City prosecutor Evangeline Gicale approved the filing of a smuggling case against Carolina Montesclaros and Puridita Quiengco for bringing in various medicine and cosmetics from Bangkok without declaring it to the Customs authorities.
The prosecutor downplayed the defense of good faith by Montesclaros and Quiengco because of the quantity of the medicine and cosmetics, which has an estimated total market value of P700,000.
Montesclaros and Quiengco were caught by joint elements of the National Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Investigation and Detection Group and the Bureau of Customs upon their arrival at the Mactan-Cebu International Airport from Bangkok via Hongkong for bringing in fake medicine and cosmetics.
The two did not declare the items upon their arrival claiming that these are not for commercial purposes. They said the items were intended for personal use and gifts for friends and relatives.
Montesclaros and Quiengco said that they were tempted to buy a huge quantity of medicine and facial creams because these were sold cheap in Bangkok. They claimed that they purposely did not indicate these items in their Customs declaration forms when they arrived at the Mactan airport thinking that it is no longer necessary.
But the prosecutors did not give credence to their defense of good faith because the quantity of the items has already exceeded the quantity allowed by law. The Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines prohibits bringing in any items, goods or articles from abroad that are not allowed to be imported, beyond the prescribed numbers of quantity allowed by law and with no corresponding importation permit.
The prosecutor said that Montesclaros and Quiengco clearly violated Republic Act 7651 not only because they did not have an importation permit but also because of the large quantity of the medicine and cosmetics that they brought into the country, which they did not declare upon their arrival.
"We find flimsy and unmeritorious the assertions of respondents that they did not intentionally declare the same because it is only intended for personal use and giveaways to friends and relatives," the prosecutor ruled.
The prosecutor added that it is absurd to believe such contention considering that it is highly improbable for a person to buy a huge quantity if not for commercial purposes.
"Good faith in this case cannot be sustained as a defense since the law they violated is a special law," the prosecutor said adding that good faith is not considered a defense when dealing with violations of special laws. -Fred P. Languido/QSB