Case Digest (G.R. No. L-46001)
Facts:
In Judy Anne L. Santos v. People of the Philippines and Bureau of Internal Revenue (G.R. No. 173176, August 26, 2008), petitioner Judy Anne L. Santos was accused of willfully filing a false 2002 income tax return showing a gross income of ₱8,033,332.70 when, in truth, her earnings exceeded ₱16,000,000, resulting in an underdeclaration of over ₱8,300,000. On May 19, 2005, BIR Commissioner Guillermo Parayno, Jr. formally referred to the Department of Justice sworn affidavits and supporting documents recommending criminal prosecution under Sections 248(B), 254, and 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended. After preliminary investigation, the Office of the State Prosecutor found probable cause on October 21, 2005, and on November 3, 2005 filed an Information with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) alleging violation of Section 255 in relation to Sections 254 and 248(B). The CTA First Division observed discrepancies in the original Information, required clarificationCase Digest (G.R. No. L-46001)
Facts:
- Parties and Nature of Petition
- Petitioner: Judy Anne L. Santos, who filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court seeking reversal of a CTA en banc Resolution dated June 19, 2006.
- Respondents: People of the Philippines and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).
- Underlying Factual Background
- On May 19, 2005, BIR Commissioner Guillermo L. Parayno, Jr. wrote to DOJ Secretary Raul M. Gonzales transmitting the Joint Affidavit of BIR investigators and recommending criminal prosecution of Santos for substantial underdeclaration of income (prima facie false or fraudulent return under Sec. 248(B), NIRC).
- Findings summarized in the letter:
- Declared P8,033,332.70 income from ABS-CBN for 2002; actual income at least P14,796,234.70 (later alleged P16,396,234.70), including movie and endorsement fees.
- Estimated tax deficiency of P1,718,925.52 (inclusive of penalties); underdeclaration exceeding 84% of declared income.
- Violation of Secs. 254 and 255 (attempt to evade tax; failure to supply correct information) and Sec. 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended.
- DOJ Preliminary Investigation and Filing of Information
- Exchange of affidavits; on October 21, 2005, DOJ Prosecution Attorney Olivia Laroza-Torrevillas found probable cause and recommended filing of a criminal information (approved by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuno).
- Information filed on November 3, 2005 before the CTA, docketed CTA Crim. Case No. 0-012.
- Proceedings in the CTA First Division
- CTA First Division noted discrepancies in the initial Information; directed submission of clarifications and originals of affidavits.
- On December 1, 2005, DOJ prosecutors filed a substituted second Information alleging willful filing of false return (gross underdeclaration of P8,362,902; tax deficiency P2,714,617.18).
- CTA First Division admitted the second Information (Dec. 8, 2005), issued arrest warrant (Dec. 9, 2005) and recalled it upon petitioner’s voluntary appearance and P20,000 bail (Dec. 21, 2005).
- Petitioner filed Motion to Quash on January 10, 2006 (grounds: non-constitutive offense; lack of authority of prosecutor; lack of CTA jurisdiction; due process/equal protection violations). Denied February 23, 2006. Motion for Reconsideration denied May 11, 2006.
- CTA En Banc Action and Supreme Court Petition
- Petitioner filed Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on June 1, 2006, and lodged her petition on June 16, 2006.
- CTA en banc denied the extension on June 19, 2006, holding that a CTA Division resolution denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and not appealable under Sec. 11, R.A. 9282 (amending Sec. 18, R.A. 1125).
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, raising the sole issue of appealability of the interlocutory order.
Issues:
- Whether a resolution of a CTA Division denying a motion to quash is a proper subject of appeal (by petition for review) to the CTA en banc under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9282 (amending Section 18 of R.A. 1125).
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)