Case Summary (G.R. No. 12262)
Procedural Posture
The appellant was criminally charged under the Internal Revenue Law for failing to make the required book entry for January 5, 1915. He was convicted and fined P10. The appellant appealed the conviction; the appellate tribunal (Supreme Court) reversed the conviction and ordered acquittal, with costs de officio.
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
Section 185 of Act No. 2339 (as quoted): "A person who violates any provision of the Internal Revenue Law or any lawful regulation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue made in conformity with the same, for which delinquency no specific penalty is provided by law, shall be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred pesos or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both." Circular No. 467, section 3 (as quoted) imposes recordkeeping requirements on various classes of taxpayers (including printers and publishers) to keep a serially numbered day book, present it for approval, and enter cash receipts "within the twenty-four hours next following the date the money was received," or note that no money was received.
Facts
The Excelsior was required by Circular No. 467 to keep a day book with daily entries of cash receipts or a notation that no money was received. The information charged that the appellant failed to make any entry for January 5, 1915. It is undisputed that the appellant regularly employed a bookkeeper who had complete charge of the day book; the omission for January 5 was the bookkeeper's omission. There was no showing that the appellant personally made any book entries, that he knew of or directed the omission, or that there was any connivance between him and the bookkeeper.
Legal Issue
Whether the owner of a business may be criminally convicted under the Internal Revenue Law and its implementing circular for an omission in required books caused by an employee (bookkeeper), where the owner had no knowledge of, did not direct, and did not connive in the omission, and where neither the statute nor the circular explicitly makes the employer vicariously criminally liable.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Court emphasized fundamental rules of criminal law: criminal statutes are strictly construed, and one person should not be held criminally responsible for acts of another committed without the former's knowledge or consent unless the statute plainly so provides. The Court found no evidence that the appellant had knowledge of the omission or that he directed or connived with the bookkeeper. The regulation and the statute were examined together; neither was found to contain explicit language imposing vicarious criminal liability on principals for the omissions of employees in the absence of knowledge or direction. The Court relied on the established principle (citing S. U. v. Madrigal, 27 Phil. Rep. 347) that criminal liability will not be extended by implication. Because the requirement of a criminal sanction must be clearly and plainly imposed by law, the mere proof that an employee omitted a required entry did not suffice to sustain the appellant’s criminal conviction.
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Antonio Abad Santos. Costs were ordered de officio. The judgment was d
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 12262)
Citation and Case Data
- Reporter citation: 36 Phil. 243.
- G.R. No.: 12262.
- Decision date: February 10, 1917.
- Title as given in source: THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO ABAD SANTOS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
- Court author of decision: MORELAND, J.
- Concurrences: Arellano, C. J., Torres and Araullo, JJ., concur.
- Dissents: Carson and Trent, JJ., dissent.
Procedural Posture
- The appellant, Antonio Abad Santos, was accused of violating the Internal Revenue Law.
- He was convicted in the lower court and sentenced to pay a fine of P10.
- The appellant appealed the conviction to the court that rendered the present decision.
- The judgment of conviction was reversed on appeal and the accused was acquitted.
- Costs were taxed de officio.
Statutory Provision Invoked (Section 185 of Act No. 2339)
- The court reproduced the statutory provision relied upon, noting that Section 185 of Act No. 2339 is now section 2727 of the Administrative Code.
- Exact text quoted in the source:
- "A person who violates any provision of the Internal Revenue Law or any lawful regulation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue made in conformity with the same, for which delinquency no specific penalty is provided by law, shall be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred pesos or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both."
Regulatory Provision Invoked (Collector's Circular No. 467, § 3)
- The court set out the relevant portion of Collector of Internal Revenue Circular No. 467, third section, as the regulation allegedly violated.
- Exact text quoted in the source:
- "3. Printers, publishers, contractors, common carriers, etc .Each printer, publisher, contractor, warehouseman, proprietor of a dockyard, keeper of a hotel or restaurant, keeper of a livery stable or garage, transportation contractor and common carrier by land or water, and so forth, subject to the tax imposed by sections 42, 43, and 44 of Act No. 2339, shall keep a day book in which he shall enter in detail, in English or Spanish, each amount of money received in the conduct of his business. Before being used for said purpose, the pages of the book must be numbered serially in a permanent and legible manner, and the book itself presented to an internal revenue agent or officer for approval. In this book the cash receipts of the owner thereof shall be entered under the corresponding date within the twenty-four hours next following the date the money was received. If no money is received on any day, then that fact shall be noted in the book within the said twenty-four hours under the corresponding date."
Facts
- The appellant is the owner of a printing establishment called "The Excelsior."
- As owner of "The Excelsior" he was required by law to keep a day book in which entries required by the quoted regulation should be made.
- It was charged in the information that the appellant violated the regulation by failing to make any entry for the 5th day of January, 1915, indicating whether any business was done on that day or not.
- It was undisputed that the appellant regularly employed a bookkeeper who was in complete charge of the book in which the required entries should have been made.
- The failure to make the entry for January 5, 1915, was due to the omission of that bookkeeper.
- It was undisputed that the appellant knew nothing of the bookkeeper's omission.
- It was undisputed that the appellant personally never made an entry in the book and took no part in keeping it; he left everything to his bookkeeper.
Issue Presented
- Whether the appellant may be held criminally liable under the Internal Revenue Law and Circular No. 467 for the omission of an entry in the day book for January 5, 1915, when that omission was committed by his bookkeeper without the appellant's knowledge or consent.