Case Summary (G.R. No. 186141)
Factual Antecedents
The case originated on October 23, 2007, when Regional Director Misajon filed a criminal complaint against Mallari and Wei-Neng due to Topsun's significant unpaid tax obligations totaling P3,827,564.64, plus a compromise penalty of P25,000.00. Despite demands for payment and the enforcement of a Warrant of Distraint, the respondents did not settle their dues. In her defense, Mallari asserted the existence of a Certificate of No Tax Liability. Following a preliminary investigation, Assistant City Prosecutor Mendoza recommended prosecution for violation of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), resulting in an Information being filed against the respondents in the CTA for failure to pay the specified tax obligations.
Ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals First Division
In its resolution dated December 14, 2009, the CTA First Division dismissed the complaint due to non-compliance with its orders by ACP Mendoza. Notably, the CTA highlighted that Mendoza did not submit a necessary Memorandum from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) authorizing prosecution, which is mandated by Sections 220 and 221 of the NIRC, and the established rules of the CTA. The findings also underscored a distinction between an internal revenue delegation order and the explicit written approval required for instituting a criminal case.
Tribunal's Review of the Motion for Reconsideration
The prosecution attempted to challenge the CTA's dismissal by filing a Motion for Reconsideration. However, this motion was deemed late, as it was filed on January 18, 2010, exceeding the prescribed 15-day period after the petitioner received the resolution notifications. The CTA Special First Division emphasized that the late filing—and failure to include necessary documentation—rendered the motion ineffective.
Ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc
Affirming the Special First Division’s ruling, the CTA En Banc dismissed the Petition for Review on May 23, 2011, citing a lack of merit. It reiterated that the December 14, 2009 Resolution had become final due to the belated filing of the Motion for Reconsideration, thus preventing the petitioner from pursuing further actions in the case.
Issues for Resolution
The core legal issues considered included whether the December 14, 2009 Resolution had achieved finality and if the Regional Director possessed the authority to approve criminal actions without CIR approval. The findings confirmed that the Resolution was final, and the lack of necessary approvals during the original proceedings invalidated the prosecution's efforts.
The Court's Ruling
The ruling of the court upheld
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 186141)
Introduction
- The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by the People of the Philippines, challenging the May 23, 2011 decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc.
- The CTA En Banc decision dismissed the petition for review concerning the dismissal of C.T.A. Criminal Case No. O-151 by the CTA First Division due to failure to comply with court orders.
Factual Antecedents
- On October 23, 2007, Regional Director Alfredo V. Misajon of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) filed a criminal complaint against respondents Benedicta Mallari and Chi Wei-Neng for tax violations, specifically for not paying their outstanding Value Added Tax (VAT) deficiency amounting to P3,827,564.64 and a compromise penalty of P25,000.00.
- The complaint arose from Topsun International, Inc.'s failure to pay taxes despite multiple demands and the issuance of a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy.
- Mallari denied the allegations, presenting a Certificate of No Tax Liability issued by the Revenue District Office.
- Assistant City Prosecutor Gideon C. Mendoza found probable cause to indict the respondents, leading to the filing of an Information before the CTA.
Procedural History
- The CTA First Division identified discrepancies in the Information, noting that it incorrectly referred to "deficiency income tax" instead of "deficiency VAT" and lacked the necessary written approval from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) as required by law.
- The CTA ordered the Assistant Ci