Papa v.

Mago Customs has power for no need of search warrant This is a petition for prohibition and
certiorari, with preliminary injunction, praying for the annulment of the order of respondent Judge of CFI Manila
who authorized the release under bond of certain goods which were seized and held by petitioners to enforce
the Tariff and Customs Code, but were claimed by respondent Remedios Mago.
Petitioner Martin Alagao, head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police Department, acting
upon a reliable information that a certain shipment of personal effects allegedly

misdeclared and undervalued, would be released the following day from the port of
Manila and loaded on two trucks, and upon orders of petitioner Ricardo Papa, Chief
of Police of Manila and a deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs, conducted
surveillance at the customs zone.
When the trucks left the counter-intelligence unit went after the trucks and
intercepted them. The load of the two trucks consisting of nine bales of goods, and
the two trucks, were seized. Upon investigation ownership of the goods was claimed presenting a
"Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected in Informal Entry No. 147-5501", issued by the Bureau of
Customs. Claiming to have been prejudiced by the seizure and detention of the two trucks and their cargo,
Mago and Lanopa filed with CFI Manila a petition for mandamus with restraining order or preliminary
injunction, alleging that Mago was the owner of the goods seized and that she hired the trucks owned by
Lanopa to transport the goods to her residence.
They argued the seizure was made without a search warrant issued and that the goods were no longer
under the control and supervision of the Commissioner of Customs, also that the goods are not
subject to seizure because Mago had bought them from another person without knowledge that they
were imported illegally. Mago and Lanopa prayed that the bales and goods be not
opened and that they be returned, also seeking to recover damages. Respondent Judge granted
the petition however when the restraining order was received, some bales had already been opened by the
examiners.
Petitioners denied the alleged illegality of the seizure and detention, alleging that CFI Manila had no
jurisdiction to try the case for the Bureau of Customs had not lost jurisdiction over the goods because the full
duties and charges thereon had not been paid also it was stated that the Manila Police Department had the
power to make the seizure which was not unreasonable. An inventory was done after which Mago filed a
motion to release the goods arguing that the goods did not show any article of prohibited importation and she
has already filed a bond. The respondent Judge issued the release of the goods, and the motion for
reconsideration was subsequently denied, thus this petition.
Whether or not the respondent Judge had acted with jurisdiction in issuing the order of release the goods in question.

No. Importation is deemed terminated only upon the payment of the duties, taxes
and other charges upon the articles, and the legal permit for withdrawal shall have
been granted. The payment must be in full, and as long as the importation has not
been terminated the imported goods remain under the jurisdiction of the Bureau
of Customs.
o

As evidenced by the report of the appraiser of the Bureau of Customs, the duties, taxes and other
charges had not been paid in full.

In addition to that, the quantity of the goods was underdeclared, probably

to avoid the payment of duties thereon. The articles contained in the nine
bales therefore are subject to forfeiture under the Tariff and Customs Code.
The Tariff and Customs Code imposes upon the Collector of Customs the
duty to hold possession of all imported articles upon which duties, taxes,
and other charges have not been paid or secured to be paid, and to
dispose of the same according to law.

CFI Manila therefore could not exercise jurisdiction over said goods even if
the warrant of seizure and detention of the goods for the purposes of the

seizure and forfeiture proceedings had not yet been issued by the Collector
of Customs.
o

To permit recourse to the CFI would render ineffective the power of the Customs authorities under
the Tariff and Customs Code and deprive the CTA of one of its exclusive appellate jurisdictions. Not
having acquired jurisdiction over the goods, it follows that the CFI had no jurisdiction to issue the
order of releasing said goods.

It is settled that the Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over

imported goods to enforce customs laws from the moment the goods are actually
in its possession or control, even if no warrant of seizure or detention has been
issued by the Collector of Customs.

The Manila Police Department can seize the goods in question without a search
warrant, having Papa, the Chief of Police, being deputized by the Commissioner of
Customs. It is his duty to make seizure of any cargo, articles or other movable
property when the same may be subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed
under customs and tariff laws. He has the power to lawfully open and examine any
box or container wherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspect the
presence of articles imported into the Philippines contrary to law or to stop,
search and examine any vehicle, beast or person reasonably suspected of holding
or conveying such article.
o

As the Chief, he can demand assistance of any police officer to effect the search and seizure,

Persons exercising police authority

under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a
search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws, EXCEPT when
the search is in a dwelling house which will need a warrant. The Court
which was what happened in the case at bar.

also reasons that in course of transportation in a movable vessel, it is not practicable to wait for the
issuance of a warrant before a search and seizure can be made. The automobiles are powerful
vehicles which provide for a way to successfully commit a crime and doing it swiftly, so valid
searches may be done without a warrant for vehicles. The Court noted that the policemen were not
even alleged to have made a search, for the private respondents complained that when the trucks
were on their way, they were intercepted without any search warrant and then they were detained.

Wherefore, petition is granted.