Case Digest (G.R. No. 251270)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Court of Tax Appeals Third Division, L.M. Camus Engineering Corporation, and Lino D. Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 251270 and 251291-301, promulgated September 05, 2022, Supreme Court Third Division, Dimaampao, J., writing for the Court.The criminal prosecution originated in twelve amended informations filed before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) charging L.M. Camus Engineering Corporation and its officers (including respondent Lino D. Mendoza as comptroller and Luis M. Camus as president) with violations of Sections 254 and 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) for alleged income tax and VAT deficiencies for taxable years 1997–1999 (CTA Criminal Case Nos. O-395 to O-406). The informations set out specific assessed tax deficiencies for each year and count. The CTA found probable cause and issued arrest warrants; the accused posted bail and the cases were consolidated.
After preliminary conferences and pre-trial, the prosecution presented a single witness, Atty. Sixto C. Dy, Jr., and offered documentary evidence including BIR audit reports, statements of accounts, progress payment invoices, BIR Forms 2307, assessment notices, and certain tax returns. The CTA denied admission of several prosecution exhibits (notably the corporation’s quarterly VAT returns for 1999 and its ITRs for 1997 and 1998) for lack of originals, and the prosecution’s motion for partial reconsideration of that exclusion was denied.
Respondents filed, with leave of court, a Demurrer to Evidence contending the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti and the essential elements of Sections 254 and 255 because it did not present the taxpayer’s returns, the BIR examining officers who conducted the audit, or other primary evidence to show willful under-declaration. The CTA, in a Resolution dated August 7, 2019, granted the demurrer and acquitted L.M. Camus and Mendoza for insufficiency of evidence but directed that civil liability be determined. The CTA denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration on November 29, 2019.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) — through its Prosecution Division and without the Office of the Solicitor General’s (OSG) participation or a DOJ endorsement expressly authorizing the BIR to represent the government before this Court — filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CTA. The BIR argued ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Bureau of Internal Revenue, without the conformity or representation of the Office of the Solicitor General or an express DOJ endorsement, validly file a petition for certiorari in this Court to assail the CTA’s acquittal?
- Did the Court of Tax Appeals, Third Division commit grave abuse of discretion in granting the Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting respondents for violations of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)