Title
Santos vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 173176
Decision Date
Aug 26, 2008
Judy Anne Santos challenged tax fraud charges, arguing procedural errors and jurisdictional issues; SC upheld CTA's denial of her Motion to Quash, ruling it non-appealable and affirming due process.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 168922)

Petitioner and Respondent Roles

Petitioner sought relief from interlocutory rulings of the CTA First Division that denied her Motion to Quash an Information charging violations of Section 255 in relation to Sections 254 and 248(B) of the NIRC. The People (prosecution) proceeded pursuant to a DOJ preliminary-investigation resolution recommending filing of the Information after a BIR referral.

Key Dates

Important chronological milestones: BIR referral letter dated 19 May 2005; DOJ Resolution finding probable cause, 21 October 2005; Information filed with the CTA, 3 November 2005; CTA First Division admitted a second Information, 8 December 2005, and issued then recalled an arrest warrant (9 December and 21 December 2005); Motion to Quash filed 10 January 2006; CTA First Division denied it, 23 February 2006, and denied reconsideration, 11 May 2006 (served 17 May 2006); petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a Petition for Review to the CTA en banc on 1 June 2006 and filed the Petition for Review on 16 June 2006; CTA en banc denied the extension, 19 June 2006. The Supreme Court rendered the final decision reviewed here.

Applicable Law and Rules

Primary legal authorities invoked: Sections 248(B), 254 and 255 of the NIRC (criminal and civil penalties for false returns, attempt to evade tax, and failure to file/accurately report); Section 220 NIRC (requirement of Commissioner’s approval to file actions on behalf of the BIR); Republic Act No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282 (statutory framework governing CTA jurisdiction and appeals to the CTA en banc); the Revised Rules of Court (appeal and certiorari provisions, especially Rule 41 and Rule 65) and the Revised CTA Rules (A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA) adopting appeal procedures analogous to the Court of Appeals. Constitutional principles under the 1987 Constitution govern due process and equal protection claims.

Factual Background

BIR investigators concluded that petitioner declared P8,033,332.70 as gross income for taxable year 2002 but actually received substantially more from ABS-CBN and other sources; earlier BIR materials estimated at least P14,796,234.70, while the second Information alleged a correct income of P16,396,234.70, resulting in a claimed underdeclaration and an alleged income tax deficiency. The BIR referred the matter to the DOJ for preliminary investigation and possible filing of criminal charges, after which the Office of the State Prosecutor found probable cause and an Information was filed with the CTA.

Procedural History in the CTA

After the initial Information was filed, the CTA First Division noted discrepancies and required clarification; the prosecution submitted a substituted second Information, which the Division admitted. An arrest warrant followed and was later lifted when petitioner voluntarily submitted and posted bail. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information and, after denial and denial of reconsideration by the CTA First Division, sought to appeal to the CTA en banc by filing a Petition for Review; the CTA en banc denied petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to file the Petition for Review because the denial of a motion to quash is interlocutory and not an appealable order.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The sole legal issue was whether a resolution of a CTA Division denying a motion to quash is a proper subject of an appeal to the CTA en banc under Section 18 of R.A. No. 1125 as amended by R.A. No. 9282 (i.e., whether a petition for review to the CTA en banc may be used to challenge such interlocutory rulings).

General Rule on Interlocutory Orders and Appealability

The Court reaffirmed the long-standing rule that interlocutory orders — including orders denying motions to quash — are not appealable. Only final judgments or final orders that dispose of the case or a matter declared appealable by law may be appealed. The applicable test asks whether the order leaves something further to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits; if so, the order is interlocutory.

Rationale for the General Rule

The Court reiterated policy reasons for barring appeals from interlocutory orders: interlocutory rulings remain subject to modification by the trial court until final judgment; allowing immediate appeals would multiply appellate proceedings, delay trials on the merits, and permit tactical use of appeals to obstruct litigation. These principles were applied to motions to quash, which leave the criminal information pending and require trial to resolve guilt.

Application to the CTA’s Statutory and Rule Framework

The Court explained that the petition for review to the CTA en banc under Section 18 of R.A. No. 1125, as amended, is not a novel remedy unique to the CTA but rather adopts appellate procedures used in courts of general jurisdiction. The Revised CTA Rules expressly limited appeals to the CTA en banc to specified decisions, resolutions or orders, typically on motions for reconsideration or new trial, and incorporated existing Rules of Court provisions on petitions for review and appeals. Under that framework, an interlocutory denial of a motion to quash is not a proper subject for a petition for review to the CTA en banc.

Exceptions and the Availability of Certiorari

The Court recognized limited exceptions permitting extraordinary writs (e.g., certiorari under Rule 65) to challenge interlocutory orders when the order was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, with grave abuse of discretion, or when appeal would be inadequate or unduly delayed. The Court noted these exceptions are narrow, and that certiorari is not available to correct mere procedural errors or disputed findings of fact or law. Although the Court assumed for argument that the CTA en banc could entertain certiorari, it concluded that petitioner’s recourse to certiorari failed on the merits.

Standard for Grave Abuse of Discretion and Its Application

Grave abuse of discretion exists only where judicial action is capricious, whimsical, or tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found no grave abuse in the CTA First Division’s denial of the Motion to Quash: the Division addressed petitioner’s arguments, applied the law, and did not act arbitrarily or beyond its jurisdiction. Hence, certiorari would not be warranted.

Authority to File the Information: Section 220 and BIR Commissioner Approval

Petitioner challenged the authority of Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas to file the Information and contended that the City Prosecutor should have handled prosecution within Quezon City. The Court rejected

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms