PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VERNADETH LUCERO GABRIEL (Room 232-C Regina Building, Escolta St., Binondo, Manila)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City Second Division PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 1401(e) of Republic Act No. 10863 (Customs Modernization and Tariff Act) Members: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and VERNADETH LUCERO GABRIEL, FERRER-FLORES,]].. Accused. Promulgated: APR 1 6 ZOZ4 X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------------------------X DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J: The Case Accused Vernadeth Lucero Gabriel is charged before this Court for violation ofSection1401(e) of Republic Act ("R.A.") No. 10863 or the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act ("CMTA"). Accused is the proprietor of Oroeightyeight Marketing, a single proprietorship duly registered with the Bureau of Customs ("BOC") as importer. 1 On May 18, 2021, an Information2 was flied against accused, which reads: / Docket, Minutes of Preliminary Conference, Stipulation of Facts, pp. 93-94. 2 Id., pp. S-8.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 "That on or about the 17th day of September 2019, and on dates prior thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Vernadeth Lucero Gabriel, conspiring and confederating with John Does and Jane Does, whose true identities and whereabouts are still unknown, and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with evident intent to defraud the government of legitimate taxes accruing to it from imported articles, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly participate in and facilitate the importation, transportation, concealment, and possession of dutiable eight hundred forty-five (845) boxes of Marvels cigarettes, with dutiable value of [Php]7,669,057.76 and an aggregate amount of customs duties, taxes and fees of Php16,573,671.00, contained in Container Van No. TCNU4089028, but which were declared in Formal E ntry No. C-125535-19 and in a manifest waybill in relation to Bill of Lading No. 350910127282 as tissue papers, smoke alarm parts, smoke detectors and accessories, said accused knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law, to the damage and prejudice of the Philippine Government. Contrary to law." On June 09, 2021, a Resolution3 was issued directing plaintiff to submit the original or certified true copy of the Referral/Approval Letter of the Commissioner of Customs within five (5) days from receipt. In the meantime, the determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest against the accused was held in abeyance. On June 21, 2021, plaintiff flied a Compliance4 submitting the original Referral/Approval Letter of the Commissioner of Customs, which the Court noted in a Resolution5 dated July 05, 2021. In the same Resolution, the Court ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest for accused, and fixed the bail bond for her provisional liberty at one hundred twenty thousand pesos (Php120,000.00). On July 07,2021, the Warrant of Arrest6 for accused was issue~ 3 !d., pp. 50-52. 4 !d., pp. 53-56. Id., pp. 58-60. 6 Id., p. 61.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 On October 04, 2021, the served Warrant of Arrest was returned to the Court, the accused having been arrested and detained at the custodial facility of the Manila Police District Jose Abad Santos Police Station (PS7) .7 On November 17, 2021 , a Resolution8 was issued: 1) Noting the return of the Warrant of Arrest; 2) Ordering the issuance of a Commitment Order for the commitment of the person of the accused to the Manila City Jail to be held as detention prisoner under this case, until futher orders from the Court; and 3) Setting the arraignment on December 06, 2021 at 9:00a.m. On December 06, 2021, through videoconference, accused was arraigned and with the assistance of her counsel departe, entered a plea of "Not Guilty" to the crime charged.9 The Preliminary Conference was held on D ecember 13, 2021.10 The Pre-trial Conference11 was then held on March 28, 2022, after three (3) resettings. 12 In the Pre-Trial Order13 dated April 13, 2022, the parties stipulated on the following facts, to wit: "A. Stipulated Facts 1. That the accused, VERNAD ETH LUCERO GABRIEL, is the same person charged in the Information(/ 7 !d., pp. 63-68. 8 !d., pp. 71-76. 9 !d., pp. 82-83. 10 Id., pp. 88-95. 11 Id., p. 106. 12 Id., pp. 101, 102 and 104. 13 !d., pp. 109-115.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 2. That this Honorable Court ofTax Appeals (CTA) has jurisdiction over the case. 3. That Oroeightyeight Marketing, a single proprietorship company, is duly registered with the Bureau of Customs as an importer. 4. That accused Vernadeth L. Gabriel is its duly registered proprietor with the Bureau of Customs. 5. That the picture and signature of the accused in the List of Principal Officers is her authentic picture and signature on file with the Bureau of Customs." l\!Ieanwhile on April 25, 2022, a Resolution14 was issued approving the surety bond posted by accused for her provisional liberty. Trial ensued and, to prove its case, plaintiff presented five (5) witnesses, namely: Noemi 0. Mendoza, Arsenia C. Ilagan, Atty. Justin RomanS. Geli, and Karl S. Cortes. They testified as follows: 1) Noemi 0. Mendoza testified 15 that she is a Customs Operations Officer ("COO") III in the BOC. She conducted an examination of a shipment declared in Formal Entry No. C- 125535-1916 and in a manifest waybill in relation to Bill of Lading No. 35091012728217, which was consigned to Oroeightyeight Marketing located at RM232-C Regina Building, Escolta St., Binondo, Manila. Her investigation was prompted by the arrival of a shipment of 1x40 Container bearing no. TCNU4089028 18 , with attached Packing List 19 and Commercial Invoice20 said to contain tissue paper, smoke alarm parts, smoke detector and accessories. The shipment arrived on September 17, 2019 at the Port of Manila on board vessel "Cape Ferrol" from Vietnam/ 14 Id., p. 158. 15 Id. , Complaint-Affidavit COO II Noemi Mendoza (Exhibits " P-1" to " P-1-F") and Order of hearing dated May 04, 2022, pp. 214-219 and 159. 16 Id., Single Administrative Document/Import Entry (Exhibits "P-4" to "P-4-G") (Exhibit "A-1"), pp. 223-224. 17 Jd., Exhibits "P-3" and "P-3-A", p. 222. 1B Jd., Exhibits "P-14" and "P-14-A", p. 234. 19 Jd., Exhibits "P-8" to "P-8-B", p. 228. 20 Id., Exhibits "P-9" to "P-9-B", p. 229.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 Based on a derogatory information, Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service ("CIIS"), Port of Manila Supervisor Atty. Justin Roman S. Geli, requested the Office of District Collector, Port of Manila, Arsenia C. Ilagan on September 27, 2019 for the issuance of an Alert Order to conduct one hundred percent (100%) physical examination over the shipment to check the actual contents of the container.21 Then on October 02, 2019, Alert Order No. A/POM/20191 002-0009222 was issued by District Collector Ilagan against the shipment. Thereafter, a physical examination was conducted where it was revealed that instead of one hundred fifty (150) cartons of tissue paper and four hundred eighty (480) cartons of smoke alarm parts, smoke detector and accessories, the shipment contained eight hundred forty-five (845) boxes (50 reams/box) of Marvel cigarettes and forty (40) pieces plastic packages (12 roll/package) of Dai Thang bathroom tissue. 23 As found, there was misdeclaration of the actual contents of the goods, the correct dutiable value amounting to Php7,669,057.76 and aggregate customs duties, taxes and fees amounting to Php16,573,671.00.24 Thus, on October 09, 2019, as the assigned customs examiner, COO II Mendoza recommended to District Collector Ilagan the issuance of a \"X/arrant of Seizure and Detention ("WSD") against the entire shipment for violation of Section 1400 in relation to Section 1113 of the CMTA.25 On October 16, 2019, District Collector Ilagan issued a WSD26 against the entire shipment. Thereafter, COO II Mendoza recommended the filing of a criminal complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against the accused, being th~ 21 Id., Memorandum/Request for Issuance of Alert Order dated September 27, 2019 (Exhibits "P- 10" and "P-10-A"), p. 230. 22 !d., Exhibit "P-11" to Exhibit "P-11-B", p. 231. 23 Id., Alert Order Report Form for Alert Order No. A/POM/20191002-00092 (Exhibits "P-12" to " P-12-C"), Examination Report dated October 04, 2019 (Exhibits " P-13" to "P-13-F"), Photograph of Container No. TCNU4089028 (Exhibits "P-14" and "P-14-A"), Photograph of a carton containing Marvels cigarettes (Exhibits "P-15", "P-15-A", "P-16", "P-16-A", "P-19" and "P-19-A"), and Photograph of the Dai Thang Bathroom Tissues (Exhibits "P-17'', "P-17-A", "P- 18" and "P-18-A"), pp . 232-239. 24 Id., Memorandum dated October 31, 2019 regarding the Request for Computation of Duties and Taxes dated October 21, 2019 (Exhibits "P-20" and "P-20-A") and Import Assessment Service Valuation of Import Entry No. C-125535/Detailed Computation (Exhibits "P-21" to "P- 21-B"), pp. 240-241. 25 Id., Disposition Form dated October 09, 2019 (Exhibits "P-23" to " P-23-H), pp. 243-245. 26 !d., Exhibits "P-24" to Exhibit "P-24-A", p. 246.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 proprietor 27 of Oroeightyeight IVIarketing for violation o f Section 1401 in relation to Sections 1400, 11 7, 111 3(i), 0), 11 7 and 412 o f the CMTA for knowingly, in tentionally and fraudently rnisdeclaring the shipment for the purpose of evading the payment of correct duties and taxes due to the government. She executed a Complaint-Affidavit28 for this purpose. O n cross examination 29 , COO II Mendoza testified that the Import E ntry30 was prepared by the broker Teodora Lacerna Braceros who signed it, and was based on the commercial invoice, the packing list and bill o f lading. She also tes tified that the Import E ntry was signed by the Attorney-in-Fact o f O roeightyeight Marketing but had no knowledge whether it was accused who signed as the Attorney-in-Fact. 2) Arsenia C. Hagan tes tified31 that she is currently the District Collector in BOC P ort o f San Fernando, La Union and from September to O ctober 2019 has been the District Collector in BOC Port of Manila. As head o f the entire Collection District, her office was tasked to ensure that the duties, taxes, fees, charges, penalties and fines accruing to the government were collected. H er office was also in charge of supervising all import and export shipments processed in the Port of Manila. She came across the subj ect importation when her o ffice received a request32 from CIIS P ort of Manila Supervisor Atty. Justin Roman S. Geli, for the issuance o f an Alert Order against the shipment consigned to Oroeightyeight Marketing covered by Bill of Lading No. 3509101 2728233. Based on such request and to further verify the derogatory inf01m ation received about the shipment consigned to O roeightyeight Marketing, she issued i'V Alert Order No. A/POM/20191002-0009234 27 Id., Client Profile Information of Oroeightyeight Marketing (Exhibits "P-5" to Exhibit "P-5-B") (Exhibit "A-2"), List of Principal Officers of Oroeightyeight Marketing (Exhibits "P-6" to Exhibit "P-6-D") (Exhibit "A-3"), and List of Responsible Officers of Oroeightyeight Marketing (Exhibits "P-7" to Exhibit "P-7-E") (Exhibit "A-4"), pp. 225-227 . 28 Id., Complaint-Affidavit COO II Noemi Mendoza (Exhibits "P-1" to "P-1-F"), pp. 214-219. 29 Id., Order of hearing dated May 04, 2022, p. 159. 30 Id., Single Administrative Document/Import Entry (Exhibits "P-4" to "P-4-G") (Exhibit "A-1"), pp. 223-224. 31 Id., Judicial Affidavit of District Collector Arsenia C. !lagan (Exhibits "P-25" and "P-25-A") and Order of hearing dated May 23, 2022, pp. 162-170 and 196. 32 Id., Memorandum/Request for Issuance of Alert Order dated September 27, 2019 (Exhibits "P- 10" and "P-10-A"), p. 230. 33 !d., Exhibits "P-3" and "P-3-A", p. 222 . 34 !d., Exhibits "P-11" to "P-11-B", p. 231.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO . 0 -887 She then ordered COO III Noemi 0 . l\!Iendoza of the Formal Entry Division Port of Manila via a l\1Iemorandum35 to determine if the said shipment has been released. She also ordered her to conduct one hundred percent (1 00%) examination of the alerted shipment and to submit an Alert Order Report relative to the subject shipment. Subsequently, COO III l\!Iendoza complied and submitted an Alert Order Report Form 36 and Disposition Form 37 . The report stated that the actual contents of the shipment were undeclared eight hundred forty-five (845) boxes of Marvels cigarettes and forty (40) pieces of plastic packages containing Dai Thang bathroom tissue papers. It was also recommended that a WSD be issued against the entire shipment due to the disparity of the actual goods found from the declared goods. District Collector Ilagan agreed with the recommendation of CO III Mendoza and issued the WSD 38 against the shipment consigned to Oroeightyeight l\!Iarketing on October 16, 2019. 3) Atty. Justin Roman S. Geli testified39 that he is currently the Field Station Chief of the CIIS Port of Subic and from September to October 2019 has been the Supervisor of the CIIS Port of Manila. In his previous position, his basic duties included supervision and management of the day-to-day activities of the CIIS Port of Manila. He was familiar with the shipment consigned to Oroeightyeight Marketing covered by Bill of Lading No. 35091012728240 because his office received an information tl1at it contained undeclared cigarettes and other items. Upon receiving such information, he made a request, through a Memo.randum41 , to District Collector A .rsenia C. Ilagan fo.r the issuance of an Alert Order. The purpose for the Alert Order is to verify the information they received and so tl1at a one hundred percent (100%) physical examination be conducted of the contents of the subject shipmen/ 35 Id., Memorandum/Examination of Alerted Shipment dated September 30, 2019 (Exhibits "P- 2211 and "P-22-A11), p. 242. 36 Jd., Exhibits "P-1211 to "P-12-C11, p. 262. 37 Id., Exhibits "P-2311 to "P-23-H, pp. 243-245. 38 Jd., Exhibits "P-2411 to "P-24-A", p. 246. 39 Jd., Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Justin Roman S. Geli (Exhibits "P-2611 and "P-26-A") and Order of hearing dated May 23, 2022, pp. 179-184 and 196. 40 Jd., Exhibits "P-3" and "P-3-A", p. 222. 41 Id., Memorandum/Request for Issuance of Alert Order dated September 27, 2019 (Exhibits "P- 10" and "P-10-A"), p. 230.

DECISION CfA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 District Collector Dagan then issued the requested Alert Order42. 4) Karl S. Cortes testified43 that he is currently the Acting Chief of the Assessment Division of the BOC Port of Clark and from September to October 2019 has been the Valuation and Classification Officer, assigned at the Valuation and Classification Division, Imports Assessment Service, BOC. As a Valuation and Classification Officer, he was responsible for the evaluation and classification being requested by other offices of the BOC. He also did valuation, classification and computation of settlement and redemption request from other offices of the BOC. He likewise replied to communication queries through letter and email pertaining to the valuation function of the BOC. He came across with the shipment consigned to Oroeightyeight l\!Iarketing, which arrived on September 17, 2019 in the Port of Manila, and was processed under Entry No. C-125535-19, when his office received a request from the Legal Service and the Bureau's Action Team Against Smugglers ("BATAS") for the computation of duties and taxes related to the said shipment. T he request was made through a l\!Iemorandum dated October 21,2019.44 His office then acted on the said request and assigned him to assess and compute the duties and taxes in connection with tl1e subject importation. After assessment and computation, he was able to calculate that the shipment consigned to Oroeightyeight Marketing has a dutiable value of Php7,669,057.76 and an aggregate amount of customs duties, taxes and fees ofPhp16,573,671.00. He made a tabular report regarding his assessment and computation of the goods/items in the shipment.45 His tabular report was thereafter submitted to the Legal Service and BATAS via a Memorandum46 dated October 31,2019. The plaintiff flied its Formal Offer ofEvidence47 on May 31,2022, while accused flied his Comment/Objection (Re: Prosecution's Formal Offer of Documentary Evidencet8 on June 08, 2022. In the Resolution49 dated June 21, 2022, this Court admitted all the evidence for tl1e plaintiff/ 42 !d., Exhi bits "P-11" to "P-11-B", p. 231. 43 Id., Judicial Affidavit of Karl S. Cortes (Exhibits "P-27" and "P-27-A") and Order of hearing dated May 23, 2022, pp. 188-193 and 196. 44 Id., Import Assessment Service Valuation of Import Entry No. C-125535/Detailed Computation (Exhibits "P-21" to "P-21-B"), p. 230. 45 Id., Memorandum/Request for Issuance of Alert Order dated September 27, 2019 (Exhibits "P- 10" and "P-10-A"), p. 241. 46 !d., Exhibits "P-20" and "P-20-A", p. 240. 47 Id., pp. 198-213. 48 Id., pp. 268-272 . 49 Id., pp. 274-275.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0 -887 Pursuant to CTA Administrative Circular No. 01-2022, dated June 21, 2022, the case was transferred to the Third Division of this Court.5� Meanwhile, accused filed her Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence 51 on July 05, 2022 via registered mail. On August 18, 2022, a Resolution52 was issued ordering plaintiff to file its comment on the motion. Consequently, the plaintiff filed its Opposition (to the Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence) 53 on September 16, 2022. On February 15, 2022, the Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence was granted in a Resolution54. On March 09, 2023, accused ftled her Demurrer to Evidence55 to which the plaintiff flied its Comment/Opposition (to the Demurrer to Evidence of accused Vernadeth Lucero Gabriel) 56 on March 17, 2023. In the Resolution57 dated May 26, 2023, this Court denied the Demurrer to Evidence for lack of ment. On June 19, 2023, this case was transferred to the Second Division. 58 On June 20, 2023, accused flied a Motion for Reconsideration59, to which the plaintiff flied its Comment/Opposition (to the Motion for Reconsideration of accused Vernadeth Lucero Gabriel) 60 on July 17, 2023. Accused thereafter filed a Reply (Comment/Opposition)61 on July 28, 2023. On October 25, 2023 the Court issued a Resolution62 denyng accused's Motion for Reconsideration. After several resettings, the initial presentation of evidence for the accused was set to January 18,2024 at 1:30 p.m. ,IV' 50 !d., Order dated June 29, 2022, p. 276 . 51 !d., pp. 283-285. 52 !d., pp. 281-282. 53 !d., pp. 286-290 . 54 !d., pp. 297-300. 55 !d., pp. 302-310. 56 !d., pp. 313-319. 57 !d., pp. 321-327. 58 !d., p. 330. 59 !d., pp. 331-336. 60 !d., pp. 339-342. 61 !d., pp. 345-348. 62 !d., pp. 352-357.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0 -887 Accused, Vernadeth Lucero Gabriel, was presented as sole witness for the defense. She testified63 that she is the accused in the instant case and she was charged for violation of Section 1401(e) of the CTA, alleging that she knowingly participated in the importation of eight hundred forty-five (845) boxes of Marvels cigarettes. She declared that she was not aware of the said importation transaction covered by a Single Administrative D ocument/Import Entry64 and other supporting documents such as a Bill of Lading 65 , Packing List 66 and Commercial Invoice67 . She did not know who made the entries in the subject import entry, and the signature68 therein was not her signature. Instead, her authentic signature for the importations by Oroeightyeight Marketing is the signature appearing in the List of Principal Officers of Oroeightyeight Marketing69 and List of Responsible Officers of Oroeightyeight Marketing70. She did not authorize anyone for the transaction covered by the said importation. She also do not know a broker in the name of Teodora Lacerna Braceros. Lastly, she did not appear before any notary public to swear for the Import Entry covering the said importation. On cross-examination, she testified that she is the sole proprietor of Oroeightyeight Marketing and that the latter is an accredited importer with the BOC. She filed an application for accreditation with the BOC on October 2018, and the principal place of business of of Oroeightyeight Marketing was in Room 232, Regina Building, Escolta. However, the business stopped operating sometime in September 2019 when a case was flied against them. She was accompanied by her business partner, Blademir Ventura, when she flied for application as importer with the BOC. She was not aware of the instant case until after the filing of the DOJ with this Court. Lastly, she denied that the signature appearing in the Import Entry was hers stating that she always signs on the import entries before she releases them. On clarificatory questions from the Court, she testified that Oroeightyeight Marketing is a consignee of shipments from abroad, specifically household goods. Although Oroeightyeight Marketing was indicated as the consignee in the subject importation, they never dealt with imported cigarett~ 63 !d., Judicial Affidavit (of Vernadeth Lucero Gabriel) (Exhibit "A-5") and Order of hearing dated January 18, 2024, pp. 359-362 and 369-370. 64 Id., Exhibits "P-4" to "P-4-G", Exhibit "A-1", pp. 223-224. 65 Jd., Bill of Lading No. 350910127282 (Exhibits "P-3" and "P-3-A"), p. 222. 66 !d., Exhibits "P-8" to "P-8-B", p. 228. 67 Id., Exhibits "P-9" to "P-9-B", p. 229. 68 !d., Exhibit " P-4-B", Exhibit "A-1", p. 223. 69 Jd., Exhibits "P-6" to Exhibit "P-6-D", Exhibit "A-3", p. 226. 70 !d., Exhibits "P-7" to Exhibit "P-7-E", Exhibit "A-4", p. 227 .

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 products. Oroeightyeight Marketing had three (3) personnel - an encoder, the authorized signat01y and the one handling the operations. The encoder was the one who had access to the account of Oroeightyeight Marketing with the BOC, in particular the us ername and password for online transactions with the BOC. She on the other hand was the authorized signatory, while her partner, Blademir Ventura, handled the operations. During the hearing, the defense orally offered the exhibits for the accused, and considering that the prosecution did not interpose any objection thereto, all the documentary evidence were admitted. Also, with the manifestation of the plaintiff that it will not present rebuttal evidence, the case was considred terminated and accused was considered to have rested her case. The case was also submitted for decision. 71 The Issue This Court is confronted with a single issue:72 "Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 1401 (e) of Republic Act No. 10863 (Customs Modernization and Tariff Act)." The Ruling of the Court Accused is charged before this Court for her alleged violation of Section 1401(e) of the CMTA73, which reads: "SEC. 1401. Unlawful Importation or Exportation. - Any person who shall fraudulently import or exp o rt or bring into or outside of the Philippines any goods, or assist in so doing, contrary to law, or shall receive, conceal, buy, sell, or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment, or sale of such goods after importation, or shall commit technical smuggling as defined in this Act shall be penalized by: XXX XXX 71 !d., Order of hearing dated January 18, 2024, pp. 369-370. 72 !d., Pre-Trial Order, Statement of the Issue, p. 110. 73 Unless otherwise stated, the provisions shall refer to Republic Act No. 10863 or the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 (e) Imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years, or a fine of not less than one million five hundred thousand pesos ([Php] 1,500,000.00) but not more than fifteen million pesos ([Php]15,000,000.00), or both, if the appraised value of the goods unlawfully imported, to be determined in the manner prescribed under this Act, including duties and taxes, exceeds five million pesos ([Php]5 .000,000.00) but not more than fifty million pesos ([Php]50,000,000.00); xxx" Based on the above, unlawful importation is committed by any person who: (a) fraudulently imports or brings into the Philippines any good; (b) assists in fraudulently importing any good; (c) receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment or sale of such good after importation; or (d) commits technical smuggling. Essentially, the act being punished under the said provision is smuggling, which includes outright smuggling and technical smuggling. Smuggling is defined under Section 102(nn) as "the fraudulent act of importing any goods into the Philippines, or the act of assisting in receiving, concealing, buying, selling, disposing or transporting such goods, with full knowledge that the same has been fraudulently imported, or the fraudulent exportation of goods. Goods referred to under this definition shall be known as smuggled goods[.]"74 Outright smuggling and technical smuggling, on the other hand, is defined under Sections 102(ff) and (pp), respectively, to wit: "SEC. 102. Definition ofTerms. - As used in this Act: XXX XXX XXX (ff) Outright Smuggling refers to an act of importing goods into the country without complete customs prescribed importation documents, or without being cleared by customs or othe/ 74 Emphasis supplied.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 regulatory government agencies, for the purpose of evading payment of prescribed taxes, duties and other government charges; XXX XXX XXX (pp) Technical Smuggling re fers to the act of importing goods into the country by means of fraudulent , falsified or erroneous declaration of the goods to its nature, land, quality, quantity or weight, for the purpose of reducing or avoiding payment of prescribed taxes, duties and other charges [.]"75 In alleging the violation of the foregoing legal provision, the Information against the accused specified that she - "xxx conspiring and confederating with John Does and Jane Does, whose true identities and whereabouts are still unknown, and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with evident intent to defraud the government of legitimate taxes accruing to it from imported articles, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly participate in and facilitate the importation, transportation, concealment, and possession of dutiable eight hundred forty-five (845) boxes of Marvels cigarettes, with dutiable value of [Php]7 ,669,057.76 and an aggregate amount of customs duties, taxes and fees of Php16,573,671.00, contained in Container Van No. TCNU4089028, but which were declared in Formal E ntry No . C- 125535-19 and in a manifest waybill in relation to Bill of Lading No . 35091 0127282 as tissue papers, smoke alarm parts, smoke detectors and accessories, said accused knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law, to the damage and prejudice of the Philippine Government. "76 T he importation of Marvels cigarettes is not among the prohibited importations provided under Section 11877 , nor is it a restricted importation / 75 Emphasis supplied. 76 Emphasis supplied. 77 SEC. 118. Prohibited Importation and Exportation. -The importation and exportation of the following goods are prohibited: (a) Written or printed goods in any form containing any matter advocating or inciting treason, rebellion, insurrection, sedition against the government of the Philippines, or forcible resistance to any law of the Philippines, or written or printed goods containing any threat to take the life of, or inflict bodily harm up on any person in the Philippines; (b) Goods, instruments, drugs and substances designed, intended or adapted for producing unlawful abortion, or any printed matter which advertises, describes or gives direct or indirect information where, how or by whom unlawful abortion is committed;

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 under Section 11978. Rather, the subj ect importation is a regulated importation under Section 117, which provides as follows: "SEC. 117. Regulated Importation and Exportation. - Goods which are subj ect to regulation shall be imported or exported only after securing the necessary goods declaration or export declaration, clearances, licenses, and any other requirements, prior to importation or exportation. In case of importation, submission of requirements after arrival of the goods but prior to release from customs custody shall be allowed but only in cases provided for by governing laws or regulations."79 The act imputed against the accused - participation in the importation of Marvels cigarettes which were declared as tissue papers, smoke alarm parts, smoke detectors and accessories - falls under technical smuggling punished under Section 1401 and defined under Section 102(pp).;v" (c) Written or printed goods, negatives or cinematographic films, photographs, engravings, lithographs, objects, paintings, drawings or other representation of an obscene or immoral character; (d) Any goods manufactured in whole or in part of gold, silver or other precious metals or alloys and the stamp, brand or mark does not indicate the actual fineness of quality of the metals or alloysi (e) Any adulterated or misbranded food or goods for human consumption or any adulterated or misbranded drug in violation of relevant laws and regulations; (f) Infringing goods as defined under the Intellectual Property Code and related laws; and (g) All otter goods or parts thereof which importation and exportation are explicitly prohibited by law or rules and regulations issued by the competent authority. 78 SEC. 119. Restricted Importation and Exportation. - Except when authorized by law or regulation, the importation and exportation of the following restricted goods are prohibited: (a) Dynamite, gunpowder, ammunitions and other explosives, firearms and weapons of war, or parts thereofi (b) Roulette wheels, gambling outfits, loaded dice, marked cards, machines, apparatus or mechan ical devices used in gambling or the distribution of money, cigars, cigarettes or other goods when such distribution is dependent on chance, including jackpot and pinball machines or similar contrivances, or parts thereof; (c) Lottery and sweepstakes tickets, except advertisements thereof and lists of drawings thereinj (d) Marijuana, opium, poppies, coca leaves, heroin or other narcotics or synthetic drugs which are or may hereafter be declared habit forming by the President of the Philippines, or any compound, manufactured salt, derivative, or preparation thereof, except when imported by the government of the Philippines or any person duly authorized by the Dangerous Drugs Board, for medicinal purposes; (e) Opium pipes or parts thereof, of whatever materiali and (f) Any other goods whose importation and exportation are restricted. The restriction to import or export the above stated goods shall include the restriction on their transit. 79 Emphasis supplied.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 In technical smuggling, the goods pass through the BOC, but the processing and clearing procedures are attended by fraudulent acts in order to evade the payment of correct taxes, duties, and other charges. 80 The elements to be established by the plaintiff to convict the accused of the crime charged are, specifically: 1) there must be an entry of imported goods; 2) the entq was made by means of fraudulent, falsified or erroneous declaration of the goods; and 3) there must be intent to reduce or avoid payment of taxes and duties. Undisputedly, the Single Administrative Document/Import Entry No. C- 125535-1981 (i.e., custom document) was flied to the BOC. And the imported goods passed through the customs authorities, the shipment consigned to OroeightyEight 1\IIarketing bearing no. TCNU4089028 82 , having arrived on September 17, 2019 at the Port of Manila on board vessel "Cape Ferrol" from Vietnam. Thus, the first element of entry of imported goods was satisfied with. We now examine the second and third elements of the crime. Plaintiff was not able to prove, both through documentary and testimonial evidence, that there was a discrepancy between the declaration made and the actual contents of the shipment. In establishing that there was fraudulent or falsified declaration in the importation documents, the prosecution presented the Bill of Lading83, Packing List8\ and Commercial Invoice85, all declaring that the shipment consigned to Oroeight:yeight Marketing contained 150 cartons of tissue paper and 480 cartons of smoke alarm parts, smoke detector, and accessories, while upon physical/ 80 Bureau of Customs v. The Honorable Agnes VST Devanadera, Et. AI., G.R. No. 193253, September 08, 2015. 81 Docket, Exhibits " P-4" to "P-4-G"; Exhibit "A-1", pp. 223-224. 82 Id., Exhibits "P-14" and " P-14-A", p. 234. 83 !d., Bill of Lading No. 350910127282 (Exhibits "P-3" and "P-3-A"), p. 222. 84 !d., Exhibits "P-8" to "P-8-B", p. 228. ss Jd., Exhibits "P-9" to "P-9-B", p. 229.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 inspection, pursuant to Alert Order No. A/POM/20191002-00092 and Examination Report, dated October 4, 2019, it was discovered that the shipment actually contained 845 boxes (50 reams/box) of Marvel cigarettes and 40 pieces plastic packages (12 roll/package) of Dai Thang bathroom tissue.86 A perusal of the foregoing pieces of evidence shows that, based on the Bill of Lading and Packing List, the shipment is contained in Container No. TCNU4089028. Said container is likewise the subject of Alert Order No. A/POM/20191002-00092 and was reported to be inspected per the Examination Report dated October 4, 2019. In support of the Examination Report, photographs of the container inspected, the Marvel cigarettes, and the Dai Thang bathroom tissues were likewise submitted. However, the photograph of the container inspected shows that it bears Container No. WHSU5570445, which is different from the declared Container No. TCNU4089028, per the Bill of Lading and Packing List. Plaintiffs witness did not explain the apparent discrepancy. This inconsistency significantly casts doubts as to the conduct of physical inspection taken, where the Container No. WHSU5570445 actually inspected may pertain to a different import entry declaration and not the subject importation herein. As such, the goods actually found in a different container cannot be attributed as a fraudulent or false declaration of the goods imported in this case. The evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish the proper tracing of goods from the import declaration documents to the actual physical inspection thereof so as to prove the alleged commission of fraudulent or false declaration in the first place. Assuming without conceding that plaintiff was able to prove that there was fraudulent or falsified declaration in the importation documents, the plaintiff also failed to prove that accused is the author of the crime. Since the charge constitutes a supposed fraudulent or falsified declaration in the importation documents, there must be proof of the accused's effort in the execution or preparation of the Single Administrative Document/Import E ntry. A successful prosecution of a criminal action largely depends on proof of two things: the identification of the author of the crime and his actu~ 86 Jd., Alert Order Report Form for Alert Order No. A/POM/20191002-00092 (Exhibits "P-12" to "P-12-C"), Examination Report dated October 04, 2019 (Exhibits "P-13" to "P-13-F"), Photograph of Container No. TCNU4089028 (Exhibits "P-14" and "P-14-A"), Photograph of a carton containing Marvels cigarettes (Exhibits "P-15", "P-15-A", "P-16", "P-16-A", "P-19" and "P-19-A"), and Photograph of the Dai Thang Bathroom Tissues (Exhibits "P-17", "P-17-A", "P- 18" and "P-18-A"), pp. 232-239.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 commission of the same. An ample proof that a crime has been committed has no use if the prosecution is unable to convincingly prove the offender's identityY The plaintiff presented the Single Administrative Document/Import E ntry No. C-125535-1988. In the said document, the consignee indicated was Oroeightyeight Marketing. However, the name of the accused was nowhere to be found therein. Plaintiff's witness, COO II Mendoza, admitted during her cross- examination89 that she had no knowledge whether it was accused who signed as the Attorney-in-Fact in the space provided for Oroeightyeight Marketing in the Import Entry. Petinent portions of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes during the hearing on May 04, 2022 are reproduced hereunder: ((CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. ALQUIN B. MANGUERA XXX XXX XXX ATIY. MANGUERA: Q. And there is a signature appearing above the printed name, Forough [sic] 88 Marketing, are you aware of who is that person who signed on behalf of Forough [sic] 88 Marketing? MS. MENDOZA: A. No, sir. XXX XXX XXX ATTY. MANGUERA: Q. Since it was prepared by the Attorney-in-Fact, do you have any document supporting that the person signing this document is the Attorney-in-Fact of Forough [sic] 88 Marketing? MS. MENDOZA: A . None, sir/ 87 People of the Philippines v. POl Dennis Jess Esteban Lumikid, G.R. No. 242695, June 23, 2020 citing People of the Philippines v. Jenny Tumambing y Tamayo, G.R. No. 191261, March 02, 2011. 88 Docket, Exhibits "P-4" to "P-4-G"; Exhibit "A-1", pp. 223-224. 89 Id., Order of hearing dated May 04, 2022, p. 159.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 XXX XXX XXX JUSTICE CASTANEDA: They have stipulated. Say you are admitting that it was not signed by the accused, the Import Entry declaration. PROSEC. SUAREZ: Objection, Your Honors. JUSTICE CASTANEDA: Yes, do you know? MS. MENDOZA: A. No, sir. JUSTICE CASTANEDA: She does not know. Please express your answer. MS . MENDOZA: A. No, sir."90 (TSN dated May 04, 2022, pp. 12-14) The plaintiff did not present other evidence, testimonial or otherwise, pointing to the accused as having signed the Import E ntry declaration. Thus, plaintiff failed to show the accused's participation in the preparation of the Import Entry or her conformity with its contents. Accused firmly disavowed her participation in the importation and the filing of the Single Administrative Document/Import Entry. In her Judicial Affidavit 91 , she was adamant that she had no knowledge of the subject importation, and that the signature in the Import Entry was not hers: "Q2. In this Criminal Case No. 0-887, you were charged for Violation of Section 1401 (3) of Republic Act No. 10863 (Customs Modernization and Tariff Act) which the Information, among others, alleged that sometime in the 17th of September 2019, you did and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly participate in and facilitate the importation, transportation, concealment and possession of 845 boxes of Marvels cigarettes, with dutiable value of P7,669,057.76 and an aggregate amount of customs duties, taxes and fees of Php16,573,671.00 contained in Container Van No. TCNU4089028 declared under Formal Entry N~ go Emphasis supplied. 9l Docket, Exhibit "A-5", pp. 359-362.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO . 0-887 C-125535-19 (Exhibit 'A-1' also 'P-4') and in manifest waybill in relation to Bill of Lading No. 350910127282 as tissue papers, smoke alarm parts, smoke detectors and accessories, what can you say to that Madam accused? A2. I am not aware of, and I do not know that importation transaction covered by Single Administrative Document/Import Entry ('P-4'), and the other relevant and supporting documents like the Bill of Lading ('P-3'), Packing List ('P-8'), Commercial Invoice ('P-9'), sir. Q3. In Exhibit 'A-1' which is also 'P-4' which is the Single Administrative Document/Import Entry No. C-125535-19, there were entries therein, do you know who made those entries in that document? A3 . No sir. Q4. There is a signature appearing above the word Oroeightyeight Marketing bracketed as Exhibit 'P-4- B', do you know whose signature is that? A4. No, sir. QS. Is that your signature? AS . o, Slr. Q6. What is your authentic signature for the importations by Oroeightyeight Marketing? A6. That signature appearing in the List of Principal and Responsible Officers marked as Exhibits 'A-3' also 'P-6', 'P- 6-C'; 'A-4' also 'P-7', 'P-7-C'. They are my authentic signatures for the importations. Q7. Did you authorize anyone for this transaction covered by that Single Administrative Document/ Import Entry (Exhibit 'P-4') to transact for and in behalf of Oroeightyeight Marketing? A7. None, or no one, sir. Q8. Do you know of a certain broker in the name of Teodora Lacerna Braceros? A8. No, sir. Q9. Did you authorize her for this transaction? A9 . No, siriv"'

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 Q10. Did you appear before any Notary Public to swear for that document Single Administrative Document/ Import Entry (Exhibit 'P-4')? A10. No, sir." She did not waver during cross-examination and clarificatory questions from the Court.92 An examination of the List of Principal Officers of Oroeightyeight Marketine3 and List of Responsible Officers of Oroeightyeight Marketing94, common exhibits of the parties, shows that the signature therein and the signature in the Import Entry declaration are totally different. Accused's authentic signature with the BOC is found in Exhibits "P-6-C" (Exhibit "A-3") and "P-7-C" (Exhibit "A-4") below: II - -- - � ~-- � ~ � -� - � �- �������� . CERTIFIED TRUE COPY I ,. LIST OF PRINCIPAL OFFICERS[?.-~-~~ ;;;:~. -.� _- J..-�- � -;:.:.:..-.= �= = : : ; - - first Name J :~~L-�-� . �--�- .. '..- .�,/ /.Ydale Name r!~.~~~~-. p,c-:.f5~1 [ last Name LPosition Till City Country - - ---� - ��-, -�------ -- , - � ,, ___ JI ~-IIllO~... _ . _ : .II'. ?hone E�md / 92 Id., Order of hearing dated January 18, 2024, pp. 369-370. 93 Id., Exhibits "P-6" to Exhibit "P-6-D", Exhibit "A-3", p. 226. 94 Id., Exhibits "P-7" to Exhibit "P-7-E", Exhibit "A-4", p. 227.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 .I ,, ~oz lf-7 ; CERI1FIED TRUE COPV JrriFIED TRUE COPV UST OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS P- 7- t7 :I CERI1Yif.D TRUE COPY I 'f.? -C.,.. CERTIFfED TRUE COPY L -�� NUof ___ _ ___ - - - - " " - _ Rnpcx_ utbllt_ y __;:~:.;~..=1.2=.~:.'.::...:.:..__ City ;.u..llA . .I 11? Code CC~S~try ( . ?~-� ---�_1 ~:. PhoM I 1\ob"l.t e~~.!'~~:.~~~~,� ~~~ - \Xlhereas, Exhibit "P-4-B" (Exhibit "A-1 ") shows a different signature in the space provided for the Importer in the Import Entry declaration: I.' I~ )q t1.-()if?. �.,.,.'.J...~iu.tMOCX:UmiT r-- 1D!WW~~~ J Offtce-.� ..i!:f ~...\,( - ; D ~ - _f. ' i:IWP Man~1rl~ ._4=_., 1_16 � _--! M aPnorit foef at No: 9fe1n2Tc3Se1Ln2.0o001:::6901-199:1..~t5~53~ 5, . ~ /! / " - J ZONE II tW HOA. WARD MONO CAl CITY QUANO NINH. Customs ref Q\J()CDATCOLTD Dale : '-; I"~; � ;;:;;;;;:~s2 ~~ ~~ ! ! ' 1--PI-,-,_-:->--:<---_-_-.'--'.-'-_---:,,..,.-~~'~""''3"-"'r!H,.:uuuiiNr-,h,O<;>";-::.,:-'-...:..:..:-lo.-al&;;,:.�.,�,r,:....... . ,~ p. .l 4I -'! . . '1 C~f~t().E.IOCHRT'�Y1~:1N0AHDT Lt.lDAAO.K~EE.TStCNOGI.TA8T.,bJNO 00 .-�� ~ ~ ~; :PPINta 1-;,;-xx,--- r,;;,xx,-,---\;,,0',.;:.;-;;:~'8.";'-.1'o-.=68:..-~11;-;,;;"."..:"=- TM u II'' 5 1n-~-~- ~o-A-A-c-E- Ro-s---- 401-76-63-20~ 00~~,,C~IN- 'f(r+ l[lp~ :rt ~~~~--~"~ CE~.~~+r.~--- l1 ,,~ PI'X'M< Jte.\l. ~TREET t)IJIRINI;'I AVENIJE TAMOO . ,_,...... I , 0 =~i:CITY1701 VIETNAM I VN I I . . I ~ ~.~,,=~�~=~d=-------------~�~=~~~~-- ~o~~VnIE<T.Nr~A~MD~~;=~-------T, J---~--;--------- .,""' I ! TSI..lJ060.191 o FOB I 5 CAPE FERROL i ru~v.... �~'!-"' 14n111e.r. 2 USD 2.:i,U'J4.00 52.2ov .. 1'U 211~~ ,.,........ ... '*""GC.. BrkCode : i:MS 1 L0"9'/"'1"'512""'01:;;9;1d-- -:X..:X..:._ _ _-h==""":;;;;--jT"m' c1 Payment : 01-Baslc r--r:-J _1._."'":..-.z:,;, ~~~ ~kN�n�. PCHC 1 P02A-PortofMonila S01 Bf>ndl : NA r BankRef f'IO.: 01~ 003-4915 "* : T... ..,..� � tf.lteln.~M:I(~�~"""""' \~ 10.00 Ma~ltl & Nol : AS ADDRESSED 1X40 -r- r- "i~~ ~g(&) r.._ - �VN i)E' No Of Pachgn : 150 Nwnberondl<lnd : CT-CARTON tfv eontaner~ No(a) : TCNI.M06Q026 - TolltttPtper 4ooo 1coo 300.00 Kg(a) NNNNN TISSUE PAPER 350910127282 1 r�� ...... on-.rEV 1 """"" � 0.000 FW Q,OQ 41$..wfUW <lllrn~V.... pl.C ) 1 F:J~ i1 675+496+0+17-199 0.00 1 474.00 : 4.1~ ! 1.00 I N.A /

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 Additionally, the Information alleges that the accused conspired with other people in committing the fraudulent importation. The plaintiff appears to connect accused to the crime charged as a co-conspirator, all the conspirators mutually helping and aiding one another. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. 95 Conspiracy as a basis for conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty. Considering the far- reaching consequences of criminal conspiracy, the same degree of proof necessary in establishing the crime is required to support the attendance thereo f, i.e., it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. 96 The Information did not identify the other alleged co-conspirators, just indicating them as "John Does and Jane Does, whose true identities and whereabouts are still unknown". The Court has no idea who are these other conspirators and the actions they did to demonstrate their alleged common criminal design. Clearly, the plaintiff failed to prove their theory of conspiracy. From the foregoing, We find that both the second and the third elements of the crime charged are missing in the case at bar. CONCLUSION An accused has in his favor the presumption o f innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he or she must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.97 In all criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has the duty to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the Information to warrant a finding of guilt for the said crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein Y~ 95 People of the Philippines v. Carlo Diega y Zapico, G.R. No. 255389, September 14, 2021. 96 !d. 97 Boac, eta/. v. People ofthe Philippines, G.R. No. 180597, November 07, 2008 citing People of the Philippines v. Ganguso, G.R. No. 115430, November 23, 1995. 98 Leonila Batulanon v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 139857, September 16, 2006.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 In the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the prosecution has the burden of proof in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offense with which he is charged. Ei incumbit probation qui dicit non qui negat; i.e., "he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove." The conviction of appellant must rest not on the weakness of his defense, but on the strength of the prosecution's evidence.99 After careful consideration of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by both parties, the Court flnds that the plaintiff failed to prove that there was a violation of Section 1401(e) of R.A. No. 10863 or the C11TA, creating reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt. Accordingly, the Court flnds that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden to prove all the essential elements of the crime attributed to accused. Accused should be acquitted of the offense charge d . WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused VERNADETH LUCERO GABRIEL is hereby ACQUITTED of the offense charged against her in Criminal Case No. 0-887, for failure of the plaintiff to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The surety bail bond of the accused is hereby CANCELLED upon presentation of proper documents, in accordance with usual accounting rules and regulations. SO ORDERED. ~. ~ ~'-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: s Associate Justice 99 People of the Philippines v. Nenita B. Hu, G.R. No. 182232, October 06, 2008 citing People of the Philippines v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 148198, October 01, 2003.

DECISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-887 ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ~- ~ -1'-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Presiding Justice