Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 41, Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIM. CASE No. R-MNL-21-02187-

CR
For: Violation of Sec. 1401 R.A. 10863

RON RON SALONGA y ALDAS

@ RON RON SALONGA,
Accused,
x--------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

Accused, RON RON SALONGA y ALDAS, through the

undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully submits this Memorandum in support of his
ACQUITAL of the crime for which he is charged, and avers
that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

“The Constitution mandates that an accused shall

be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven
beyond reasonable doubt. It is the burden of the
prosecution to overcome such presumption of
innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence
required. Corollarily, the prosecution must rest on
its own merits and must not rely on the weakness
of the defense. In fact, if the prosecution fails to
meet the required quantum of evidence, the
defense may logically not even present evidence in
its own behalf. In which case, the presumption of
innocence shall prevail and hence, the accused
shall be acquitted. However, once the presumption
of innocence is overcome, the defense bears the
burden of evidence to show reasonable doubt as to
the guilt of the accused. Reasonable doubt is
 that doubt engendered by an investigation of
the whole proof and an inability after such
investigation to let the mind rest each upon
the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt
is not demanded by the law to convict a criminal
charge, but moral certainty is required as to every
proposition of proof requisite to constitute the
offense.1

The presumption of innocence is a conclusion of

law in favor of the accused, whereby his innocence
is not only established but continues until
sufficient evidence is introduced to overcome the
proof which the law created-namely, his innocence.
When a doubt is created, it is the result of proof
and not the proof itself. The courts will not impute
a guilty construction or inference to the facts when
a construction or inference compatible with
innocence arises therefrom with equal force and
fairness. In fact, it is always the duty of a court to
resolve the circumstances of evidence UPON A
THEORY OF INNOCENCE rather than upon a
theory of guilt where it is possible to do so. The
accused is not to be presumed guilty because the
facts are consistent with his guilt; this will be done
only where the facts are inconsistent with his
innocence.”2 (Emphasis supplied)

TIMELINESS OF FILING

Upon Order of this Honorable Court dated 14 September

2022, which was received by the undersigned on even date,
accused was given 30 days from receipt of said Order within
which to file his Memorandum thus, Accused has until 14
October 2022 within which to file his Memorandum. Thus,
this Memorandum is timely filed.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED MAY BE HELD

LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 1401 R.A.
108633
1
People vs. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007.
2
Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 11th Ed., Section 72; cited in Francisco,
Criminal Procedure,2nd Ed., 1969, p. 455.
3
Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (2016).

Page 2 of 14
 ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
OF THE ACCUSED MUST
PREVAIL

1. Basic in all criminal prosecutions is the

presumption that the accused is innocent until the contrary is
proved.4 Thus, the well-established jurisprudence is that the
prosecution bears the burden to overcome such presumption;
otherwise, the accused deserves a judgment of acquittal. 5
Concomitant thereto, the evidence of the prosecution must
stand on its own strength and not rely on the weakness of the
evidence of the defense.6

2. Rule 133, Sec. 2 of the Revised Rules on

Evidence specifically provides that the degree of proof
required to secure the accused's conviction is proof beyond
reasonable doubt, which does not mean such a degree of proof
as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.
Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. To stress,
“While not impelling such a degree of proof impervious
certainty, the quantum of proof required in criminal
cases nevertheless charges the prosecution with the
immense responsibility of establishing moral certainty, a
certainty that ultimately appeals to a person's very
conscience.”7 (Emphasis supplied)

3. The provisions of law under which the accused is

being prosecuted is Section 1401 of the Customs
Modernization and Tariff Act (CMTA), which state:

“SEC. 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,
4
Sec. 14(2), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution.
5
People vs. Hilario, G.R. No. 210610, 11 January 2018.
6
People vs. Santos, G.R. No. 223142, 17 January 2018.
7
Daayata vs. People, G.R. No. 205745, 8 March 2017.

Page 3 of 14
 concealment, or sale of such goods after
importation, or shall commit technical
smuggling as defined in this Act shall be
penalized by:

xxxxx

When, upon trial for violation of this

section, the defendant is shown to have
had possession of the goods in question,
possession shall be deemed sufficient
evidence to authorize conviction unless the
defendant shall explain the possession to
the satisfaction of the
court: Provided, That each act of
unlawful importation or exportation shall
be deemed as a separate
offense: Provided, however, That
payment of the tax due after apprehension
shall not constitute a valid defense in any
prosecution, under this section: Provided,
further, That outright smuggling shall
also be punishable under this
section: Provided, finally, That the rights
and privileges provided in this Act for the
importers, consignees, exporters, service
providers, third parties and other third
parties who committed this offense shall
be revoked.”

xxxxx

4. In alleging the violation of the foregoing legal

provisions, the information specified that the petitioner had
violated Sec. 1401 of R.A. 10863 or the Customs
Modernization and Tariff Act (CMTA) for unlawfully bringing
into the Philippines illegal drugs which was declared as
“women clothes, kids clothes, shoes” and receiving the
same. (Emphasis supplied)

5. The act thereby imputed against the petitioner

- unlawfully bringing into the Philippines illegal drugs which
was declared as “women clothes, kids clothes, shoes” and
receiving the same - fell under the acts punished under
Section 1401 of the CMTA. The elements to be established in
order to convict him of the crime charged are, specifically: “(1)
there must be an entry of imported or exported articles;

Page 4 of 14
(2) the entry was made by means of any false or
fraudulent invoice, declaration, affidavit, letter, or
paper; and (3) there must be intent to avoid payment of
taxes.”8 (Emphasis supplied)

6. The said acts constituting unlawful importation

under Section 1401 of CMTA can hardly be gathered from the
statements of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and PDEA NAIA-
IADITG officer’s:

6.1) That, on or about 5:30 PM of February 5, 2021,

while doing their actual duties and responsibilities of
suprevising the conduct of random K9 sweeping at
Central Mail Exchange Center (CMEC), Domestic
Road, Pasay City, their attention was called regarding
one (1) certain package, which according to them
yielded suspicious image content upon subject to X-
ray scanning;

6.2) The said package was declared as "Womens

Clothes, Kids Clothes, Shoes shipped by Mary Lumbao
Edwards of 13911 C Abcoude, Netherlands and
consigned to Susan Lumbao of A. Mabino cor
Remedios St., Malate, Manila 1004, Philippines;

6.3) In that instance PDEA conducted K9 sweeping

on the said package using PDEA Narcotic Detection
Dog to which it gave positive indication for presence of
dangerous drugs;
6.4) After that instance, a BOC examiner opened the
package and conducted a thorough examination and
revealed assorted clothes, blanket, and tumbler;

6.5) After removing all the items from the said

package, it was confirmed to contain several pieces of
colored tablets believed to be ecstasy tablets;

6.6) The said tablets were then submitted to PDEA

Laboratory Services for qualitative and quantitative
examination, the said samples then yielded positive
results for Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)
as reflected in the PDEA Chemistry Report;

6.7) The PDEA then conducted a Controlled Delivery

Operation in coordination with the NAIA-IADTIG with
the Philippine Postal Corporation;
8
Mercado vs. People, G.R. No. 167510, July 8, 2015.

Page 5 of 14
 6.8) The said package was place under surveillance
for five (5) days. On February 10, 2021, two teams
went to the Philpost Manila Central Office in Liwasang
Bonifacio, Manila and conducted a briefing;

6.9) On February 15, 2021, accused arrived and

inquired about the said package which is consigned to
a certain Susan Lumbao. Accused said that he was the
authorized representative to claim the said package
and presented his BIR TIN card and Philhealth ID
Card bearing his name and photograph and his
authorization letter executed and signed by a certain
Susan Lumbao;

6.10) After verifying the identity of the accused and

the documents presented by him, the PDEA operative
ask him to sign the receiving record to which the
accused signed and handed over to him the said
package. Upon the pre-arrange signal of the PDEA
representative, the said accused was then arrested by
another team of PDEA.

7. From the foregoing statements, it clearly shows that

accused Ron Ron Salonga did not make or attempt to make
entry of the imported articles by means of any false or
fraudulent declaration by means of any false statement, verbal
or oral as it was the shipper a certain Mary Lumbao Edwards
from the Netherlands, who declared that the shipment was
“Womens Clothes, Kids Clothes, Shoes” and consigned to
Susan Lumbao.

8. Accused Ron Ron Salonga, merely acted as the

representative of Susan Lumbao in claiming the subject
parcel, and prepared the entry covering the said parcel base
on the shipping details. There was nothing in the documents
to show that there was anything amiss in the shipment or the
covering documents. As the representative of the consignee
accused is not required to go beyond the documents presented
to him in filing an entry on the basis of such documents.

9. Accused Ron Ron Salonga did not fraudulently

assist in the importation of any article contrary to
law, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law.
All accused Remigio did was to prepare the document/entry

Page 6 of 14
based on the shipping and other documents required by the
Philpost and file the same in order to claim the said parcel.

10. In Farolan vs. Court of Tax Appeals and Bagong

Buhay Trading9, the Supreme Court declared that:

"The fraud contemplated by law must be

actual and not constructive. It must be
intentional fraud, consisting of
deception willfully and deliberately
dared or resorted to in order to give up
some right.” (Emhasis supplied)

11. As explained earlier, the import entry was prepared

on the basis of the shipping documents provided for by the
shipper. Hence, accused can be considered to have acted in
good faith when it relied on these documents.

12. Assuming arguendo that the petitioner was involved

in the preparation of the entry documents, a clear showing of
his intent to falsify the same in order to facilitate its entry to
the Philippine, would still be wanting. The Customs officials
themselves testified that the declarations made in the import
documents largely depended on the description of the goods
made by the r shipper from a foreign country.

13. In their testimony, Customs Office James Victorious

E. Ditona and PDEA Officer Reynante Rullan explains that:

TSN dated 01 September 2021 (Customs Office

James Victorious E. Ditona)

xxxxx

Q: Mr. Witness, why is it that there was no surveillance

made in the person of Susan Lumbao?
A: Primarily, surveillance is a responsibility and scope
of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

Q: How about on the person of Mary Lumbao Edwards?

A: Mary Lumbao Edwards is the shipper who is not
from our country, not a local national, Ma’am.

9
217 SCRA 298 (1993).

Page 7 of 14
 Q: Right, because you were asked a while ago if there
was a surveillance made on the person of Mary Lumbao
Edwards and you said none, so my question is, why there
was no surveillance made on the personb of mary Lumbao
Edwards?
A: Mary Lumbao Edwards is not from here, Ma’am, she
is a shipper from Netherlands, Ma’am.

Q: And so what?
A: Mary Lumbao Edwards is only a shipper, she is just
a shipper from Netherlands.

xxxxx

TSN dated 17 November 2021 (PDEA Officer

Reynante Rullan)

xxxxx

Q: Okay, Mr. Officer, am I correct to say that – in the

same Authorization Letter, Mr. witness, in the last or third
paragraph, can you please read the sender?
A: The sender is Mary Lumbao Edwards with an
address…

Atty. Ventura: No, your honor, basahin mong Mabuti,

Lumbao bay an o Bumbao?

A: The sender is Mary Bumbao Edward, sir.

Q: Okay, but who is the sender – in truth, what is the

name of the true sender?

Pros. Agar: Already answered, your Honor, Mary

Lumbao Edward is the sender.

Court: Based on what we see on the screen, it is Mary

Bumbao, based on what is written.
xxxxx

14. Based from the foregoing, the accused assertion

that he had relied in good faith on the declarations for the
release of the subject parcel was made by him and based them
on the information provided in the shipping documents by the
shipper, stood unrebutted by the Prosecution. If that was so,
his intentional or deliberate participation in any
misdeclaration could not be properly presumed.

Page 8 of 14
 15. In so saying, we cannot but conclude, that the
accused should not be held criminally liable for violation of the
Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (CMTA). As aptly held
by the Supreme Court in Transglobe International, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals10:

“In the appeal before the CTA, respondent

Commissioner of Customs contended that
the seizure of the shipment was made
also upon a finding that the documents
covering it were forged, thus constituting
fraud as defined in Sec. 1, par. 1. a., CM0-
87-92. This Section is of the same tenor as
Sec. 2530, pars. (f) and (m), subpars. 3, 4
and 5, which for emphasis deals with
falsities committed by the owner, importer,
exporter or consignee or
importation/exportation through any other
practice or device. In Aznar, as
reiterated in Farolan, we clarified that
the fraud contemplated by law must
be actual and not constructive. It
must be intentional, consisting of
deception willfully and deliberately
done or resorted to in order to induce
another to give up some right. The
misdeclarations in the manifest and
rider cannot be ascribed to petitioner
as consignee since it was not the one
that prepared them. As we said
in Farolan, if at all, the wrongful making
or falsity of the documents can only be
attributed to the foreign suppliers or
shippers. Moreover, it was not shown
in the forfeiture decision that
petitioner had knowledge of any
falsity in the shipping documents.
District Collector Rosqueta's comment on
petitioner's second motion for
reconsideration is enlightening: While the
shipment was misdeclared in the
rider and the manifest, the consignee
is innocent of the facts stated therein
as it had no hand in their
10
G.R. No. 126634, January 25, 1999.

Page 9 of 14
 preparation or issuance. We mention in
passing that in having thus stated, she in
effect nullified her prior finding that
petitioner violated the cited provisions of
the Tariff and Customs Code as
amended. Consequently, we agree with
the finding of the CTA that fraud was not
committed by petitioner in the importation
of the shipment.”

17. Accordingly, the petitioner's participation in the

release of the parcel/shipment could not be given any meaning
or import adverse to his penal interest. Such release was
actually irrelevant to the criminal act charged against him and
the Accused should be acquitted for reasonable doubt.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT THE

PROSECUTION FAILED TO
ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF
THE ACCUSED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT

16. While an accused stand before the court believing

that he committed the crime charged, the judicial
determination of his guilt or innocence necessarily starts with
the recognition of his constitutional right to be presumed
innocent of the charge he faces. This principle, a right of the
accused, is enshrined no less in our Constitution. It embodies
as well a duty on the part of the court to ascertain that no
person is made to answer for a crime unless his guilt is proven
beyond reasonable doubt.11

17. Its primary consequence in our criminal justice

system is the basic rule that the prosecution carries the
burden of overcoming the presumption through proof of guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, a criminal case
rises or falls on the strength of the prosecution's case, not on
the weakness of the defense. Once the prosecution overcomes
the presumption of innocence by proving the elements of the
crime and the identity of the accused as perpetrator beyond
reasonable doubt, the burden of evidence then shifts to the
defense which shall then test the strength of the prosecution's
case either by showing that no crime was, in fact, committed
or that the accused could not have committed or did not

11
People vs. Rodrigo, 586 Phil. 515 (2008).

Page 10 of 14
commit the imputed crime or, at the very least, by casting
doubt on the guilt of the accused.12

18. Verily, in every criminal conviction requires the

prosecution to prove two things: “(1) the fact of the
crime, i.e., the presence of all the elements of the crime
for which the accused stands charged, and (2) the fact
that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime.”13 When a
crime is committed, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove
the identity of the perpetrator of the crime beyond reasonable
doubt for there can be no conviction even if the commission of
the crime is established.14 Apart from showing the existence
and commission of a crime, the State has the burden to
correctly identify the author of such crime. Both facts must be
proved by the State beyond cavil of a doubt on the strength of
its evidence and without solace from the weakness of the
defense.15 (Emphasis supplied)

19. Our legal culture demands the presentation of proof

beyond reasonable doubt before any person may be convicted
of any crime and deprived of his life, liberty or even property.
As every crime must be established beyond reasonable doubt,
it is also paramount to prove, with the same quantum of
evidence, the identity of the culprit. It is basic and
elementary that there can be no conviction until and
unless an accused has been positively identified. The
hypothesis of his guilt must flow naturally from the facts
proved and must be consistent with all of them. 16 (Emphasis
supplied)

20. In the present case, there is no direct evidence that

could link the accused to the commission of the crime. As the
accused was not the shipper of the parcel containing ecstasy
pill which was fraudulently declared as “Womens Clothes,
Kids Clothes, Shoes”, to such extent he was not even the
named consignee on the said parcel. As he was just made
authorized to received the package by Susan Lumbao on her
behalf, who is the real consignee as evidence of the
Authorization Letter which accused presented to the Philpost.
(Emphasis ours)

21. The act of the accused of receiving the parcel and

claiming that it contains “womens clothes, kids clothes and
12
Id.
13
People vs. Ayola, 416 Phil. 861 (2001).
14
People vs. Sinco, 408 Phil. 1 (2001).
15
People vs. Limpangog, 444 Phil 691 (2003).
16
People vs. Cadenas et al., G.R. Np. 233199, November 5, 2018.

Page 11 of 14
shoes” does not necessarily means that he is the author of the
crime as he merely relied on the shipping details to claim such
parcel.

22. The proof against the accused must pass the

crucible of reasonable doubt; suspicion alone, no matter how
strong it may be, is inadequate to sustain a conviction. Truly,
the sea of suspicion has no shore, and the court that
embarks upon it is without rudder or compass.17 (Emphasis
supplied)

23. It is timely to reiterate People vs. Mamalias18,

where the Court has reminded with emphasis about the main
objective of the courts in the dispensation of justice in criminal
prosecutions, to wit:

“We emphasize that the great goal of our

criminal law and procedure is not to send
people to the gaol but to do justice. The
prosecution's job is to prove that the
accused is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. 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. Thus,
when the evidence of the prosecution is
not enough to sustain a conviction, it must
be rejected and the accused absolved and
released at once.”

24. Finally, it is to be remembered that it will be the

height of injustice once an innocent person is punished for a
crime he did not commit.

25. From the foregoing disquisitions, considering the

prevailing circumstances and the applicable laws and
jurisprudence, Accused respectfully submits to this Honorable
Court that reasonable doubt on his guilt exists in the case at
hand.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused RON RON
17
People vs. Asis, 439 Phil. 707 (2002).
18
G.R. No. 128073, March 27, 2000.

Page 12 of 14
SALONGA y ALDAS most respectfully prays that this
Honorable Court promulgate a Judgment ACQUITTING him of
the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Quezon City for City of Manila. 10 October 2022.

MANUEL VENTURA & PARTNERS

(MVP LAW)
Unit 303 Fil Garcia Tower Kalayaan Avenue
corner Mayaman Street, Quezon City, 1101
Landline No. 02.8.553.69.52
Mobile No. 0915.852.65.69
Office Email: info.mvplaw@gmail.com

MANUEL ANGELO B. VENTURA III

Roll No. 57868
PTR No. 2532426 / 18 January 2022 / Quezon City
IBP No. 199545 / 18 January 2022 / Quezon City
MCLE Comp. No. V-0007304
(Pending Compliance for MCLE)

HAZEL B. FOSTER-VELASQUEZ
Roll No. 81619
PTR No. 3073935/ 25 May 2022/ Quezon City
IBP No. 224695/ 25 May 2022/ Quezon City
Admitted to the Philippine Bar on May 2022

ANGELINE DC. RODRIGUEZ

Roll No. 79027
PTR No. 2596330/ 15 July 2022/ Quezon City
IBP No. 211115/ 15 May 2022/ Manila
Admitted to the Philippine Bar on May 2022

Copy furnished:

Page 13 of 14
SACP ANNE GERALDINE T. AGAR
Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila

Page 14 of 14