Case Digest: PACIS vs PAMARAN (56 SCRA 16) GR L-23996, March 15, 1974

Petitioner: Pedro Pacis, as Acting Collector of Customs

Respondents: (1) Manuel Pamaran, as Assistant City Fiscal of Manila; and (2) Ricardo Santos
Topic: Tariff and Customs Code- Collector of Customs may order seizure of untaxed goods without
being liable for usurpation of judicial function
Facts of the Case:
Private respondent Ricardo Santos (Santos) bought from Donald James Hatch, a tax-exempt person, a
Mercury Automobile Model 1957. Being originally owned by a tax-exempt person, the said car was
properly brought to the country without payment of its custom duties and tax. This being the case and
where the car was subsequently transferred to Santos, a nontax-exempt person, the latter paid the
customs duties and taxes. Later however herein petitioner Pedro Pacis found out that the amount paid
for customs duties and taxes for the car was insufficient and as a result he instituted seizure proceedings
and issued the necessary warrant of seizure and detention. The car was then seized and was under
detention in the General Affairs Compound.
On August 26, 1964, Santos requested the return of the car his contention being that the issuance of the
warrant was not authorized, such warrant being issued not by a judge and therefore is in violation of the
then Article III, Section 1, par. 3 of the 1935 Constitution against unreasonble search and seizures. Also
since the warrant was issued by Pacis in his capacity as Collector of Customs and not by a judge,
Santos contended the he (Pacis) could also be criminally liable under Artcle 241 od RPC. In his repy on
August 31, 1964, Pedro Pacis (Pacis) denied the request for release without prior payment of the
outstanding custom duties and tax of the automobile and contended that he had the authority under law
to issue the warrant.
Santos then instituted the criminal action against Pacis for violation of Article 241 of RPC, this was
pursued by Public respondent Manila Assistant City Fiscal Manuel R. Pamaran. Pacis then instituted
prohibition proceeding in the Supreme Court to perpetually retrain the litigation of the case, hence this
case.
Issue:
WON there was unreasonable seizure of the automobile of private respondent due to unauthorized
issuance of a seizure and detention warrant by petitioner.
Held:
No, the issuance of the seizure and detention warrant was proper and so the actual seizure of the
automobile is warranted. The law being that authority to issue warrant was extended to officers
authorized by law and such power is no longer solely confined to a judge, petitioner can validly issue
such warrant. The only question that will remain is whether the said officer, the petitioner in this case,
was able to comply with the requisites in order to validly issue said warrant. The requisite only being
that one's possessions be subject to seizure. Since it was established that the proper custom duty and
taxes was not yet paid (/fully paid), the subject, the automobile, became a proper subject for seizure.
The issuance of the warrant and the actual seizure was therefore proper.

The Constitution (during the time of the case, the 1972 Constitution) afford protection to its citizens for
unreasonable seizures which must not be eroded or emasculated. It is only then upon the compliance of
proper requisites mandated by law should one's possessions be subject to seizure.

Notes:
*Article 241 of RPC: Usurpation of judicial Functions. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium
period to prision correccional in its medium perios shall be imposed upon any officer of the executive
branch of the Government who shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any
order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction.
*Article III, Section 1, par 3. of 1935 Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effect against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not by violated,
and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the 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
*In Article IV, Section 3 of the 1972 Constitution (then exisiting at the time the Supreme court ruled on
the case) substantially reproduced Article III, Section 1, par. 3 of the 1935 Constitution except that the
probable cause can then already be determined, by a judge or such other responsible officer as may be
authorized by law.
*The Tariff and Customs Code under Section 2203 allows person having police authority 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 'dwelling house' may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or
justice of peace.