The high court rejected the appeal of Maribel Jardeleza and upheld the decision of the Pasay City regional trial court and the Court of Appeals finding her guilty of violating the Tariff and Customs Code.
Court records show on Feb. 28, 1997, Customs Examiner Estelita Nario found three black leatherette envelopes in the interior pockets of Jardeleza’s two hand-carried luggage and noticed something bulging in the lining of the envelopes.
After pieces of jewelry wrapped in paper were found, Customs investigator Aurelio Cabugao made a thorough investigation and submitted a report to lawyer Lourdes Mangaoang, then chief of the Legal and Investigation Staff, and now Customs Collector of Cebu.
Mangaoang forwarded the report to the Customs police director and recommended the filing of criminal charges against Jardeleza.
Mangaoang said Jardeleza intentionally failed to declare the jewelry in the Customs declaration form and denied having them in her possession to evade taxes.
The Supreme Court did not give credence to Jardeleza’s contention that she cannot be held liable for violating sections 3601and 3602 of the Customs Code as the prosecution constituted her offense as punishable under section 2505.
Section 2505 refers to the failure to declare baggage, while section 3601, a penal provision, provides that "any person who shall fraudulently import or bring into the Philippines… shall be guilty of smuggling."
On the other hand, section 3602 tackles the various fraudulent practices against Customs revenue.
The SC said Jardeleza had wrongly interpreted the law because the three sections are not conflicting, as she alleged, but complementing each other.
"The law was intended not to merge into one and the same offense all the many acts which are classified and punished by different penalties, penal or administrative, but to legislate against the overt act of smuggling itself," read the decision.
"This is manifested by the use of the words ‘fraudulently’ and ‘contrary to law’ in the law."
The SC said the fact that information showed that petitioner is alleged to have imported the jewelry but did not declare it, does not mean that she was being charged of a crime under section 2505 only.
Jardeleza cannot refute her intentional concealment of the jewelry items which constituted fraud under sections 3601 and 3602 of the Customs Code, "aimed at depriving government of customs revenue," the higher court added. — Rainier Allan Ronda