You are on page 1of 5

91. People vs.


Facts: Defendant Ildefonso Tierra was, during the years 1946 up to 1949, engaged in the general merchandise
business. For the years 1946, 1947 and 1949, he filed his income tax returns. Said returns were later verified by
the income tax examiner, Robles. And on December 16, 1950, examiner reported his finding that appellant had
filed false and fraudulent returns for said by overstating his purchases for 1946, 1947 and 1949, and over declaring
his expenses, for 1947, thereby reducing the, net income subject to tax. Four separate informations then were filed
against the defendant on December 12, 1955.

Issue: Whether the criminal actions against appellant had already prescribed when the informations were filed

Ruling: No. In a criminal action that was instituted against the taxpayer for having filed a false and fraudulent
return and for failure to pay taxes, the subsequent satisfaction of the tax liability by payment or prescription will
not operate to extinguish taxpayer’s criminal liability. Whether under the Tax Code or RPC, the satisfaction of
civil liability is not one of the grounds for extinction of criminal action.

92. People vs. Balagtas

Facts: The information filed by the government on August 17, 1954, alleged that the said appellant failed to pay
his income taxes for the years 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949, in the total amount of P10,431.22. Upon his plea of
guilty, he was sentenced to pay a fine of P300, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, to indemnify
the Republic the sum of P10,431.22, also with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Despite appellant's
plea of guilty, he appealed on the ground that the lower court erred (1) in not holding that the violation alleged in
the information has already prescribed, and (2) in imposing subsidiary imprisonment relative to his civil liability.

Issue: Whether the court erred in imposing subsidiary imprisonment relative to appellant’s civil liability

Ruling: If a person is convicted for violation of any of the provisions of the Tax Code has no property with which
to meet the fine imposed upon him by the court, or is unable to pay such fine, he shall be subject to subsidiary
personal liability.

93. Collector v University of Sto Tomas (596)

Facts: During the period from 1948- 1950, UST paid on its gross receipts derived from its printing and binding
jobs for the University, the aggregate amount of P13,590.03, representing the 2% tax on its gross receipts during
the period. On 1950, UST requested from the respondent the refund of the sum of Php 8,293.31, on the ground
that the amount of Php 359,972.45 paid by the other departments to the UST Press was for the purposes of
accounting only and does not legally constitute gross receipts subject to the percentage tax. CIR denied the claim.
CTA modified the decision of the CIR:
a. UST’s claim for refund to the extent of Php 5,842.27 is DENIED, the same being BARRED BY
b. The deficiency tax assessment of Php 2,451.04 for percentage taxes and surcharges is RECOGNIZED,

Issue: Whether it was proper for the CTA to apply the doctrine of recoupment

Ruling: No. The doctrine of equitable recoupment means that when a refund of a tax illegally or erroneously
collected or overpaid by a taxpayer is barred by the statute of limitations and a tax is being presently assessed
against said taxpayer, said present tax may be recouped or set-off against the tax the refund of which has been
barred. This doctrine, however, was rejected by the SC, saying that it was not convinced of the wisdom and
proprietary thereof, and that it may work to tempt both the collecting agency and the taxpayer to delay and neglect
heir respective pursuits of legal action within the period set by law.

Book: If the Commissioner is convinced that the taxpayer is criminally liable, he should institute criminal
proceedings and not arbitrarily impose a penalty.

94. People v Typingco (598)

Facts: Joseph Typingco is the alleged President and authorized officer of Fiesta Pack, Inc. He was charged for
(1) failure to file return and to supply correct information, in relation to officers of corporation on whom
penalties may be imposed and penalty liability of corporations of the Tax Code, under Information filed by
the Asst. City Prosecutor on March 3, 2009. The investigation led to the issuance of PAN (Pre-Assessment Notice)
for deficiency income tax through an ordinary mail.

To be liable for the alleged crime, the following elements have to be: (a) the corporation taxpayer is required to
pay tax and it failed to pay such tax at the time required by law; (b) Typingco is the president general manager,
branch manager, treasurer, officer-in-charge or employee responsible for the violation of the corporate taxpayer;
and (c) Typingco willfully fails to pay the corporate taxes.

Issue: Whether the pre-assessment notice made by the BIR was valid to satisfy the required element of
“willfulness”in this case

Ruling: No. An act or omission is willfully done, if done voluntarily and intentionally and with specific intent to
fail to do something the law requires to be done. Undoubtedly, it becomes necessary for the prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that Typingco, in representation of Fiestapack, received the assessment notices or was
aware of its tax liabilities in order to impute upon him the required elements of “willfulness”in this case. The BIR
witness testified that PAN was mailed by ordinary mail and the FAN, by registered mail. Finally, considering that
the prosecution failed to prove to authenticate the signature, to show that the person who signed the ITR and who
received the PAN was really the authorized Typingco, the assessment made by the CIR is void. A void assessment
bears no fruit; hence no civil liability arises in this case.

95. People v Paz Abad Santos (599)

Facts: Accused Paz Abad Santos is charged for violation of Sec. 49(b) now Sec. 106(A), Secs. 57(B), 175 and
24(B)(2) of the 1997 Tax Code, allegedly due to her failure to pay corporate tax liabilities, for the period 2005.
The CTA ruled that a determination of probable cause cannot be made when the evidence do not substantiate the
accused to have perpetrated the crime.

Issue: Whether the actions filed against the defendant Abad Santos were sufficiently made

Ruling: No. Notably, these tax liabilities are corporate tax liabilities of Vicente Singson Encarnacion Corporation,
but it is misleadingly stated therein that "the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously fail and refused to fail tax liabilities" without stating that these are corporate tax liabilities. Also, the
basis for the assessment of deficiency taxes for taxable year 2005 against Vicente Singson-Encarnacion
Corporation was not attached to the records of this case. It is alleged that said accused is being charged " in her
capacity as Treasurer of Vicente Singson-Encarnacion Corporation", the supposed corporate taxpayer in the case.
The supporting documents attached to the records of this case do not substantiate or prove that accused Paz S.
Abad Santos is indeed the Treasurer and/or responsible officer of Vicente Singson-Encarnacion Corporation. All
the foregoing considered, the Court finds difficulty in making a judicious determination of the existence of
probable cause to hold accused liable for the commission of the offense charged herein. Case dismissed.

96. People v Benjamin Hian Tek Co

Facts: The prosecution filed an Information, charging accused for violation of Section 255 in relation to Sections
220 and 56(b) of the NIRC. In the Resolution dated February 22, 2012, this Court ordered the prosecution: (1) to
submit the entire records of the preliminary investigation conducted, including the affidavit-complaint, and (2) to
show appropriate authority to file the Information. Subsequently, the Judicial Records Division of this Court
issued a letter informing the Exec. Clerk Court III that counsel for the prosecution failed to comply with the said

Issue: Whether the accused should be held liable

Ruling: No. Without doubt, it is not required that the complete or entire records of the case during the preliminary
investigation be submitted to and examined by the judge, to determine the existence of probable cause. What is
required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient supporting documents (such as the complaint, affidavits,
counter-affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses or transcripts of stenographic notes, if any) upon which to make
his independent judgment or, at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the
existence of probable cause. After a circumspect perusal of the documents attached by the prosecution on the
Information, We find the non-existence of probable cause.

The prosecution failed to present any supporting document or sworn statement of witnesses which can establish
the BIR's finding of "Unrecorded Gain on Sale by way of Dacion En Pago " against the accused. Such
circumstance is material for the determination of probable cause because that would ascertain that accused was
indeed required to pay the subject tax.

97. People v Elisoe

Facts: Informations were filed against the accused Eliseo Co for violations of Sec. 254 (Attempt to Evade or
Defeat); Sec. 267 (Declaration under Penalties of Perjury); Sec. 257 (Penal Liability for Making False Entries,
Records). Accused allegedly filed with the BIR a false and fraudulent Income Tax Return (ITR) for taxable year
1998, wherein he allegedly declared therein a lower income in the total amount of P9,247,410.40, derived from
his business under the name of "Divisoria Dried Fish Center”. However, he contends that these consolidated cases
should be dismissed on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused; and that there
is insufficient evidence to prove the income that was supposedly declared by the accused in 1998.

Issue: Whether the accused should be liable for the crimes charged against him

Ruling: No. In evaluating the above pieces of evidence, the conclusions that can be derived therefrom are: the
BIR requested accused Eliseo Co to produce his books of account, that he received certain amounts from the
Bureau of Corrections, and that the BIR computed his tax deficiencies. But then, none of the said pieces of
evidence can show or indicate that indeed, accused Eliseo Co recorded a different amount of income in his Income
Tax Return, which constitutes the very core of the offenses charged against accused. The prosecution argues that
the contents of the ITR can be proven by the testimonies of its witnesses. However, testimonial evidence without
admissible documents to corroborate the same, is not enough. Let it be noted that these cases are criminal cases,
and the liberty and property of the accused are at stake. Likewise, it is a basic rule of evidence that between
documentary and oral evidence, the former carries more weigh

It was also held that the claim of the defense that the prosecution failed, in the course of the presentation of the
prosecution's evidence, to have a competent witness positively identify accused, Eliseo Co, as the same person
charged in the Informations in these criminal cases, and as the person who committed the offenses since during
the arraignment, the prosecution cannot ascertain whether the Eliseo Co is the person listed in the Information,
hence, they denied it.

98. People v Medina

Facts: A perusal of the Information filed in this case shows that there is no specified amount of
taxes and fees claimed. This Court dismissed the case on the ground that the jurisdiction is vested with the regular
Courts pursuant to Sec. 7 of RA No. 9282, which took effect on April 23, 2004, amending RA No. 1125 [the law
creating the Court of Tax Appeals]

Issue: Whether or not the CTA’s dismissal of the case was proper

Ruling: Yes. Sec. 7 of RA No. 9282 provides:

Section 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise:

(a) X X X
(b) Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided :
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the BIRC
or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the BIR or the BOC: 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. x x x "

The CTA has no jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is with the regular courts and the case should be dismissed
by the CTA. Pursuant to the aforequoted provision , the CTA has exclusive original jurisdiction over all
criminal offenses arising from violations of the NIRC or the Tariff and Customs Code ,where the principal
amount of taxes and fees , exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is P1 ,000,000.00 or more. Where
the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties , claimed is less than P1
,000,000.00 or where there is no specified amount claimed, the same shall be tried by the regular Courts
and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate.

99. People v Marungo

(Case cannot be found)

Book: The accused are charged in an Information for violation of Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code
in relation to Article 172 of the RPC. On April 18, 2011 and on May 25, 2011, the CTA promulgated resolutions
ordering the State Preosecutors to submit clear and legible copies; otherwise, the case shall be dismissed for
failure to comply with a lawful order of the Court. Records show that despite notice and receipt of the resolution,
the prosecutors failed to comply with the resolution; hence, case was dismissed.

100. People v Malic (600)

Facts: An Information was filed against Benjamin Valic for violation of Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs
Code of the Philippines, in relation to Article 172 of the RPC. It was alleged that Briones and Banga, being the
general manager and customs representatives, respectively of Skyrider, in conspiracy with Benjamin Valic of BP
Valic Brokerage, filed before the BOC of the aforesaid port, Import Entry No. 95-2001 covering 9,667 prilled
urea in bulk, by means of fraudulent statement or declaration making it appear that the subject shipment is exempt
from payment of duties and taxes on the basis of fraudulent certificate of eligibility to avoid payment of rightful
duties and taxes.

Issue: Whether or not the accused Valic is guilty as charged for violation of Section 3602 of the Tariff and
Customs Code of the Philippines in relation to Article 172 of the RPC

Ruling: No. The prosecution failed to prove that there was an item imported in the amount stated in the
Information. The original of the Certificate of Eligibility was not presented before the Court.
Considering that the document alleged to have been falsified, viz./ the Certificate of Eligibility, was not presented
before this Court; and considering further that the exhibit described and offered by the prosecution as Certificate
of Eligibility was denied admission in the Resolution, a determination of whether such Certificate mentioned in
the Information was indeed falsified would be impossible. Even assuming that the prosecution was able to prove
the existence of the falsified Certificate of Eligibility allegedly utilized in perpetrating the offense charged, still
there was nothing in the evidence presented by the prosecution that would show that accused Valic was the one
who filed the said Import Entry Declaration No. C-95-2001 and presented the Certificate of Eligibility before the
Bureau of Customs. Thus, the accused has been acquitted.