Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > September 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. 6536 September 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CALIXTO SURLA

020 Phil 163:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 6536. September 2, 1911.]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CALIXTO SURLA, Defendant-Appellant.

Aurelio Pineda and Pedro Abad Santos, for Appellant.

Acting Attorney-General Harvey, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. INTERNAL REVENUE LAW; MANUFACTURERS; REMOVAL OF PRODUCTS BEFORE PAYMENT OF TAXES; SECOND OFFENSE; CONFISCATION. — A person found guilty of a second offense under section 57 of the Internal Revenue Law is liable to have confiscated not only the articles which he uses in violating the law but also the factory, its machinery and contents, and the ground upon which the building stands.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CONFISCATION. — A confiscation so made is constitutional.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY CONFISCATED. — The property so forfeited and confiscated, as well as the proceeds derived from the sale thereof, belong to the Insular Government.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SECTION 42 NOT APPLICABLE. — TO such a confiscation section 42 of the Internal Revenue Law is not applicable, as it refers solely to the property distrained to pay delinquent taxes and to the disposition of the proceeds of such property.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J.:


This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Pampanga, the Hon. Julio Llorente presiding, convicting the accused of a violation of section 57 of Act No. 1189 and sentencing him to one year in prison, to the payment of the costs of the action, and confiscating in favor of the Insular Government the cigarettes sold in violation of the Internal Revenue Law, the factory, the land upon which it stands, the machinery, fixtures, and all other property located therein, and ordering the disposition of the goods and the rendition of an account of the proceeds of the same in the manner provided by law.

It is alleged in this case that between the 29th of December, 1908, and the 11th of July, 1909, Calixto Surla, the defendant in this case, being engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes, and being duly licensed thereto by the Bureau of Internal Revenue of the Insular Government, took from said factory and sold for domestic consumption in the locality where the factory was situated 42,000 cigarettes which were properly subject to the tax imposed by section 101 of the Internal Revenue Law [1189] aforesaid without paying the revenue tax thereon. It is also charged in the information that this was the second offense which the accused had committed, he having been fined for a similar act on the 20th of March, 1908.

The shortage of 42,000 cigarettes is not denied. The difference between the prosecution and the defense relates simply to the reason for such shortage, the prosecution alleging that the shortage was due, as above stated, to the secret and unlawful removal of said cigarettes from the factory by the accused for the purpose of avoiding the payment of the tax thereon, the accused asserting that the shortage was due, first, to the consumption of a large number of cigarettes by the operatives in the factory, upon which there is no tax, and, second, to the mistakes made by Eulogio Manalang, the bookkeeper, in entering on the books the number of cigarettes daily manufactured and the number taken from the warehouse and sold.

We are convinced that the following findings by the learned trial court are fully sustained by the evidence:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the accused is a manufacturer of cigarettes and is the owner of the factory A — 5 — 255, situated in the pueblo of Angeles, Province of Pampanga, P. I., the license having been issued in the name of said Calixto Surla; that on the 9th day of July, 1909, Roullven and Moran, internal-revenue agents, visited the said factory for the purpose of inspecting it; that it appeared, according to the statement of Eulogio Manalang, Surla’s superintendent, that Surla had possession of the key to the storehouse, and he being absent, the revenue agents were not able at that time to inspect the warehouse. They were under the necessity of waiting until they could obtain the key. Eulogio Manalang went to get the key but soon returned stating that Surla was sleeping and that he did not dare awaken him. By reason, however, of the insistence of the agents that they would enter the storehouse even though they did so by force, Manalang called Calixto Surla, who finally appeared and opened the storehouse. In the presence of the accused the agents proceeded to take an inventory of the cigarettes found therein and also of the books of the factory. They found a shortage of 42,000 cigarettes. Surla admitted such shortage but stated that he did not know to what to attribute the shortage because ever since his first conviction he had always carried the key to the storehouse himself. He further stated that the shortage must be due to the mistakes of his superintendent, Eulogio Manalang. The agents then immediately visited the different stores in Angeles and found ten packages of cigarettes from the factory of Calixto Surla upon which the package number had been duplicated. Nine of these packages were present in evidence. On the 12th of July, 1909, the said internal-revenue agents, accompanied by Mr. Armstrong, another agent, returned to the factory and made an inventory of the materials there, finding there also a shortage of 693 kilos and 740 grams. On this occasion Eulogio Manalang stated to the agent Armstrong that he had made a mistake in the official books of the daily production of the factory and exhibited to said agent a private book which contained as he stated correct notes of the number of cigarettes produced daily by the factory. On comparing the entries in the private book with those in the official registry great differences were found between them. They aggregate, according to the testimony of the agent, 52,500 cigarettes. If the differences in the entries on the two books had been made to appear in the official book, instead of a deficit of 42,000 cigarettes there would have been an excess of 10,500 cigarettes. On this occasion the accused again stated to agent Moran that from the day he had been convicted before he had never confided the key of the storehouse to anybody else. Agents Roullven and Moran who visited the factory frequently during working hours always found the doors of the storehouse locked with a padlock, and stated that Calixto Surla was always the one who opened the door for them."cralaw virtua1aw library

After a further discussion of the testimony presented by the accused the court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of all the facts presented in this case the court has arrived at the conclusion that the accused Calixto Surla maliciously and criminally transferred or consented to the transfer from his factory of the 42,000 cigarettes in question without paying the tax imposed by law on or before the moment of such transfer, and it appearing that the accused, according to Exhibit A, was convicted on the 20th of March, 1908, for a similar infraction of the law he must by virtue of section 56 of the Internal Revenue Law be punished as a second offender."cralaw virtua1aw library

A careful consideration of the record in the cause leads us to agree with the conclusion reached by the learned trial court. The explanation of the shortage made by Eulogio Manalang varied with the time when it was made. The explanations of the accused himself in relation to the same matter are equally unsatisfactory and unreliable. The evidence of the prosecution is clear and definite. It leaves substantially nothing to inference. It appears from the whole case that the court neglected to take into consideration nothing which would benefit the- accused. No important or influential fact or circumstance was left untouched, each being given the weight and significance which it legally deserved.

The trial court also found that the accused had theretofore been found guilty of a violation of section 56 of Act No. 1189. This finding is clearly sustained by the proofs and the facts upon which it is based are not denied by the defendant.

We are, therefore, in accord with the finding of the trial court upon the facts.

The accused asserts that the Act, in declaring forfeited the factory and all of its contents and the ground upon which it stands, is unconstitutional. He also contends that the judgment of the trial court is fatally defective in that it fails to state how the property forfeited shall be disposed of and its proceeds accounted for.

Over the question involving the constitutionality of the aforesaid provision, little needs to be said. That the Act is constitutional is not open to question. (U. S. v. Stowell, 133 U. S., 1.)

As to the form of the judgment of confiscation, it is sufficient to say that it is entirely immaterial to the defendant, legally speaking, how the property confiscated is disposed of and where its proceeds go. The property, having been forfeited, belongs absolutely to the Government, and the proceeds arising from the disposal thereof also belong to the Government. (U. S. v. Stowell, 133 U. S., 1, above.) Section 42 [1189] invoked by the accused for the purpose of demonstrating how the forfeited property should be disposed of, and its proceeds divided, he asserting that under the terms thereof he is entitled to have the balance returned to him after the liquidation of the unpaid taxes and expenses of sale, is entirely inapplicable to forfeited property. It relates solely to the sale of property distrained to pay taxes of delinquents and the disposition of the proceeds thereof. The title to such property remains in the delinquent until the sale. It is never forfeited and is never in the government unless it becomes a purchaser at the sale.

The property being his he is entitled to whatever surplus there may be after the payment of the taxes and all the expenses of the distraint and sale. In case of a forfeiture of property for crime, however, the title and ownership of the convict are absolutely divested and pass to the Government. He ceases to have any interest therein. As a result he can have no interest in its proceeds. Section 50 [1189] prescribes the disposition of the property in such cases.

We do not here decide just when the title and ownership pass from the convict to the Government in case of forfeiture — whether at the time the criminal act is committed, or when the government takes possession under the forfeiture, or when the judgment of confiscation is entered. It is unnecessary to a decision of this case.

The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4120 September 1, 1911 - NICOLAS ARBOTANTE v. TAN BUN JUA, ET AL.

    021 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 6295 September 1, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO CARLOS

    021 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 5609 September 1, 1911 - GREGORIA P. DE CASTRO, ET AL. v. INOCENTE G. ECHARRI

    020 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 5876 September 1, 1911 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK

    020 Phil 30

  • G.R. No. 6085 September 1, 1911 - PEDRO VAZQUEZ v. JOAQUIN VILLADELGADO, ET AL.

    020 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 6088 September 1, 1911 - GEORGE G. TAYLOR v. JAMES L. PIERCE

    020 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 6329 September 1, 1911 - JOHN M. SWITZER v. MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU

    020 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. 6346 September 1, 1911 - RAFAEL L. ROMERO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    020 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. 6438 September 1, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. DALMACIO PAZ, ET AL.

    020 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 6517 September 1, 1911 - A. V. MANS v. C. F. GARRY

    020 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 6637 September 1, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. POH CHI

    020 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 6659 September 1, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. BAGGAY, JR.

    020 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 6706 September 1, 1911 - FERNANDO MAPA v. MARIA DEL PILAR CHAVES

    020 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 6738 September 1, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN FEDERIZO

    020 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 6740 September 1, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PRIMO SAMONTE

    020 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 6536 September 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CALIXTO SURLA

    020 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 6692 September 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE LUMAMPAO

    020 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 5850 September 5, 1911 - MARIANO RIOSA v. TOMAS VALENCIANO

    020 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 6608 September 5, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN CASIPONG, ET AL.

    020 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 6736 September 5, 1911 - ALEJANDRA CARLOS v. ANTONIO RAMIL

    020 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 6540 September 6, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CAYETANO TOBIAS

    020 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 7150 September 6, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO BORROMEO, ET AL.

    020 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 6395 September 8, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. VALENTIN FONSECA, ET AL.

    020 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. 6619 September 8, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO TABANDA

    020 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 6695 September 8, 1911 - RITA CATALAN v. ROSARIO CONDE

    020 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. 6123 September 11, 1911 - RUPERTA PASCUAL v. ALEJANDRA MINA, ET AL.

    020 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 6327 September 11, 1911 - MANZANO MASSAOAY v. ESTEBAN BLASI

    020 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 6504 September 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. DIONISIO TAPAN, ET AL.

    020 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 6314 September 12, 1911 - ESTEFANIA EVANGELISTA v. LEONCIO NICOLAS, ET AL.

    020 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 6541 September 12, 1911 - GASPAR ZURBITO v. PATROCINIO BAYOT

    020 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 6205 September 14, 1911 - LOPE TORRECAMPO v. BALBINO VITERO

    020 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 6447 September 14, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS ALMAZAN, ET AL.

    020 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. 6525 September 14, 1911 - LORENZO MARZON v. JULIANO UDTUJAN, ET AL.

    020 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 6635 September 14, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MORO JAKAN TUCKO

    020 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 5837 September 15, 1911 - GATALINO GALLEMIT v. CEFERINO TABILIRAN

    020 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 5864 September 16, 1911 - RAMON DOMINISAG v. MANUEL MANCILLA

    020 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 6467 September 16, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SECUNDINO MENDEZONA

    020 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 6751 September 16, 1911 - JOSE DURAN v. MARIA ARBOLEDA

    020 Phil 253

  • G.R. No. 5674 September 22, 1911 - EMILIANO SORIANO v. BASILISA TALENS, ET AL.

    020 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 6708 September 22, 1911 - MARIA YADAO v. MARCELO YADAO

    020 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 6305 September 26, 1911 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ROMANA GAUZON, ET AL.

    020 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 6906 September 27, 1911 - FLORENTINO RALLOS, ET AL. v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    020 Phil 269