G.R. No. L-17280 - Sta. Romana vs. Imperio

Dr. Joel C. Mendez (petitioner) was charged with failing to file his income tax returns for taxable years 2001 to 2003.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) initiated action against him by filing a complaint-affidavit with the Department of Justice, alleging that he operated several business establishments under various trade names (e.g., Mendez Body and Face Salon and Spa; Mendez Body and Face Skin Clinic; Weigh Less Center) registered in different Revenue District Offices (RDOs) in Quezon City, Makati, Cubao, East Makati, and Calasiao, Pangasinan.

The BIR contended that despite operating under multiple trade names and locations, the petitioner failed to file the required income tax returns, thereby evading tax obligations.
The petitioner admitted to operating as a single proprietor under these trade names but argued that some of his business establishments were not yet in existence during the period he was accused of not filing his returns.

State Prosecutor Juan Pedro Navera, after a preliminary investigation, found probable cause against the petitioner for non-filing of income tax returns for taxable years 2001 and 2002 and for failing to provide correct and accurate income information for taxable year 2003.
An Information was filed in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) charging the petitioner with violation of Section 255 of Republic Act No. 8424 (Tax Reform Act of 1997).

On May 4, 2007, the prosecution filed a Motion to Amend Information with Leave of Court.

The amended information reiterated the failure to file the income tax return but with additional precision—specifically, a more detailed description of business operations, including the inclusion of a second trade name “Mendez Medical Group” and a change in the geographical locations of the business branches.

The petitioner did not file a comment on the motion within the required period, leading the CTA to grant the prosecution’s motion on June 12, 2007.

After the CTA denied his motion for reconsideration, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, arguing that the amendments were substantial and altered the prosecution’s theory of the case.
The petitioner claimed that the changes—in particular, the alteration in the date of the offense, the addition of “Mendez Medical Group”, and the modification of the business branches’ locations—were prejudicial because they affected the form of defense he would have had to present, thus violating his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

The respondents (People of the Philippines and the CTA) maintained that the remedy of certiorari was proper given the interlocutory nature of the CTA order.
They argued that the amendments were merely formal, did not change the nature of the offense (i.e., failure to file the income tax return), and did not prejudice the petitioner’s rights or the formulation of his defense.

Whether the remedy of certiorari is proper given that the petitioner had no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law after the CTA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.
Whether the appeal to the CTA en banc was a viable remedy in this case, considering the order was interlocutory in nature.

Whether the amendments made by the prosecution to the information (i.e., change in the date of commission of the crime, alteration in the description of the business operation including the addition of “Mendez Medical Group”, and the modification of the business branch locations) are substantial in nature.
Whether such amendments caused surprise or prejudice to the petitioner by altering the prosecution’s theory and affecting the form of defense he was entitled to mount.