Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Feeder V CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Donn Lin
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision forfeiting a foreign vessel in favor of the Philippines. The vessel arrived in Iloilo without notifying customs authorities and did not have the proper shipping documents. The Court found that the forfeiture proceeding was civil in nature and did not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It also determined that taking statements from crew members without a lawyer did not violate their constitutional rights, as the proceeding was not criminal. The Court concluded the vessel was guilty of illegal importation based on substantial evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Feeder V CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Donn Lin
    49 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision forfeiting a foreign vessel in favor of the Philippines. The vessel arrived in Iloilo without notifying customs authorities and did not have the proper shipping documents. The Court found that the forfeiture proceeding was civil in nature and did not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It also determined that taking statements from crew members without a lawyer did not violate their constitutional rights, as the proceeding was not criminal. The Court concluded the vessel was guilty of illegal importation based on substantial evidence.

    Original Title

    Feeder v CA Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision forfeiting a foreign vessel in favor of the Philippines. The vessel arrived in Iloilo without notifying customs authorities and did not have the proper shipping documents. The Court found that the forfeiture proceeding was civil in nature and did not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It also determined that taking statements from crew members without a lawyer did not violate their constitutional rights, as the proceeding was not criminal. The Court concluded the vessel was guilty of illegal importation based on substantial evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    49 views2 pages

    Feeder V CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Donn Lin
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision forfeiting a foreign vessel in favor of the Philippines. The vessel arrived in Iloilo without notifying customs authorities and did not have the proper shipping documents. The Court found that the forfeiture proceeding was civil in nature and did not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It also determined that taking statements from crew members without a lawyer did not violate their constitutional rights, as the proceeding was not criminal. The Court concluded the vessel was guilty of illegal importation based on substantial evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Feeder v.

    CA

    FACTS

    • The M/T 'ULU WAI' a foreign vessel of Honduran registry, owned and operated by
    Feeder International Shipping Lines of Singapore, left Singapore carrying 1100 metric
    tons of gas oil and 1000 metric tons of fuel oil consigned to Far East Synergy
    Corporation of Zamboanga, Philippines.
    • The vessel anchored at the vicinity of Guiuanon Island in Iloilo w/o notifying the customs
    authorities.
    • A civilian informed Iloilo authorities about a said vessel, and the Acting District
    Collector of Iloilo dispatched a Customs team to verify such report.
    • They found out that the vessel did not have the required ship and shipping requirements
    on board except for a clearance from the port of Singapore clearing the vessel for
    'Zamboan'
    • Thus, the vessel and its cargo were held and a Warrant of Seizure and Detention was
    issued after due investigation.
    • District Collector issued a decision forfeiting such vessel in favor of the PH. The
    Commissioner of Customs, Court of Tax Appeals, and CA affirmed such decision.
    • Hence, this petition

    ISSUE

    • W/N petitioner was deprived of property without due process of law in that its right to be
    presumed innocent was not recognized and the decision was not supported by proof
    beyond reasonable doubt NO
    • W/N the sworn statements of Deposa and Torres were taken without assistance of
    counsel in violation of their constitutional right thereto NO

    SC HELD

    • Petitioner was not deprived of property without due process of law

    RATIO

    Petitioner was not deprived of property without due process of law

    • the SC cited, People v. Court of First Instance, etc., et al.,


    o "Seizure proceedings are purely civil and administrative in character, the
    main purpose of which is to enforce the administrative fines or forfeiture
    incident to unlawful importation of goods or their deliberate possession."
    o "the decision of the Collector of Customs, as in other seizure proceedings,
    concerns the res rather than the persona. It is a probe on contraband or illegally
    imported goods."
    • Considering that such proceedings are not criminal in nature since they do not result in
    the conviction of the wrongdoer nor in the imposition upon him of a penalty, proof
    beyond reasonable doubt is not required in order to justify the forfeiture of the
    goods.
    • The degree of proof required is merely substantial evidence which means such
    relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
    conclusion.
    • Further, the petitioner as a corporate entity, has no personality to invoke the right to
    be presumed innocent which right is available only to an individual who is an
    accused in a criminal case.
    • importation begins when the carrying vessel or aircraft enters the jurisdiction of the PH
    with intention to unload therein. Mere intent to unload is sufficient to commence an
    importation.
    • Based on the substantial evidence presented, petitioner is guilty of illegal importation.

    The sworn statements of Deposa and Torres were taken without assistance of counsel is not a
    violation of their constitutional right

    • The Court cited Nera v. The Auditor General


    o "The right to assistance of counsel is not indispensable to due process unless
    required by the Constitution. Exception is made in the charter only during the
    custodial investigation of a person suspected of a crime."
    o "in other proceedings, however, the need for the assistance of counsel is not as
    urgent nor is it deemed essential to their validity. There is nothing in the
    Constitution that says a party in a non-criminal proceeding is entitled to be
    represented by counsel and that w/o such representation he will not be bound
    by such proceedings. The assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not
    indispensable."
    • The petitioners only contends that the statements by Deposa and Torres were taken
    without the assistance of counsel but, however, failed to allege or prove that the same
    were take under anomalous circumstances which would render them inadmissible as
    evidence against petitioner.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy