue seal cigarettes. 'Boy' knew the risks. He wanted them for
rebut this presumption, it is not enough for petitioner to claim good faith protection, so why will he discard them? How so unnatural and so
and lack of knowledge of the unlawful source of the cigarettes. He should contrary to reason." 31
Being contrary to human experience, his version of the facts is too pat effect of a determination of unconstitutionality must be
and stereotyped to be accepted at face value. Evidence, to be believed, taken with qualifications. The actual existence of a
not only must proceed from the mouth of a credible witness; it must also statute, prior to [the determination of its invalidity], is an
be credible in itself, as when it conforms to common experience and operative fact and may have consequences which cannot
observation of humankind. 32
justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a
new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent
The absence of any suspicious reaction on the part of petitioner was not ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in
in accordance with human nature. The involvement or participation he various aspects –with respect to particular conduct,
and his co-accused had in the smuggling of the goods was confirmed by private and official. Questions of rights claimed to have
their lack of proper and reasonable justification for the fact that they had become vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed
been found inside the cargo truck, seated in front, when it was to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of public
intercepted by the authorities. Despite his protestation, it is obvious that policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of
petitioner was aware of the strange nature of the transaction, and that he its previous application, demand examination. These
was willing to do his part in furtherance thereof. The evidence presented questions are among the most difficult of those which
by the prosecution established his work of guarding and escorting the have engaged the attention of courts, state and federal,
contraband to facilitate its transportation from the Port Area to Malabon, and it is manifest from numerous decisions that an all-
an act punishable under Section 3601 of the Tax Code. inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive
invalidity cannot be justified.'
Second Issue:
Validity of the Search and Seizure xxxx   xx   xxx

Petitioner contends that his arrest by virtue of Arrest Search and Seizure "Similarly, the implementation/enforcement of presidential
Order (ASSO) No. 4754 was invalid, as the law upon which it was decrees prior to their publication in the Official Gazette is 'an
predicated -- General Order No. 60, issued by then President Ferdinand operative fact which may have consequences which cannot be
E. Marcos -- was subsequently declared by the Court, in Tañada v. justly ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new
Tuvera, to have no force and effect. Thus, he asserts, any evidence
33  judicial declaration x x x that an all-inclusive
obtained pursuant thereto is inadmissible in evidence.
statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be
We do not agree. In Tañada, the Court addressed the possible effects of justified.'"
34

its declaration of the invalidity of various presidential issuances.

Discussing therein how such a declaration might affect acts done on a The Chicot doctrine cited in Tañada advocates that, prior to the
presumption of their validity, the Court said: nullification of a statute, there is an imperative necessity of taking into
account its actual existence as an operative fact negating the acceptance
"x x x. In similar situations in the past this Court had taken the of "a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity." Whatever was done while
pragmatic and realistic course set forth in Chicot County Drainage the legislative or the executive act was in operation should be duly
District vs. Baxter Bank to wit: recognized and presumed to be valid in all respects. The ASSO that was
35 

issued in 1979 under General Order No. 60 -- long before our Decision
'The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the in Tañada and the arrest of petitioner -- is an operative fact that can no
Act of Congress, having been found to be longer be disturbed or simply ignored.
unconstitutional, was not a law; that it was inoperative,
conferring no rights and imposing no duties, and hence Furthermore, the search and seizure of goods, suspected to have been
affording no basis for the challenged decree. x x x It is introduced into the country in violation of customs laws, is one of the
quite clear, however, that such broad statements as to the seven doctrinally accepted exceptions to the constitutional provision.
36 
Such provision mandates that no search or seizure shall be made except RTC Decision, pp. 1-2; rollo, pp. 74-75.
7 

by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge who has personally determined

the existence of probable cause. 37
In its Comment to the Petition, the OSG adopted the narration of
8 

facts in the CA's Decision. Respondent's Memorandum, signed

Under the Tariff and Customs Code, a search, seizure and arrest may be by Assistant Solicitor General Cecilio O. Estoesta and Associate
made even without a warrant for purposes of enforcing customs and tariff Solicitor Glenn R. Luansing did not contain any statement of
laws. Without mention of the need to priorly obtain a judicial warrant, the facts.
Code specifically allows police authorities to enter, pass through or
search any land, enclosure, warehouse, store or building that is not a Respondent's Comment, pp. 2-4; rollo, pp. 331-333.
9 

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; 10 
Petitioner's Memorandum, pp. 13-19; rollo, pp. 414-420.
or to stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person
suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article
This case was deemed submitted for decision on September 6,
11 

introduced into the Philippines contrary to law.

38

2002, upon this Court's receipt of petitioner's Memorandum,

signed by Atty. Simon D. Victa. Respondent's Memorandum,
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed signed by Assistant Solicitor General Cecilio O. Estoesta and
Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. Associate Solicitor Glenn R. Luansing, was received by this Court
on August 23, 2002.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner's Memorandum, pp. 22-23; rollo, pp. 433-434. Original
12 

Sandoval-Gutierrez,* Corona, and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur. in upper case.

13 
People v. Agsunod Jr., 366 Phil. 294, May 3, 1999.

People v. Mittu, 388 Phil. 779, June 8, 2000; People v. Agsunod

14 

Footnotes Jr., supra.

Rollo, pp. 11-71. Petitioner erroneously entitled his recourse as a

1 
People v. Oliva, 341 SCRA 78, September 26, 2000; People v.
15 

"Petition for Certiorari." Gutierrez, 327 Phil. 679, July 5, 1996; People v. Orehuela, 232

SCRA 82, April 29, 1994; People v. Kalim, 81 Phil. 107, May 27,
Id., pp. 155-177. Ninth Division. Penned by Justice Eubulo G.
2  1948.
Verzola (Division chairman) and concurred in by Justices Marina
L. Buzon and Edgardo P. Cruz (members). People v. Roluna, 231 SCRA 446, March 24, 1994 (citing
16 

People v. Sasota, 91 Phil. 111, April 18, 1952).

Id., pp. 74-97.
3 

17 
People v. Narvasa, 298 SCRA 637, November 16, 1998.
Presided by Judge Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores (now a justice of
4 

the Court of Appeals). 18 

People v. Mittu, supra.

CA Decision, p. 24; rollo, p. 176.

5 
Rimorin Sr. v. People, 402 SCRA 393, April 30, 2003. This was
19 

an appeal taken by petitioner's co-accused Arturo G. Rimorin Sr.

Rollo, p. 199.
6  from the same CA Decision, subject of the instant Petition.
20 
Supra. 31 
CA Decision, pp. 18-19; rollo, pp. 171-172.

21 
Id., pp. 400-402, per Panganiban, J. Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 288, September 18,
32 

1995.
22 
TSN, May 14, 1981, pp. 52-53; rollo, pp. 249-250.
33 
136 SCRA 27, April 24, 1985.
23 
Amper v. Sandiganbayan, 344 Phil. 849, September 24, 1997.
34 
Id., pp. 40-41, per Escolin, J.
Rimorin Sr. v. People, supra; People v. Villanueva, 362 Phil. 17,
24 

January 29, 1999; People v. Sagun, 363 Phil. 1, February 19, 35 

See also Tan v. Barrios, 190 SCRA 686, October 18, 1990.
1999.
The other exceptions are as follows: (1) search incidental to a
36 

25 
TSN, May 14, 1981, pp. 22-31; rollo, pp. 221-230. lawful arrest, (2) seizure of evidence in plain view, (3) search of
moving vehicles, (4) consented warrantless search, (5) stop and
26 
Id., pp. 33, 60-61. frisk situations (Terry search), and (6) exigent and emergency
circumstances.
27 
425 Phil. 877, 889, January 30, 2002, per Panganiban, J.
Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil 263, January 15,
37 

People v. Julian-Fernandez, 372 SCRA 608, 625, December 18,

28  2002; People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668, January 22, 1999; Padilla
2001, per Davide Jr., CJ (citing People v. Manalo, 230 SCRA v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 402, March 12, 1997; Mustang
309, February 23, 1994). Lumber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 430, June 18, 1996.

"SEC. 3601 Unlawful Importation. – Any person who shall

29  People v. CFI of Rizal, Br. IX, 101 SCRA 86, November 17,
38 

fraudulently import or bring into the Philippines, or assist in so 1980 (citing pertinent provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code).
doing, any article, contrary to law, or shall receive, conceal, buy,
sell, or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment,
or sale of such article after importation, knowing the same to have
been imported contrary to law, shall be guilty of smuggling and
shall be punished x x x.

xxx   xxx   xxx

"When, upon trial for a violation of this section, the defendant is

shown to have or to have had possession of the article in
question, possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to
authorize conviction unless the defendant shall explain the
possession to the satisfaction of the court; Provided, however that
payment of the tax due after apprehension shall not constitute a
valid defense in any prosecution under this section." (Emphasis
provided)

30 
Supra at note 19, p. 403.