People v. Pacheco y Buhay

THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CRIM. CASE NO. A-10. December 22, 2022.] (RTC Crim. Case No. 15-312731) For: Violation of Section 3601 in relations to Sections 2503 and 2530 paragraphs (f), (i) and (l) (3) (4) and (5) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee , vs. MERELYN PACHECO y BUHAY , accused-appellant . DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : The Case Before this Court is a partial appeal of the Joint Decision dated January 29, 2021 1 of the Regional Trial Court-Branch 21, Manila ("RTC-Branch 21"), in Criminal Case Nos. 15-312731 and 15-312733, entitled " People of the Philippines v. Antonio B. Vinavilles (AL), Merelyn Pacheco y Buhay ," finding, inter alia , the accused-appellant Merelyn Pacheco y Buhay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines ("TCCP"), as amended, the dispositive portion of which, in part, reads as follows: " WHEREFORE , judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1. Accused MERELYN PACHECO y BUHAY is hereby declared GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP) punishable under paragraph 4 of Section 3601 of the TCCP, as amended, in Criminal Case No. 15-312731 and she is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day, as minimum , to twelve (12) years, as maximum and to pay a fine of eight thousand pesos ([Php]8,000.00). xxx xxx xxx SO ORDERED. " The Facts On February 05, 2015, an Information 2 was filed against Mr. Antonio B. Vinavilles and the accused-appellant, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15-312731 , charging them for violation of Section 3601 in relation to Sections 2503 and 2530, paragraphs (f), (i), and (l) (3) to (5) of the TCCP, as amended. The said Information reads: "The undersigned Assistant State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice hereby accuses ANTONIO B. VINAVILLES and MERELYN PACHECHO n y Buhay of violation of Section 3601 in relation to Sections 2503 and 2530, paragraphs (f), (i) and (l)(3), (4) and (5) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), as amended, committed as follows: That on or about March 20, 2009 and on dates prior and subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, and with intent to defraud the Government of the Republic of the Philippines of the taxes and duties, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly cause the misdeclaration of the importation of 100 pcs. of elephant tusks with an undetermined number of the same in 49 boxes by filing a fraudulent Import Entry on the said elephant tusks before the Bureau of Customs falsely indicating that it contained 'Blow Moulding Machine and 80 packages of Plastic sheets' consigned to 210 Enterprises owned and operated by accused Antonio B. Vinavilles, which arrived at the Port of Manila from Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania in Africa on March 20, 2009, on board vessel 'MV Delmas Nacala' when in fact it actually contained 100 pieces of elephant tusks with an undetermined number of the same in 49 boxes with estimated value in the amount of Two Hundred Forty Million Eight Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Four Pesos (Php240,854,394), to the damage and prejudice of the government of the Republic of the Philippines. CONTRARY TO LAW." Thereafter, the Order of Arrest dated February 20, 2015 was issued against Mr. Antonio B. Vinavilles and the accused-appellant. 3 In the Order dated June 08, 2015, 4 RTC-Branch 21 ordered the issuance of an Alias Warrant of Arrest against accused-appellant, considering the Return of Warrant of Arrest dated April 01, 2015 issued by PO3 Omar R. Balmas, with notation that " the accused cannot be located and despite diligent efforts by this office, her whereabouts cannot be ascertained as of this date ." The Alias Warrant of Arrest dated June 08, 2015 was then correspondingly issued against accused-appellant. 5 Accused-appellant filed a Motion to Reduce Bail on February 17, 2017, 6 which RTC-Branch 21 granted in the Order of even date. 7 After posting cash bail in the amount of Php120,000.00 half of which pertains to Criminal Case No. 15-312731, accused-appellant was granted provisional liberty. 8 Arraignment was held on March 02, 2017, and the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. 9 During trial, the prosecution presented documentary and testimonial evidence. The prosecution offered the testimonies of the following individuals, namely: (1) Atty. Lyndon Delos Santos, 10 who was an Attorney III under the Prosecution and Litigation Division, and a member of the Run After The Smugglers (RATS) Group of the Bureau of Customs ("BOC") in 2009; and (2) Mr. Noel Carandang, 11 the Customs Examiner who examined the shipment subject of the case. On January 24, 2019, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Evidence . 12 Accused-appellant filed her Comment/Opposition [To Prosecution's Formal Offer of Evidence] on April 05, 2019. 13 In the Order dated April 26, 2019, 14 RTC-Branch 21 admitted the prosecution's Exhibits "A", "A-1", "B", "G", "H", and "J", inclusive of sub-markings, as secondary evidence, since the prosecution was able to explain the reason for its failure to produce the originals and considering the prosecution's witnesses identified the said documents; and denied Exhibits "I", and "I-1", for failure of the prosecution to submit the original thereof, and for failure to identify. Accused-appellant likewise presented documentary and testimonial evidence. The accused-appellant appeared for herself as witness. 15 During the hearing held on November 09, 2020, the prosecutor admitted accused-appellant's evidence as to the existence of the documents. The Court then resolved to admit all the exhibits of the accused-appellant. 16 Subsequently, RTC-Branch 21 issued the assailed Decision. 17 The accused-appellant filed her Notice of Appeal before RTC-Branch 21 on February 03, 2021. 18 In the Order dated February 03, 2021, 19 RTC-Branch 21 gave due course to the Notice of Appeal of the accused-appellant, and ordered the entire records in Criminal Case No. 15-312731 to be forwarded to this Court. The Brief for the Accused-Appellant Merelyn Pacheco y Buhay was filed before this Court on April 01, 2022. 20 Thereafter, the plaintiff-appellee was ordered to file its Brief. 21 However, it failed to file the same. 22 In the Resolution dated September 22, 2022, 23 the present appeal was deemed submitted for decision. Assignment of Error In her Brief , the accused-appellant assigns the following error, to wit: "THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 3602 OF THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (TCCP) PUNISHABLE UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 OF SECTION 3601 OF THE TCCP, AS AMENDED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 15-312731." 24 Accused-appellant's arguments: The accused-appellant argues that the prosecution undoubtedly failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she deliberately caused the misdeclaration of the subject shipments in the Import Entry. Discussion/Ruling The present appeal is meritorious. The accused-appellant must be acquitted. Accused-appellant may not be held criminally liable with a defective Information To recall, the Information filed against Mr. Antonio B. Vinavilles and the accused-appellant, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15-312731, reads as follows: "The undersigned Assistant State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice hereby accuses ANTONIO B. VINAVILLES and MERELYN PACHECHO n y Buhay violation of Section 3601 in relation to Sections 2503 and 2530, paragraphs (f), (i) and (l)(3), (4) and (5) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), as amended, committed as follows: That on or about March 20, 2009 and on dates prior and subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other , and with intent to defraud the Government of the Republic of the Philippines of the taxes and duties, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly cause the misdeclaration of the importation of 100 pcs. of elephant tusks with an undetermined number of the same in 49 boxes by filing a fraudulent Import Entry on the said elephant tusks before the Bureau of Customs falsely indicating that it contained 'Blow Moulding Machine and 80 packages of Plastic sheets' consigned to 210 Enterprises owned and operated by accused Antonio B. Vinavilles, which arrived at the Port of Manila from Dar Es Salaam, Tazmania [sic] in Africa on March 20, 2009, on board vessel 'MV Delmas Nacala' when in fact it actually contained 100 pieces of elephant tusks with an undetermined number of the same in 49 boxes with estimated value in the amount of Two Hundred Forty Million Eight Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Four Pesos (P240,854,394), to the damage and prejudice of the government of the Republic of the Philippines . CONTRARY TO LAW." 25 It must be emphasized however that the Information did not allege the jurisdictional amount of accused-appellant's unpaid duties and taxes due to the government. Instead, only the estimated value of the smuggled goods was provided for. It is well-settled that the averments in the information characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried. To determine the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases, the information must be examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts set out therein and the punishment provided for by law fall, within the jurisdiction of the court where the information is filed. 26 In criminal cases, the Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA") has exclusive original jurisdiction arising from violations of the TCCP provided that the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is at least Php1,000,000.00. On the other hand, where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is less than Php1,000,000.00, the case shall be tried by the regular courts and the jurisdiction of this Court shall be appellate. Section 7 of Republic Act ("RA") No. 1125, 27 as amended by RA No. 9282, 28 provides: "SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. The CTA shall exercise: xxx xxx xxx b. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided: 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in the same proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be recognized." 29 Similarly, Section 3 (b) of Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals 30 (RRCTA) states: "SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division . The Court in Division shall exercise: xxx xxx xxx (b) Exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses, to wit: (1) Original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue of the Bureau of Customs, where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is one million pesos or more; and (2) Appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in their original jurisdiction in criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or Bureau of Customs, where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than one million pesos or where there is no specified amount claimed;" Be that as it may, a perusal of the Information in this case reveals the allegations contained therein are utterly insufficient to vest jurisdiction either on RTC-Branch 21 or the CTA. Other than perfunctorily stating "within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court" at the beginning of the Information, the assistant city prosecutor who prepared the Information did not bother to indicate the duties and taxes due to the government. Such absence renders the Information fatally defective. Consequently, the faulty Information cannot be a source of criminal liability for accused-appellant. Prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the criminal offense charged Assuming without conceding that the information was not defective, the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In the assailed Joint Decision dated January 29, 2021 31 issued by RTC-Branch 21, the accused-appellant, in Criminal Case No. 15-312731, was convicted of the crime of violation of "Section 3602 . . . punishable under paragraph 4 of Section 3601 of the TCCP, as amended." For easy reference, Section 3602 of the TCCP, as amended, reads as follows: "SEC. 3602. Various Fraudulent Practices Against Customs Revenue . Any person who makes or attempts to make any entry of imported or exported article by means of any false or fraudulent invoice, declaration, affidavit, letter, paper or by any means of any false statement, written or verbal, or by any means of any false or fraudulent practice whatsoever, or knowingly effects any entry of goods, wares or merchandise, at less than true weight or measures thereof or upon a false classification as to quality or value, or by the payment of less than the amount legally due, or knowingly and willfully files any false or fraudulent entry or claim for the payment of drawback or refund of duties upon the exportation of merchandise, or makes or files any affidavit abstract, record, certificate or other document, with a view to securing the payment to himself or others of any drawback, allowance, or refund of duties on the exportation of merchandise, greater than that legally due thereon, or who shall be guilty of any willful act or omission shall, for each offence, be punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed in the preceding section." The foregoing provision enumerates the various fraudulent practices against customs revenue such as the entry of imported or exported articles by means of any false or fraudulent invoice, statement or practice; the entry of goods at less than the true weight or measure; or the filing of any false or fraudulent entry for the payment of drawback or refund of duties. 32 In various fraudulent practices against customs revenue, also known as technical smuggling, the goods and articles are brought into the country through fraudulent, falsified or erroneous declarations, to substantially reduce, if not totally avoid, the payment of correct taxes, duties and other charges. Often committed by means of misclassification of the nature, quality or value of goods and articles, undervaluation in terms of their price, quality or weight, and misdeclaration of their kind , such form of smuggling is made possible through the involvement of the importers, the brokers and even some customs officials and personnel. 33 In the recent case of Fernandez, et al. v. People of the Philippines , 34 the Supreme Court identified certain elements under Section 3602 of the TCCP, as amended, and expounded on what constitutes "fraud" thereunder, to wit: ". . . Section 3602 of the TCCP enumerates the various fraudulent practices against customs revenue, such as the entry of imported or exported articles by means of any false or fraudulent invoice, statement or practice; the entry of goods at less than the true weight or measure; or the filing of any false or fraudulent entry for the payment of drawback or refund of duties. Petitioners' violation involves the willful importation of goods through the use of false statements or fraudulent practice to evade payment of the correct and appropriate duties and taxes, the elements of which may be broken down as follows: 1. There must be an entry of imported or exported articles/goods; 2. The entry was made by means of any false or fraudulent invoice, declaration, affidavit, document or fraudulent practice; 3. There must be intent to avoid payment of taxes. The fraud contemplated by law must be intentional fraud, consisting of deception, willfully and deliberately dared, or resorted to in order to give up some right . The offender must have acted knowingly and with the specific intent to deceive for the purpose of causing financial loss to another. Even false representations or statements or omissions of material facts come within fraudulent intent. The fraud envisaged in the law includes the suppression of material fact which a party is bound in good faith to disclose. Fraudulent nondisclosure and fraudulent concealment are of the same genre. To further elucidate, fraudulent concealment presupposes a duty to disclose the truth and that disclosure was not made when the opportunity to speak and inform was present, and that the party to whom the duty of disclosure as to a material fact was due was thereby induced to act to his injury. Fraud is not confined to words or positive assertions; it may consist as well of deeds, acts or artifice of a nature calculated to mislead another and thus allow one to obtain an undue advantage. " 35 Thus, for violation under Section 3602 of the TCCP, as amended, involving the willful importation of goods through the use of false statements or fraudulent practice to evade payment of the correct and appropriate duties and taxes, the elements are as follows: (a) there must be an entry of imported or exported articles/goods; (b) the entry was made by means of any false or fraudulent invoice, declaration, affidavit, document or fraudulent practice; and (c) there must be intent to avoid payment of taxes. Anent the first element, the fact of importation or entry of the subject goods is not disputed. 36 Thus, said element is present in this case. However, this Court finds that the second and third elements were not established in the proceedings in RTC-Branch 21. Particularly, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant's participation in the commission of the offense charged. Relative thereto, as can be gleaned from the assailed Joint Decision, in convicting the accused-appellant, the Court a quo found that the latter was "in conspiracy" with her co-accused, Antonio B. Vinavilles, to wit: "Based on the official and public documents as well as private documents submitted by the employees and witnesses from the BOC relative to the subject shipment and presented in court, accused Merelyn Pacheco as licensed customs broker processed and facilitated the importation of one hundred (100) pieces of elephant tusks with an undetermined number of the same in forty (49) boxes with an estimated value in the amount of two hundred forty million eight hundred fifty four thousand three hundred ninety four pesos ([Php]240,854,394.00) from Tanzania in conspiracy with the accused Antonio Vinavilles as the importer under the name of 210 Enterprises as consignee. The subject importation was covered by Bill of Lading No. DARMNL0919802, Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration (IEIRD) bearing the signature of Merelyn Pacheco as broker and Antonio Vinavilles as importer, BOC Assessment Notice for Registration Number C24731 dated March 20, 2009 with Merelyn B. Pacheco as declarant and 210 Enterprises as importer, BOC Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration Assessment Notice with Merelyn Pacheco as declarant and 210 Enterprises as company, Processing Report Form of shipment with Bill of Lading No. DARMNL0919802, 210 Enterprises as owner, and Merelyn B. Pacheco as broker , and Supplemental Declaration on Variation with the name and signature of Merelyn B. Pacheco as declarant and Antonio Vinavilles as Importer, 210 Enterprises as importer/buyer, and PUJI (TZ) LIMITED as exporter/seller. Based on the relevant IEIRD filed by Pacheco and Vinavilles, the dutiable value declared was only [Php]42,924.00 and the shipment was described and declared as 1 x 20' container stc. 120 packages blow moulding machine. Prosecution witness Noel Carandang testified as customs examiner who initially conducted ten percent (10%) examination of the subject shipment as well as conducted one hundred percent (100%) examination on the same shipment in the presence of representatives and witnesses. After the one hundred percent (100%) examination on the same shipment in the presence of representatives and witnesses. After the one hundred percent (100%) examination on the subject shipment, it was discovered that the subject contained ninety eight (98) sacks of plastic scraps and boxes of elephant tusks instead of one hundred twenty (120) packages of blow moulding machine and eighty (80) packages of plastic sheets. He stated that the elephant tusks with estimated value of two hundred forty million eight hundred fifty four thousand three hundred ninety four pesos ([Php]240,854,394.00) were positioned in the innermost portion of the container van. A reading of the relevant IEIRD which was subscribed and sworn to before a notary public showed that accused Pacheco as broker and Vinavilles as importer affixed their signature therein below the notation ' We hereby certify that the information contained in all pages of this Declaration and the documents submitted are to the best of our knowledge true and correct .' There is a need for the filing of a duly accomplished relevant IEIRD for subject shipment to be processed at the BOC in compliance with Section 1304 of the TCCP. In her testimony, accused Merelyn Pacheco admitted that the signature affixed above the broker in the IEIRD marked as Exhibit 'C' has a semblance with her signature and if she will compare the said signature with her signature affixed in the minutes she signed in this case, they have similarity. Likewise, she acknowledged that her name as declaration, office address, and Tax Identification Number in the BOC Assessment Notice marked as Exhibit 'MM' for the prosecution as hers since it is automatic in the computer. Prosecution witness Atty. Lyndon Delos Santos testified that that if you have the Import Entry it shows that the broker and the consignee have also lodged electronically their data since they can only access ETM using their passwords. If they did not file for the subject shipment, they should not have lodged in the ETM and they should not have made the manual Import Entry." 37 Based on the foregoing discussions in the assailed Joint Decision, the Court a quo appears to connect accused-appellant to the crime charged as a co-conspirator, for being the supposed broker reflected in the IEIRD, 38 and the Processing Report Form, 39 and declarant in the same IEIRD, the BOC IEIRD Assessment Notice, 40 and the Supplemental Declaration on Variation. 41 And yet, anent the said Processing Report Form and BOC IEIRD Assessment Notice, there is no indication that accused-appellant participated in the execution or preparation thereof. The said documents merely stated accused-appellant's name, and nothing more. Such being the case, in this Court's mind, the same does not prove that accused-appellant is a co-conspirator. And while it is shown or it appears that the accused-appellant signed the above-stated IEIRD, as broker, and the said Supplemental Declaration on Variation, as declarant, despite the denial of accused-appellant, this Court is convinced that the latter has not acted in conspiracy with her co-accused, Mr. Antonio Vinavilles the importer of the subject goods or articles. A person charged with conspiracy to commit a crime is presumed to be innocent, and the prosecution has the burden to establish his or her guilt, his or her connection with, and participation in the conspiracy. 42 As a corollary, the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. 43 Conspiracy as a basis for conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty. Considering the far-reaching consequences of criminal conspiracy, the same degree of proof necessary in establishing the crime is required to support the attendance thereof, i.e. , it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. 44 Moreover, to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required. Nevertheless, mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy, but that there must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. 45 In this case, the prosecution has not sufficiently established the actual cooperation of the accused-appellant in the illegal act. Neither is there any showing of the accused-appellant's intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. It is noteworthy that the prosecution is well-aware of the ruling in Remigio vs. Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division , 46 wherein the Supreme Court held that a customs broker is not required to go beyond the documents presented to him (or her) in filing an entry on the basis of such documents, viz. : "Accused Erwin C. Remigio, as customs broker, prepared the entry covering the shipment based on the bill of lading, the invoice, the packing list, letter of credit, the import entry declaration and the Central Bank Release Certificate. The given address of Borham Trading was at 37 Harvard Street, Quezon City. There was nothing in the documents to show that there was anything amiss in the shipment or the covering documents. A customs broker is not required to go beyond the documents presented to him in filing an entry on the basis of such documents . xxx xxx xxx Accused Remigio did not fraudulently assist in the importation of any article contrary to law nor facilitated its transportation, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law. All accused Remigio did was to prepare the import entry based on the shipping and other documents required by the Bureau of Customs and file the same. " 47 In fact, when confronted with the foregoing ruling, the prosecution's witness, Atty. Lyndon Delos Santos, testified as follows: "Q: And what is the nature of work of a Customs Broker? A: The Customs Broker will have to be . . . among others I'm not an expert witness in this matter. Maybe I'll be giving my opinion only. Q: But you're not aware of the nature of work of Customs Broker? A: Base[d] on laws, they are available laws pertaining to . . . Q: But am I correct in saying Mr. Witness that as Customs Broker, their job is to merely facilitate the shipment of the (inaudible) in preparation of documents such as Import Entry, Bill of Lading, is that correct? A: Yes, yes. Q: And mostly and generally it is done through merely relying on the documents submitted by the importer, is that correct? A: If there is no irregularity on the documents and no collusion between the importer and broker, they will have to rely on those documents. Q: They merely rely on the documents presented? A: Not all the time. Q: But mostly in general? A: Mostly in general, that's their job. xxx xxx xxx Q: Mr. Witness are you aware of the case of Remegio versus Sandiganbayan? A: Yes ma'am it doesn't apply to the . . . Q: You are aware of that? A: Yes, I am aware. Q: And in this case the accused is a Customs Broker? A: Yes ma'am. Q: And based on that case, it states there the Customs Broker is not required to go beyond the documents presented to . . . ? A: They rely on the . . . Q: Is that correct Mr. Witness, based on the . . . ? A: Yes ma'am. Q: She's not required to investigate and to go beyond the documents which was submitted to her, is that correct? A: If the documents or the circumstances does not warrant investigation, you have to (inaudible) the police but in this case . . . Q: And that documents were submitted by the importer, is that correct? A: Yes ma'am. Q: And am I correct in saying that in this case Customs Broker merely rely on what was submitted to by the Importer Broker? A: It is a blind reliance on document, in the case of Remegio versus CA . . . Q: It's a yes or no question Mr. Witness? A: No ma'am they have to investigate if there is a need or if . . . Q: But in this case there was no need and there was no doubt? A: There was a need. Q: From you, is that correct? A: No, from the part of the broker. Why? Because the shipments are plastic scraps as declared. Q: Am I correct in saying that generally based on jurisprudence, they are not required to investigate? As a general rule? A: As a general rule ." 48 Thus, even the prosecution's witness believes that as a general rule, a customs broker is not required to go beyond the documents presented to him or her in filing an entry on the basis of such documents. Nonetheless, while "irregularity on the documents and . . . collusion between the importer and broker" may be deemed as exceptions to the said rule, the prosecution has not provided any clear indication that the same were present, insofar as the accused-appellant is concerned. In other words, the prosecution provided no circumstance that the accused-appellant could be, or should have been, aware of which should have prompted her to go beyond the documents presented to her in filing the subject IEIRD and Supplemental Declaration on Variation. Relative thereto, the prosecution failed to establish any collusion between the importer and accused-appellant, as broker. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the supposed "irregularity" came only after the BOC's examination of the shipment, not when the accused-appellant signed the said IEIRD and Supplemental Declaration on Variation. Correspondingly, the accused-appellant need not go beyond the documents in this case. Additionally, Atty. Delos Santos likewise testified as follows: "Court: Q: What is the participation of the broker in shipments? A: The brokers are, have necessary participation, your honor, because they are the ones to ensure that proper documents were complied and that documents are authentic and that there was no danger that the subject shipment would be for purposes of smuggling, your honor. In the case of Merelyn Pacheco, your honor, she should have been aware that the shipment originated from Tanzania and that the declaration was plastic sheets and moulding machines, your honor. She should have presumed that the shipment contained as declared it should have not been ordered from Tanzania." 49 However, the prosecution did not elaborate on this point and was not able to demonstrate why accused-appellant would have had to question the authenticity of the documents, or as Atty. Delos Santos stated, should have presumed that it did not contain what was declared in the documents solely because the shipment was said to contain machinery and plastic sheets originating from Tanzania, Africa. Hence, the prosecution was unable to present any circumstance which would warrant an exception to the ruling in Remigio v. Sandiganbayan . Neither was the foregoing sufficient to demonstrate willfull and deliberate fraud on the part of accused-appellant. Apropos , mere presence when the transaction was made does not necessarily lead to an inference of concurrence with the criminal design to commit the crime. Moreover, the same degree of proof necessary to prove the crime is required to support a finding of criminal conspiracy. 50 In this case, the evidence of the prosecution on the matter of conspiracy falls short of the said requirement. It is then clear that the prosecution failed the required quantum of evidence to establish, not only the conspiracy, but also the offense charged, insofar as the accused-appellant is concerned. It follows then that the judgment of the Court a quo convicting the accused-appellant should be set aside for failure to meet the quantum of evidence constitutionally required. In sum, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that accused-appellant conspired to commit crime charged in violation of Section 3602 of the TCCP, as amended. No less than the Constitution provides the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven otherwise by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Such proof requires moral certainty, or that " degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind ." Additionally, the prosecution has the burden to overcome the presumption of innocence. 51 To reiterate, conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense the obligation is upon the shoulders of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, not on the accused to prove his innocence. 52 And where there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of an accused, he or she must be acquitted even though his/her innocence may be questioned, for it is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability, even though strong, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary. 53 WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, the present Notice of Appeal is GRANTED . The assailed Joint Decision dated January 29, 2021 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 21, Manila, insofar as Criminal Case No. 15-312731 is concerned, finding the accused-appellant Merelyn Pacheco y Buhay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of fraudulent practices against customs revenue as defined and penalized under Section 3602 of the TCCP, as amended, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE . Accordingly, the accused-appellant MERELYN PACHECO y BUHAY is ACQUITTED . SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, J. , concurs. Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores, J. , is on official leave. Footnotes 1. Docket, pp. 14-33; Regional Trial Court (RTC) Docket (Criminal Case Nos. 15-312731 and 15-312733) Vol. II, pp. 308-327. 2. RTC Docket (Criminal Case No. 15-312731 and 15-312733) Vol. I, pp. 1-4. 3. Id. , p. 73. 4. Id. , p. 81. 5. Id. , p. 73. 6. RTC Docket (Criminal Case Nos. 15-312731 and 15-312733) Vol. II, pp. 119-120. 7. Id. , p. 121. 8. Id. , Order of Release dated February 17, 2017, p. 124. 9. Id. , Order dated March 02, 2017 and Certificate of Arraignment dated March 02, 2017, pp. 126-127 and 128, respectively. 10. Id. , Minutes of the Session held on, and Orders dated, May 25, 2017, August 3, 2017, October 2, 2017, February 01, 2018, October 24, 2018, pp. 142-147, 151-152, and 226-227, respectively. 11. Id. , Minutes of the Session held on, and Order dated, November 21, 2018, pp. 230-231. 12. Id. , pp. 235-238. 13. Id. , pp. 246-251. 14. Id. , p. 255. 15. Id. , Judicial Affidavit dated January 23, 2020, pp. 271-278; Minutes of the Sessions held on, and Orders dated, September 06, 2019, January 23, 2020, February 03, 2020, and February 12, 2020, pp. 266-265, 285-286, 288-289, and 290-291, respectively. 16. Id. , Minutes of the Session held on, and Order dated November 09, 2020, pp. 298 to 301. 17. RTC Docket (Criminal Case Nos. 15-312731 and 15-312733) Vol. II, pp. 308-327; Docket, pp. 14-33, and 89-109. 18. RTC Docket (Criminal Case Nos. 15-312731 and 15-312733) Vol. II, pp. 328-329; Docket, pp. 36-37. 19. RTC Docket (Criminal Case Nos. 15-312731 and 15-312733) Vol. II, p. 330; Docket, p. 38. 20. Docket, pp. 48-88. 21. Id. , p. 117. 22. Id. , Records Verification Report dated September 14, 2022 issued by the Judicial Records Division this Court, p. 147. 23. Id. , pp. 149-150. 24. Id. , p. 51. 25. Emphasis supplied. 26. See Solemnidad M. Buaya v. The Honorable Wenceslao M. Polo, Presiding Judge, Branch XIX, Regional Trial Court of Manila and the Country Bankers Insurance Corporation , G.R. No. L-75079, January 26, 1989. 27. An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, June 16, 1954. 28. An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), Elevating its Rank to the Level of a Collegiate Court with Special Jurisdiction and Enlarging its Membership, Amending for the Purpose Certain Sections of Republic Act No. 1125, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, and for Other Purposes, March 30, 2004. 29. Emphasis and underscoring supplied . 30. A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, November 22, 2005. 31. Docket, pp. 14-33; RTC Docket (Criminal Case Nos. 15-312731 and 15-312733) Vol. II, pp. 308-327. 32. Rodriguez, et al. v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. , G.R. No. 115218, September 18, 1995. 33. Bureau of Customs v. The Honorable Agnes VST Devanadera, et al. , G.R. No. 193253, September 08, 2015. 34. G.R. No. 249606, July 06, 2022. 35. Emphasis and underscoring supplied. 36. RTC Docket (Criminal Case Nos. 15-312731 and 15-312733) Vol. II, Exhibit "C", pp. 179-181. 37. Docket, pp. 27-28; Regional Trial Court (RTC) Docket (Criminal Case Nos. 15-312731 and 15-312733) Vol. II, pp. 321-322; Emphasis and underscoring supplied . 38. RTC Docket (Criminal Case Nos. 15-312731 and 15-312733) Vol. II, Exhibit "C", pp. 179-181. 39. Id. , Exhibit "PP", p. 223. 40. Id. , Exhibit "OO", p. 222. 41. Id. , Exhibit "QQ", p. 224. 42. Refer to People of the Philippines v. Elizaga, et al. , G.R. No. 78794, November 21, 1988. 43. People of the Philippines v. Natividad, et al. , G.R. No. 151072, September 23, 2003. 44. Id. 45. BDO Life Assurance, Inc. (Formerly Generali Pilipinas Life Assurance Co., Inc.) v. Palad , G.R. No. 237845, October 16, 2019, citing Rimando v. People of the Philippines , G.R. No. 229701, November 29, 2017. 46. G.R. Nos. 145422-23, January 18, 2002. 47. Emphasis and underscoring supplied . 48. Transcript of Stenographic Notes ("TSN") at the hearing held on October 24, 2018, pp. 3-4, and 5-6; Emphasis supplied . 49. TSN, August 03, 2017, p. 8. 50. People of the Philippines v. Bringas, et al. , G.R. No. 189093, April 23, 2010. 51. Leandro Cruz, Emmanuel Manahan, Alric Jervoso v. People of the Philippines , G.R. No. 206437, November 22, 2017. 52. People of the Philippines v. Rene Mamalias y Fiel , G.R. No. 128073, March 27, 2000. 53. Albert Amabagan, Jr. v. People of the Philippines , G.R. Nos. 204481-82, October 14, 2015. n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document.