This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| To warrant the forfeiture of the 6,500 sacks of rice and the carrying vessel, there must be a prior showing of probable cause that the rice cargo was smuggled.[43] Once probable cause has been shown, the burden of proof is shifted to the claimant.[44] | |||||
|
2007-08-09 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that the factual findings of the CTA, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to the highest respect[16] and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the lower courts committed gross error in the appreciation of facts.[17] | |||||
|
2006-01-31 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The Court is aware that Urbino seeks to enforce a maritime lien and, because of its nature, it is equivalent to an attachment from the time of its existence.[16] Nevertheless, despite his lien's constructive attachment, Urbino still cannot claim an advantage as his lien only came about after the warrant of seizure and detention was issued and implemented. The Salvage Agreement, upon which Urbino based his lien, was entered into on June 8, 1989. The warrants of seizure and detention, on the other hand, were issued on January 19 and 20, 1989. And to remove further doubts that the forfeiture case takes precedence over the RTC of Manila case, it should be noted that forfeiture retroacts to the date of the commission of the offense, in this case the day the vessel entered the country.[17] A maritime lien, in contrast, relates back to the period when it first attached,[18] in this case the earliest retroactive date can only be the date of the Salvage Agreement. Thus, when the vessel and its cargo are ordered forfeited, the effect will retroact to the moment the vessel entered Philippine waters. | |||||