ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 144707.� December 1, 2004]
PEOPLE vs. TAN
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 1 2004.
G.R. No. 144707 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LUCIO C. TAN, FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, ANTONIO P. ABAYA, HARRY C. TAN, CARMEN KHAO TAN, FLORENCIO C. SANTOS, SALVADOR F. MISON, ROXAS CHUA, MARIANO TANENGLIAN and JUANITA TAN LEE (c/o Fortune Tobacco Corporation, Parang, Marikina City); TOWNSMAN COMMERCIAL, INC., WILLIAM YU, LETICIA LIM, GLORIA LOPEZ, ROBERT TANTAMPO, JOSE TIU, FELIPE LOY, LUIS SEE (c/o 4th Floor, Allied Bank Center, Ayala Avenue, Makati City); LANDMARK SALES AND MARKETING INC., ROLANDO CHUA, HONORINA TAN, MILLIE TANTAMCO, HENRY� WECHEE, JESUS LIM, TEODORO TAN, ANTONIO APOSTOL, DOMINGO TENG (c/o 4th Floor, Allied Bank Center, Ayala Avenue, Makati City); CRIMSON CROKER DISTRIBUTORS, INC., CANDELARIO LI, TEODORO TAN, ERLINDA CRUZ, CARLOS TUMPALAN, LARRY JOHN SY, ERNESTO ONG, WILFREDO MACROHON (4th Floor, Allied Bank Center, Ayala Avenue, Makati City); DAGUPAN COMBINED COMMODITIES, INC., NEMESIO TAN, QUINTIN CALALEJA, YOLAN-DA MANALILI, CARLOS CHAN, ROMEO TAN, JOHN UY, VICENTE CO (4th Floor, Allied Bank Center, Ayala Avenue, Makati City); FIRST UNION TRADING CORPORATION, HENRY CHOA, LOPE LIM GUAN, EMILIO TAN, FELIPE TAN SHE CHUAN, ANDRES CO (4th Floor, Allied Bank Center, Ayala Avenue, Makati City); CARLSBURG & SONS, INC., FELIPE KEE, HENRY GO CO, NARCISO GO, ADOLFO LIM, MAXIMO TAN, CO SHU, DANIEL YAO (c/o 112 Aguirre Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City); OMAR ALI DISTRIBUTORS, INC., GABRIEL QUIENTELLA, NELSON TE, EMILIO GO, EDWIN LEE, CESAR LEDESMA, JR., JAO CHEP SENG (c/o 112 Aguirre Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City); ORIEL & CO., INC., FRANCISCO J. ORIEL, JR., BENJAMIN T. HONG, PHILIP P. JAO, JOSE P. YU and EDISON M. QUE (c/o 112 Aguirre Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City); MT. MATUTUM MARKETING CORPORATION, ANTONIO TIU, FELIPE LOY, ROSARIO LESTOR, WILFREDO ONG, ROLANDO CHUA, BONIFACIO CHUA, GO CHING CHUAN (4th Floor, Becogan Bldg., 112 Aguirre Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City.)
This resolves the Motion for Leave to File [Second] Motion for Reconsideration with the proposed [Second] Motion for Reconsideration attached, [1] cralaw filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as well as the Opposition thereto, [2] cralaw filed by herein respondents. The OSG seeks leave to ask, for the second time, for partial modification of our judgment in the Decision dated July 13, 2004. We disposed therein:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 29, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 56077 and the Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City dated August 25, 1999 and October 13, 1999 in SCA Case No. 95-340-MK are hereby REVERSED, and the Orders dated March 22, 1999 and May 17, 1999 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 75, Marikina City, dismissing the criminal informations filed by the DOJ Panel against herein respondents, and denying the DOJ Panel's Motion for Reconsideration, are hereby declared NULL and VOID and SET ASIDE, and the criminal informations are reinstated.
Criminal Cases Nos. 98-38181 to 98-38189 are hereby REMANDED to the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 75, Marikina City, for appropriate proceedings. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
The OSG filed its first Motion for Partial Modification on July 27, 2004 and we denied it with finality in our resolution of August 17, 2004.
Movant would insist that instead of ordering the remand of the criminal cases to the MeTC, Branch 75, Marikina City, said criminal cases be transferred to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).
The OSG cites Republic Act No. 9282, [3] cralaw which took effect on March 30, 2004, expanding "the CTA's jurisdiction, to now include the following:
SEC. 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 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.
(2) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:
(a) Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
(b) Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective jurisdiction.
(c) x x x.
The OSG submits that, although the Informations were filed with the MeTC prior to the effectivity of the new law, as we pointed out in the Decision, still, the CTA can take cognizance of the instant criminal cases pursuant to its expanded jurisdiction. It also contends that the MeTC had not fully acquired jurisdiction over the instant cases, considering that no arrest or voluntary appearance of the accused has been made. [4] cralaw
To start with, the Orders of the court a quo were set aside for the failure of the MeTC, through its Presiding Judge, to discharge its duty of independently exercising its discretion in ruling upon the motion to dismiss or withdraw the criminal cases. We reiterate:
A reading of the MeTC order thus shows that the same was basically anchored only on the Manifestation and Motion of the BIR, praying for the withdrawal of the complaints.
Contrary to its mandate, the trial court abandoned its duty to evaluate the submissions before it. By relying on the manifestation and motion of the BIR alone, it ignored the positive findings of the panel of state prosecutors, which had, themselves, painstakingly conducted the preliminary investigation on the subject criminal liability of the respondents.
x x x
By merely echoing the findings of the BIR, the MeTC abdicated its duty as a court of law, and subjugated itself to the administrative agency. In failing to make an independent finding of the merits of the case and merely anchoring the dismissal on the position of the BIR, the trial court relinquished the discretion it was obliged to exercise, in violation of the ruling in Crespo v. Mogul. [5] cralaw
In view of the MeTC's error, our Decision nullified its Orders and directed the remand of the criminal cases to it, not least so that said court may be given the chance to evaluate the submissions and evidence presented, on one hand by the BIR, in support of its motion to withdraw the criminal cases, and on the other hand, those of the DOJ Panel, which found probable cause for the criminal prosecution.
Furthermore, the Informations were filed particularly "for violation Section 127[b] (now Section 130[b]) [6] cralaw , in relation to Section 253 (now Section 254) [7] cralaw and Section 252[b] (now Section 253[b]) [8] cralaw and Section 255 (now Section 256), [9] cralaw of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC)."
Ultimately, accused are sought to be penalized for tax evasion, under Section 254 of the NIRC of 1997, which provides:
SEC. 254. Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax. - Any person who
willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed under this
Code or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by
law, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not less than Thirty
thousand (P30,000) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000)
and suffer imprisonment of not less than two (2) years but not more than four
(4) years: Provided, That the conviction or acquittal obtained under
this Section shall not be a bar to the filing of a civil suit for the collection
of taxes.
Prior to the amendment brought about by R.A. 9282, the situation prevailing at the time of the filing of the Informations in these cases, it was settled that jurisdiction over the crime of tax evasion fell within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the trial court (MeTC, MTC or MCTC) in view of the penalty involved. [10] cralaw
As defined in the case of Yutivo Sons Hardware Company v. Court of Tax Appeals and Collector of Internal Revenue, [11] cralaw "'tax evasion' is a term that connotes fraud through the use of pretenses and forbidden devices to lessen or defeat taxes." [12] cralaw
It is the alleged illegal or fraudulent act, device or machination resorted to, that is sought to be punished. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pascor Realty and Development Corporation, [13] cralaw where criminal complaints for tax evasion were likewise filed against the accused, we said that "[i]t must be stressed that a criminal complaint is instituted not to demand payment but to penalize the taxpayer for violation of the Tax Code." [14] cralaw
In these present cases, therefore, where there is no specified amount claimed, even the new law recognizes the propriety of leaving the original jurisdiction with the regular court, since Section 7 [b], paragraph [1] thereof states that where "there is no specified amount claimed" the regular courts have original jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is the MeTC, and not the CTA, that has jurisdiction in the first instance over these cases, including the arraignment thereon and trial on the merits.
WHEREFORE, appellee's Motion for Leave to file [Second] Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Let Judgment be ENTERED in due course.
Carpio, J., no part.
Corona, J., on leave.
Very truly yours.
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Dated September 13, 2004 and September 16, 2004, respectively.
[2] cralaw Dated November 4, 2004.
[3] cralaw "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"
[4] cralaw Rollo, pp. 2263-2264.
[5] cralaw Decision, pp. 30-32.
[6] cralaw SEC. 130. Filing of Return, and Payment of Excise Tax on Domestic Products. -
(a)������� xxx
(b)������� Determination of Gross Selling Price of Goods Subject to Ad Valorem Tax. - Unless otherwise provided, the price, excluding the value-added tax, at which the goods are sold at wholesale in the place of production or through their sales agents to the public shall constitute the gross selling price. If the manufacturer also sells or allows such goods to be sold at wholesale in another establishment of which he is the owner or in the profits of which he has an interest, the wholesale price in such establishment shall constitute the gross selling price. Should such price be less than the cost of manufacture plus expenses incurred until the goods are finally sold, then a proportionate margin of profit, not less than ten percent (10%) of such manufacturing cost and expenses, shall be added to constitute the gross selling price.
(c)������� xxx.
[7] cralaw SEC. 254. Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax. - Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed under this Code or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not less than Thirty thousand (P30,000) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) and suffer imprisonment of not less than two (2) years but not more than four (4) years: Provided, That the conviction or acquittal obtained under this Section shall not be a bar to the filing of a civil suit for the collection of taxes.
[8] cralaw SEC. 253. General Provisions. -
x x x
(b) Any person who willfully aids or abets in the commission of a crime penalized herein or who causes the commission of any such offense by another shall be liable in the same manner as the principal.
x x x.
[9] cralaw SEC. 256. Penal Liability of Corporation. - Any corporation, association or general co-partnership liable for any of the acts or omissions penalized under this Code, in addition to the penalties imposed herein upon the responsible corporate officers, partners, or employees, shall, upon conviction for each act or omission, be punished by a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (
P50,000) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos.[10] cralaw Section 32 of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691. All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than six (6) years irrespective of the fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties and the civil liability arising therefrom; provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction.
[11] cralaw 1 SCRA 160 (1961).
[12] cralaw Id. �at 167.
[13] cralaw 309 SCRA 402 [1999].
[14] cralaw Id. at 416.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
