Title
People vs. Valeriano
Case
G.R. No. 199480
Decision Date
Oct 12, 2016
BIR filed criminal charges against Valeriano for unpaid taxes; case dismissed due to lack of BIR Commissioner's approval. Supreme Court reversed, ruling RD's recommendation sufficed as delegable authority under NIRC. Case remanded.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199480)

Antecedent Facts

On February 9, 2006, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) recommended the criminal prosecution of Tess S. Valeriano, President of Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., for failure to pay various internal revenue taxes. This recommendation was related to substantial tax obligations that violated several sections of the 1997 NIRC. Following the recommendation, Assistant City Prosecutor Suwerte L. Ofrecio-Gonzales filed an Information against Valeriano on July 9, 2009, for these violations. The CTA first requested confirmation that the prosecution had the written approval of the BIR Commissioner, which was not provided.

CTA Dismissals and Appeals

Due to the absence of the required approval document, the CTA Special First Division dismissed the case on November 23, 2009, citing failure to prosecute. Subsequent motions by the BIR, which later submitted a photocopy of an alleged approval from the BIR Commissioner, were insufficient as the copy was poorly readable, leading to the reaffirmation of dismissal by the CTA on June 1, 2010. The petitioner contended that the failure of the Prosecutor to comply was not a fault of the government.

Court of Tax Appeals En Banc Proceedings

Following these events, a petition for review was filed with the CTA en banc, which encountered difficulties in serving documents to Valeriano, resulting in no response from her. The CTA en banc eventually denied the petition on November 18, 2011, asserting that the petitioner had failed to comply with prior orders. The court affirmed the dismissals while modifying the order to make it without prejudice.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court analyzed the required compliance with Section 220 of the NIRC, which mandates the Commissioner’s approval for initiating criminal actions regarding tax violations. It highlighted that while a recommendation from the Regional Director had been submitted, it did not meet this requirement. The inadequacy of the supposedly submitted approval, which was not clearly legible, was a major factor in the court's conclusions.

Despite the lapses by the prosecutorial team, the Court emphasized the necessity for the governmen

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.