FIRST DIVISION;G.R. No. L-28809 May 16, 1983 later affirmed by the Commissioner Of Customs.

Subsequently, upon the filing by petitioner of a P30,000.00

JULIO LLAMADO, petitioner-appellant, vs. surety bond, the Cessna plane was released to him.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent-appellee.
On appeal the Court of Tax Appeals sustained the decision
Armando & Padilla for petitioner. of the Commissioner of Customs, thus:
The Solicitor General for respondent.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from
PLANA, J.: is hereby affirmed. The forfeited Cessna
plane P.I. C-494 having been released to
The facts are undisputed. On April 9, 1966, at about 11:00 petitioner and secured by the Philippine
o'clock A.M., Cessna plane P.I. C-494 landed at the Alabat Motor Assurance Corporation (PMAC)
airstrip, Quezon Province, with four persons on board, Bond No. 267... said bond is hereby
namely: Romeo Palencia, Osias Mission, Jacob Lim, and one forfeited in favor of the Government.
Identified only as a Chinese mestizo. A few minutes later the Petitioner Julio Llamado and the Philippine
plane took off, piloted by Osias Mission, leaving behind his Motor Assurance Corporation are hereby
three companions who told CAA employees at Alabat that ordered to pay, jointly and severally, to the
they would have a picnic. The Chinese mestizo later told Collector of Customs of Slain, or any of his
Francisco de Leon, a CAA employee, that is group would authorized representatives, the amount of
use the airstrip in landing contraband good and offered P30,000.00 corresponding to the appraised
P1,500.00 to de Leon which the latter refused. Romeo value of the forfeited Cessna plane within
Palencia, Jacob Lim, and the Chinese mestizo were picked thirty days from the date this decision
up by the same Cessna plane at about 1:00 P.M. becomes final.

At about 5:00 P.M. of the same day, a DC-3 plane (P.I. C- Dissatisfied, petitioner has appealed to this Court by way of
718) landed at the Alabat airstrip. On board were Jesus petition for review.
Granda and Osias Mission. It was followed by Cessna plane
P.I. C494, which unloaded two boxes containing "de gaza" Petitioner-owner of the Cessna plane contends that the plane
lamps and two cases of kerosene, after which it took off cannot be forfeited under Section 2530 (a) of the Tariff and
leaving the DC-3. Customs Code for it did not come from a foreign country nor
did it carry or unload cigarettes in any place in the
At about 11:00 o'clock of that night, a motorized banca Philippines. While not claiming ignorance of the smuggling
unloaded cases of "FORTUNE" blue seal cigarettes at the tip operation for which his plane was used, petitioner further
of the Alabat airstrip, making several trips between the shore argues that the Cessna plane cannot be deemed to have been
and a vessel lying offshore from where the cigarettes were "used" in smuggling since it was not actually used in
taken, From the shore, the cigarettes were loaded on board transporting the cigarettes but was merely used to bring the
the DC-3 plane by laborers hired by the Chinese mestizo. "de gaza" lamps to the Alabat airstrip. As averred in
Some four hours later, after about 300 cases of blue seal petitioner's brief-
cigarettes had been loaded, the DC-3 took off, guided by the
lighted "de gaza" lamps brought earlier by the Cessna plane. The Cessna plane was used in the bringing
of the "de Gaza" lanterns at Alabat Airstrip.
The following: day, the DC-3 returned to Alabat, loaded the That was its purpose and nothing more. The
remaining cases of "FORTUNE" blue seal cigarettes, and "de Gaza" lanterns were used to light the
took off for Porac, Pampanga. airstrip so that the DC-3 plane P.I. C-718
may be able to take off. That was the
purpose of the lanterns. The DC-3 plane
All the landings and take offs of the planes were not recorded
P.I. C-718 was used to carry the cigarettes
in the logbook at Alabat because their pilots refused to sign
from Alabat Island to Porac, Pampanga.
the same.
That was its purpose. What was used
unlawfully in the importation of the blue
A warrant of seizure and detention of the Cessna plane, P.I. seal cigarettes from outside the territorial
C-494, was issued on June 1, 1966 by the Collector of jurisdiction of the Philippine waters with
Customs of the Port of Siain, Quezon Province, for violation intention to unload. ...
of Section 2530 of the Tariff and Customs Code. After
hearing, a decision was rendered by the Collector of
The most that can be said of the Cessna
Customs declaring the forfeiture of the Cessna plane
plane in connection with this case is that it
pursuant to Section 2530 (a) of the said Code, which was
Page 1 of 2
 was used or employed to aid in or There is no question that M/L Cheton was
facilitate the unlawful importation of the apprehended carrying untaxed cigarettes of
cigarettes. But unfortunately, vehicles, foreign origin without the necessary papers
vessels, or aircrafts used or employed to aid showing that they were entered lawfully
in or facilitate the unlawful importations of through a port of entry. There is no
articles into the Philippines are not subject question also that said cigarettes were
to forfeiture under Philippine laws. (pp. 12- liable for forfeiture pursuant to the
13.) Customs and Tariff Code. On the basis of
the aforestated facts, the conclusion is
The issue thus raised is whether or not the Cessna plane was inevitable that the M/L Cheton was used in
used in the unlawful importation of cigarettes within the connection with unlawful importation of
meaning of Section 2530 (a) of the Tariff and Customs Code, said cigarettes, The burden was therefore
which reads: shifted to the boat's owner to show that the
carriage by M/L Cheton of the smuggled
Any vessel or aircraft, cargo or articles and cigarettes was lawful. No such showing
other objects shall, under the following: was made. Hence, the Court of Tax
conditions, be subject to forfeiture: Appeals committed no error in ordering the
forfeiture of the launch in question. (pp.
762-764.)
(a) Any vessel or aircraft, including cargo,
which shall be used unlawfully in the
importation or exportation of articles into In the case at bar, it is undeniable that the Alabat adventure
or from any Philippine ports or place was entirely and solely a smuggling operation; and the
except a port of entry, and any vessel Cessna was deliberately used to insure its successful
which, being of less than thirty tons prosecution. It brought the smugglers to Alabat and
capacity shall be used in the importation of subsequently delivered the necessary lighting paraphernalia
articles into any Philippine port or place to enable the cargo plane to take off without peril and
except into a port of the Sulu sea where transport the smuggled cigarettes to Luzon.
importation in such vessel may be
authorized by the Commissioner, with the In our view, this complementary, if collateral, use of the
approval of the department head. Cessna for smuggling operation is sufficient for it to be
deemed to have been used unlawfully in the importation or
Under the foregoing legal provision, in order to warrant smuggling of blue seal cigarettes. Note that "importation",
forfeiture, it is not necessary that the vessel or aircraft must by law, commences when the carrying vessel or aircraft
itself carry the contraband. There is nothing in the law that enters the jurisdiction of the Philippines with intention to
so requires. unload; and it is "deemed terminated (only) upon payment
of the duties, taxes and other charges due upon the articles,
or (the same has been) secured to be paid ... and the legal
Nor is it essential that the vessel or aircraft must come from
permit for withdrawal shall have been granted." (Tariff and
a foreign country, as argued by the petitioner. The same
Customs Code, Section 1202.) The participation of the
contention was urged without success by the owner of the
Cessna, as above described, was legally an active
forfeited vessel in C.F. Sharp & Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner
involvement of the said plane in, and constituted an unlawful
of Customs, 22 SCRA 760.
use thereof for, smuggling or illegal importation within the
meaning of Section 2530 (a) of the Tariff and Customs Code.
It is contended that the M/L Cheton should
not be ordered forfeited because . . . it was WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals under review is
not used to transport said cigarettes from a hereby affirmed. Costs against the petitioner.
foreign port to any port or place in the SO ORDERED.
Philippines. Teehankee (Actg.) C.J., Escolin, * Vasquez and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Melencio-Herrera and Relova, JJ., concur.

C.F. Sharp & Co., Inc. maintains Footnotes

proceedings. that paragraph a Section 2530 * Mr. Justice Escolin was designated to sit with the
of the Tariff and Customs Code does not First Division under Special Order No. 241 dated
April 28, 1983.
apply to the instant case inasmuch as it was
not proved that M/L Cheton was
unlawfully used in the importation of
articles into any Philippine port.

Page 2 of 2