DOJ Opinion No. 013, s. 1999

DOJ OPINION NO. 013 , s. 1999 January 26, 1999 Hon. Solomon S. Cua Undersecretary Department of Finance Roxas Blvd. Cor. Vito Cruz St. Manila 1004 Sir : This is a request for clarification of this Department's Opinion (No. 127, s. 1998) dated October 28, 1998 wherein, interpreting the provisions of Republic Act No. 8506 (An Act Barring The Registration and Operation of Vehicles with Right Hand Steering Wheel in Any Private or Public Street, Road or Highway, Providing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes), it was pertinently stated, to wit: ". . . (T)his Department is of the opinion that the title of R.A. No. 8506 has satisfactorily complied with the constitutional requirements on title since the prohibition on importation of right-hand vehicle is germane and related to and is not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject of the law. xxx xxx xxx ". . . RHD buses imported and loaded at the port of origin before February 22, 1998 (the effectivity date of the law), cannot be deemed to be covered by the provisions of R.A. No. 8506 . . . notwithstanding the fact that they arrived in the country after the law's effectivity. cdlex "One cannot be faulted for committing an act which is not prohibited and punishable when done. However, given the prohibition against the use and registration of right-hand drive motor vehicles, these motor vehicles should be released only upon compliance of the aforesaid conditions adopted by the DOF. "However, as to those RHD buses loaded for shipment after February 22, 1998, suffice it to say that '(i)gnorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith' (Art. 3, New Civil Code)." Premised on the consideration that "there indeed existed a discrepancy between the title of the Act and its body, which consequently resulted in an administrative misinterpretation of the law", the following issues are raised: "1) Whether the importers can be accorded good faith and lack of intent to violate R.A. 8506; and "2) Whether under special circumstances prevailing namely: a) Shipments were made shortly after the law was enacted; and, b) there was administrative mis-interpretation which allowed the importation of the vehicles, compliance with the following condition ( sic ) will suffice to adhere with the real intent of the law, . . . i.e., to render Philippine roads free of right-hand vehicles: cdll 1. Full payment of customs duties, taxes, fees and penalties, if any; 2. Conversion kits are included in the imported vehicles; 3. Posting of a bond issued by a reputable bonding company, i.e. the GSIS (Government Service Insurance System), equivalent to 200% of the value of the vehicle conditioned upon fulfillment of the following requisites: i. the non-use and non-operation of the vehicles prior to their conversion and registration; ii. the conversion of the vehicles from right-hand drive in Customs Bonded Warehouse under the supervision of the BOC (Bureau of Customs), and release from the BOC custody for registration only upon inspection and confirmation by the SGS (Societe Generale de Surveillance) issuance of Clean report of the Findings (CRF)." In the alternative, confirmation is requested on "whether a re-exportation by the importer of the subject vehicles is legally feasible." Crimes which, by the act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense punished by the statute as those punished by R.A. No. 8506 are classified as mala prohibita (D. Nitafan, A Theory of Crime and Punishment: An Annotation, 210 SCRA 483, 488). Under said classification, the act is evil because it is prohibited, i.e., the act is made wrong by legislation (U.S. vs. Look Chaw, 19 Phil. 343, 349; People vs. Sunico [CA], 50 O.G. 5883). Thus, in determining the existence of the crime, the only inquiry is: has the law been violated? (D. Nitafan, A Theory of Crime and Punishment, supra, p. 488). Likewise, the intention of the person who commits it becomes entirely immaterial (People vs. Ramos, CA G.R. No. 14742-CR, Feb. 2, 1978); hence, good faith and absence of criminal intent cannot be raised as valid defense (People vs. Orquijo, et al., 60 O.G. 836, 843, citing cases; Lacson vs. Posadas, 72 SCRA 168, 171). For the same reason, importers of the RHD vehicles cannot be accorded good faith and lack of intent to violate R.A. No. 8506. Relative to the second issue, the provision of the New Civil Code of the Philippines stating that "(i)gnorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith (Art. 3, New Civil Code) is grounded upon, and justified by, the conclusive presumption that everyone knows the law; otherwise, evasion of the law would be facilitated and the administration of justice defeated, if persons could successfully plead ignorance of the law to escape the legal consequences of their acts, or to excuse non-performance of their legal acts, or to excuse non-performance of their legal duties (see, Tolentino, The Civil Code of the Philippines, Commentaries and Jurisprudence, Vol. I, 1996 ed., p. 18, citing cases). Additionally, said provision applies to all kinds of domestic laws, civil or criminal, whether substantive or remedial, and to mandatory or prohibitory laws (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Vol. I, 1994 ed., p. 19, citing cases), such as the subject R.A. No. 8506. Consequently, compliance of the enumerated conditions will not suffice adherence to the intent of the law nor exemption from application of the provision thereof. Finally, anent the alternative issue raised, Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code is clear and categorical, to wit: "ARTICLE 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime . Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed . Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated in favor of the Government , unless they be the property of a third person not liable for the offence, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed." (Act No. 3815, as amended) (emphasis ours) Indubitably, save for those expressly exempted by R.A. No. 8506, the RHD vehicles in issue, the instrument or tools with which the prohibited act was committed, shall be confiscated in favor of the Government. Accordingly, we are not inclined to say that re-exportation by the importer of the subject vehicles is legally feasible. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS Secretary