Title
People vs Santos
Case
G.R. No. 12262
Decision Date
Feb 10, 1917
Appellant acquitted as criminal liability cannot be imposed for employee's omission without clear statutory basis or principal's knowledge.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 12262)

Facts:

  • Parties and Complaint
    • The United States, plaintiff and appellee, filed charges against Antonio Abad Santos, defendant and appellant.
    • The appellant was accused of violating the Internal Revenue Law.
  • Statutory and Regulatory Background
    • Section 185 of Act No. 2339 (now section 2727 of the Administrative Code) prescribes penalties for violations of the Internal Revenue Law or related regulations where no specific penalty is provided, authorizing fines up to 300 pesos, imprisonment up to six months, or both.
    • The Collector of Internal Revenue issued Circular No. 467, which required certain business owners—such as printers, publishers, and contractors—to keep a day book detailing daily money received, with daily entries made within 24 hours, including noting if no money was received. The book had to be approved by an Internal Revenue officer before use.
  • Circumstances of the Case
    • Antonio Abad Santos owned "The Excelsior," a printing establishment subject to the requirements of Circular No. 467.
    • The charge alleged that Santos failed to make or cause to be made any book entry corresponding to January 5, 1915, concerning business activity on that day.
    • It was undisputed that Santos employed a bookkeeper who was solely responsible for keeping the required book and entries.
    • The failure to enter data for the date was due solely to the omission of the bookkeeper, without the knowledge or involvement of Santos.

Issues:

  • Whether Antonio Abad Santos can be held criminally liable for the omission to make a book entry required by the Internal Revenue Circular when the omission was committed by his bookkeeper without his knowledge or consent.
  • Whether under the Internal Revenue Law or the Collector’s Circular, the principal (appellant) is responsible criminally for the acts or omissions of an employee (bookkeeper) done without the principal’s knowledge.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.