You are on page 1of 5


The case focal point is on the petition for review with regards to the ruling by the
Sandiganbayan against the petitioner, Erwin C. Remegio, a licensed customs
broker, for the violation of section 1403 otherwise known as Other fraudulent
practices against customs revenue in relation to Section 1401 titled Unlawful
importation or exportation of RA NO.10863 otherwise known as An act
modernizing customs and tariff administration (CMTA).

Together with his co-accused, Mr. Arthur Sevillo, Jr., the acting customs examiner,
assigned to administer 100% physical examination to the petitioners shipment.
For not accurately executed hes public obligation, was accused for the violation
of Section 1431 also known Statutory offenses of officers and employees later
then acquitted.

Bureau of Customs (BOC) tasked to administer and enforce the customs law and
other related laws and is obliged to assess and collect lawful duties and taxes on
every shipment in order to provide and help the trust government main revenue.

Unlawful importation such as fraud declaration or false statement is a very

serious crime refers to intentionally attempt to misrepresent the nature of any
goods in the import entry internal revenue declaration form that could lead to
criminal charges.

Section 1431, clarifies any officer or employees of the bureau are responsible to
report any irregularity upon entry that could threat customs revenue.

The case mainly focused on the petition for review against the ruling of the
Sandiganbayan for convicting the petitioner, Erwin C. Remegio, a licensed
customs broker, as guilty beyond reasonable doubt upon violation of Section
1403 in relation to section 1401 of the Republic Act No. 10863 otherwise known
as An act modernizing customs and tariff administration (CMTA) under Criminal
Case No. 16773

However, this case may fall to the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan, an agency of the
government tasked to handle cases against any public officer or employee who
have been charged of variety of criminal cases.

Bodily, the aim of this case is to acquit the petitioner, Erwin C. Remegio, a
licensed customs broker, from being convicted as guilty of the filed case against

Within walls of the court, at the time that investigation was guarantee. The
investigator cough out, that the allegations arraigned against the petitioner, Mr.
Remegio, was indeed fallacious. He (investigator) testified that Mr. Remegio was
erroneously accused of such criminal charge. All the customs broker (Mr.
Remegio) did was to prepare the entry covering the shipment based on the
required documents in which the content was granted to him by his client.

I, as a student of Bachelor of Science in customs administration, have roll out the
method of qualitative

The first order of the Sandiganbayan gives credence to the accused, Mr. Erwin C.
Remegio, a licensed customs broker convicted as guilty and liable to the violation
of section 1403 in relation section 1401 of the CMTA under Criminal Case No.

SECTION 1401. Unlawful Importation or Exportation.

Any person who shall fraudulently import or export 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.

SECTION 1403. Other Fraudulent Practices Against Customs Revenue.

Any person who makes or attempts to make any entry of imported
or exported goods by means of any false or fraudulent statement,
document or practice or knowingly and willfully files any false or fraudulent
claim for payment of drawback or refund of duties shall, for each act, be
punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed in Section 1401 of
this Act.

Both of these sections itemized the different fraudulent practices and strongly
firm that all entry, in and out in the Philippines must be legal. Any person attempt
to disclose false statement before the Bureau of customs officials shall be
penalized of fines, imprisonment or both.

As the petitioner asked for the review of his case was granted, the Sandiganbayan
hurriedly conduct an investigation towards the case, later then catch on to tried-
and-true outcome. It was recognized that the accused did not attempt to make
entry imported articles by means of any fraud declaration. The accused, by
tradition, prepared the entry covering the shipment based on packing list, bill of
lading, commercial invoice and other supporting documents in which the contents
of it was given by his client. In the long run, there was nothing in the document
appertaining to go beyond the information that was given to him.

According to the Court of Appeals, the fraud pondered by law must be actual and
not constructive. It should be de facto and intentionally not apparent.

Incongruously, petitioners co- accused Arthur sevillo Jr., the assigned customs
examiner who failed to do his duty and did violated section 1431 of the CMTA was
acquitted and yet the white petitioner was convicted.
SECTION 1431. Statutory Offenses of Officers and Employees. Every officer,
agent, or employee of the Bureau or of any other agency of the
government charged with the enforcement of the provisions of this Act,
who shall be found guilty of any delinquency as described below shall be
penalized with imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day
but not more than twelve (12) years, and perpetual disqualification to hold
public office, from exercising the right to vote and to participate in any
public election and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand pesos
(500,000.00); but not more than one million pesos (1,000,000.00).

Aforesaid, the court rendered a ruling reverse to the primary and quickly ordered
to acquit Erwin C. Remegio, a licensed customs broker, to the offense charged
against him.


The sections under CMTA raised on Mr. Remegio by the Sandiganbayan,

rationally, are indeed unenforceable. Section 1403 in relation to section 1401
undoubtedly illuminates that fraudulent practice should accommodate with a full
knowledge together with fraud statement on import entry.

Analytically, the court should be an expert and must not make any single mistake
on convicting such person on any offense that might use against him. For under a
roof of court, what can be asserted without clear evidence can be directly
dismissed without evidence.


The ruling of the court on granting the petition for review by the petitioner
against the pronounced judgement issued to him is, by all odds, decorous. For
convicting ignorant person mistakenly, is a huge destruction.