9/5/2015

G.R.No.L4191924

TodayisSaturday,September05,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.L4191924May30,1980
QUIRICOP.UNGAB,petitioner,
vs.
HON.VICENTEN.CUSI,JR.,inhiscapacityasJudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstance,Branch1,16TH
JudicialDistrict,DavaoCity,THECOMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,andJESUSN.ACEBES,inhis
capacityasStateProsecutor,respondents.

CONCEPCIONJR.,J:
Petitionforcertiorariandprohibitionwithpreliminaryinjunctionandrestrainingordertoannulandsetasidethe
informationsfiledinCriminalCaseNos.1960,1961,1962,1963,1964,and1965oftheCourtofFirstInstanceof
Davao,allentitled:"PeopleofthePhilippines,plaintiff,versusQuiricoUngab,accused"andtorestrainthe
respondentJudgefromfurtherproceedingwiththehearingandtrialofthesaidcases.
ItisnotdisputedthatsometimeinJuly,1974,BIRExaminerBenGarciaexaminedtheincometaxreturnsfiledby
thehereinpetitioner,QuiricoP.Ungab,forthecalendaryearendingDecember31,1973.Inthecourseofhis
examination,hediscoveredthatthepetitionerfailedtoreporthisincomederivedfromsalesofbananasaplings.
Asaresult,theBIRDistrictRevenueOfficeratDavaoCitysenta"NoticeofTaxpayer"tothepetitionerinforming
himthatthereisduefromhim(petitioner)theamountofP104,980.81,representingincome,businesstaxand
forestchargesfortheyear1973andinvitingpetitionertoaninformalconferencewherethepetitioner,duly
assistedbycounsel,maypresenthisobjectionstothefindingsoftheBIRExaminer.1Uponreceiptofthenotice,the
petitionerwrotetheBIRDistrictRevenueOfficerprotestingtheassessment,claimingthathewasonlyadealeroragenton
commissionbasisinthebananasaplingbusinessandthathisincome,asreportedinhisincometaxreturnsforthesaid
year,wasaccuratelystated.BIRExaminerBenGarcia,however,wasfullyconvincedthatthepetitionerhadfileda
fraudulentincometaxreturnsothathesubmitteda"FraudReferralReport,"totheTaxFraudUnitoftheBureauofInternal
Revenue.Afterexaminingtherecordsofthecase,theSpecialInvestigationDivisionoftheBureauofInternalRevenue
foundsufficientproofthatthehereinpetitionerisguiltyoftaxevasionforthetaxableyear1973andrecommendedhis
prosecution:
t . h q w

(1)Forhavingfiledafalseorfraudulentincometaxreturnfor1973withintenttoevadehisjusttaxes
duethegovernmentunderSection45inrelationtoSection72oftheNationalInternalRevenue
Code
(2)ForfailuretopayafixedannualtaxofP50.00ayearin1973and1974,oratotalofunpaidfixed
taxesofP100.00pluspenaltiesof175.00oratotalofP175.00,inaccordancewithSection183ofthe
NationalInternalRevenueCode
(3)Forfailuretopaythe7%percentagetax,asaproducerofbananapolesorsaplings,onthetotal
salesofP129,580.35totheDavaoFruitCorporation,deprivingtherebythegovernmentofitsdue
revenueintheamountofP15,872.59,inclusiveofsurcharge.2
InasecondindorsementtotheChiefoftheProsecutionDivision,datedDecember12,1974,theCommissionerof
InternalRevenueapprovedtheprosecutionofthepetitioner.3
Thereafter,StateProsecutorJesusAcebeswhohadbeendesignatedtoassistallProvincialandCityFiscals
throughoutthePhilippinesintheinvestigationandprosecution,iftheevidencewarrants,ofallviolationsofthe
NationalInternalRevenueCode,asamended,andotherrelatedlaws,inAdministrativeOrderNo.116dated
December5,1974,andtowhomthecasewasassigned,conductedapreliminaryinvestigationofthecase,and
findingprobablecause,filedsix(6)informationsagainstthepetitionerwiththeCourtofFirstInstanceofDavao
City,towit:
t . h q w

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1980/may1980/gr_41919_24_1980.html

1/4

9/5/2015

G.R.No.L4191924

(1)CriminalCaseNo.1960ViolationofSec.45,inrelationtoSec.72oftheNationalInternal
RevenueCode,forfilingafraudulentincometaxreturnforthecalendaryearendingDecember31,
19734
(2)CriminalCaseNo.1961ViolationofSec.182(a),inrelationtoSecs.178,186,and208oftheNational
InternalRevenueCode,forengaginginbusinessasproducerofsaplings,fromJanuary,1973toDecember,
1973,withoutfirstpayingtheannualfixedorprivilegetaxthereof5

(3)CriminalCaseNo.1962ViolationofSec.183(a),inrelationtoSecs.186and209ofthe
NationalInternalRevenueCode,forfailuretorenderatrueandcompletereturnonthegross
quarterlysales,receiptsandearningsinhisbusinessasproducerofbananasaplingsandtopaythe
percentagetaxduethereon,forthequarterendingDecember31,19736
(4)CriminalCaseNo.1963ViolationofSec.183(a),inrelationtoSecs.186and209ofthe
NationalInternalRevenueCode,forfailuretorenderatrueandcompletereturnonthegross
quarterlysalesreceiptsandearningsinhisbusinessasproducerofsaplings,andtopaythe
percentagetaxduethereon,forthequarterendingonMarch31,19737
(5)CriminalCaseNo.1964ViolationofSec.183(a),inrelationtoSecs.186and209ofthe
NationalInternalRevenueCode,forfailuretorenderatrueandcompletereturnonthegross
quarterlysales,receiptsandearningsinhisbusinessasproducerofbananasaplingsforthequarter
endingonJune30,1973,andtopaythepercentagetaxduethereon8
(6)CriminalCaseNo.1965ViolationofSec.183(a),inrelationtoSecs.186and209oftheNational
InternalRevenueCode,forfailuretorenderatrueandcompletereturnonthegrossquarterlysales,receipts
andearningsasproducerofbananasaplings,forthequarterendingonSeptember30,1973,andtopaythe
percentagetaxduethereon.9

OnSeptember16,1975,thepetitionerfiledamotiontoquashtheinformationsuponthegroundsthat:(1)the
informationsarenullandvoidforwantofauthorityonthepartoftheStateProsecutortoinitiateandprosecutethe
saidcasesand(2)thetrialcourthasnojurisdictiontotakecognizanceoftheaboveentitledcasesinviewofhis
pendingprotestagainsttheassessmentmadebytheBIRExaminer.10However,thetrialcourtdeniedthemotionon
October22,1975.11Whereupon,thepetitionerfiledtheinstantrecourse.Asprayedfor,atemporaryrestrainingorderwas
issuedbytheCourt,orderingtherespondentJudgefromfurtherproceedingwiththetrialandhearingofCriminalCaseNos.
1960,1961,1962,1963,1964,and1965oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofDavao,allentitled:"PeopleofthePhilippines,
plaintiff,versusQuiricoUngab,accused."

ThepetitionerseekstheannulmentoftheinformationsfiledagainsthimonthegroundthattherespondentState
Prosecutorisallegedlywithoutauthoritytodoso.ThepetitionerarguesthatwhiletherespondentState
Prosecutormayinitiatetheinvestigationofandprosecutecrimesandviolationsofpenallawswhenduly
authorized,certainrequisites,enumeratedbythisCourtinitsdecisioninthecaseofEstrellavs.Orendain,12
shouldbeobservedbeforesuchauthoritymaybeexercisedotherwise,theprovisionsoftheCharterofDavaoCityonthe
functionsandpowersoftheCityFiscalwillbemeaninglessbecauseaccordingtosaidcharterhehaschargeofthe
prosecutionofallcrimescommittedwithinhisjurisdictionandsince"appropriatecircumstancesarenotextanttowarrant
theinterventionoftheStateProsecutiontoinitiatetheinvestigation,signtheinformationsandprosecutethesecases,said
informationsarenullandvoid."Therulingadvertedtobythepetitionerreads,asfollows:
t . h q w

Inviewofalltheforegoingconsiderations,itistherulingofthisCourtthatunderSections1679and
1686oftheRevisedAdministrativeCode,inanyinstancewhereaprovincialorcityfiscalfails,
refusesorisunable,foranyreason,toinvestigateorprosecuteacaseand,intheopinionofthe
SecretaryofJusticeitisadvisableinthepublicinteresttotakeadifferentcourseofaction,the
SecretaryofJusticemayeitherappointasactingprovincialorcityfiscaltohandletheinvestigationor
prosecutionexclusivelyandonlyofsuchcase,anypracticingattorneyorsomecompetentofficerof
theDepartmentofJusticeorofficeofanycityorprovincialfiscal,withcompleteauthoritytoact
thereininallrespectsasifheweretheprovincialorcityfiscalhimself,orappointanylawyerinthe
governmentservice,temporarilytoassistsuchcityofprovincialfiscalinthedischargeofhisduties,
withthesamecompleteauthoritytoactindependentlyofandforsuchcityorprovincialfiscal
providedthatnosuchappointmentmaybemadewithoutfirsthearingthefiscalconcernedandnever
afterthecorrespondinginformationhasalreadybeenfiledwiththecourtbythecorrespondingcityor
provincialfiscalwithouttheconformityofthelatter,exceptwhenitcanbepatentlyshowntothecourt
havingcognizanceofthecasethatsaidfiscalisintentonprejudicingtheinterestsofjustice.The
samesphereofauthorityistruewiththeprosecutordirectedandauthorizedunderSection3of
RepublicAct3783,asamendedand/orinsertedbyRepublicAct5184.TheobservationinSalcedo
vs.Liwag,supra,regardingthenatureofthepoweroftheSecretaryofJusticeoverfiscalsasbeing
purelyoveradministrativemattersonlywasnotreallynecessary,asindicatedintheaboverelationof
thefactsanddiscussionofthelegalissuesofsaidcase,fortheresolutionthereof.Inanyevent,to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1980/may1980/gr_41919_24_1980.html

2/4

9/5/2015

G.R.No.L4191924

anyextentthattheopinionthereinmaybeinconsistentherewiththesameisherebymodified.
Thecontentioniswithoutmerit.Contrarytothepetitioner'sclaim,therulethereinestablishedhadnotbeen
violated.TherespondentStateProsecutor,althoughbelievingthathecanproceedindependentlyoftheCity
Fiscalintheinvestigationandprosecutionofthesecases,firstsoughtpermissionfromtheCityFiscalofDavao
Citybeforehestartedthepreliminaryinvestigationofthesecases,andtheCityFiscal,afterbeingshown
AdministrativeOrderNo.116,datedDecember5,1974,designatingthesaidStateProsecutortoassistall
ProvincialandCityfiscalsthroughoutthePhilippinesintheinvestigationandprosecutionofallviolationsofthe
NationalInternalRevenueCode,asamended,andotherrelatedlaws,graciouslyallowedtherespondentState
Prosecutortoconducttheinvestigationofsaidcases,andinfact,saidinvestigationwasconductedintheofficeof
theCityFiscal.13
Thepetitioneralsoclaimsthatthefilingoftheinformationswasprecipitateandprematuresincethe
CommissionerofInternalRevenuehasnotyetresolvedhisprotestsagainsttheassessmentoftheRevenue
DistrictOfficerandthathewasdeniedrecoursetotheCourtofTaxAppeals.
Thecontentioniswithoutmerit.Whatisinvolvedhereisnotthecollectionoftaxeswheretheassessmentofthe
CommissionerofInternalRevenuemaybereviewedbytheCourtofTaxAppeals,butacriminalprosecutionfor
violationsoftheNationalInternalRevenueCodewhichiswithinthecognizanceofcourtsoffirstinstance.While
therecanbenocivilactiontoenforcecollectionbeforetheassessmentproceduresprovidedintheCodehave
beenfollowed,thereisnorequirementfortheprecisecomputationandassessmentofthetaxbeforetherecan
beacriminalprosecutionundertheCode.
t . h q w

Thecontentionismade,andishererejected,thatanassessmentofthedeficiencytaxdueis
necessarybeforethetaxpayercanbeprosecutedcriminallyforthechargespreferred.Thecrimeis
completewhentheviolatorhas,asinthiscase,knowinglyandwillfullyfiledfraudulentreturnswith
intenttoevadeanddefeatapartorallofthetax.14
Anassessmentofadeficiencyisnotnecessarytoacriminalprosecutionforwillfulattempttodefeat
andevadetheincometax.Acrimeiscompletewhentheviolatorhasknowinglyandwillfulyfileda
fraudulentreturnwithintenttoevadeanddefeatthetax.Theperpetrationofthecrimeisgrounded
uponknowledgeonthepartofthetaxpayerthathehasmadeaninaccuratereturn,andthe
government'sfailuretodiscovertheerrorandpromptlytoassesshasnoconnectionswiththe
commissionofthecrime.15
Besides,ithasbeenruledthatapetitionforreconsiderationofanassessmentmayaffectthesuspensionofthe
prescriptiveperiodforthecollectionoftaxes,butnottheprescriptiveperiodofacriminalactionforviolationof
law.16Obviously,theprotestofthepetitioneragainsttheassessmentoftheDistrictRevenueOfficercannotstophis
prosecutionforviolationoftheNationalInternalRevenueCode.Accordingly,therespondentJudgedidnotabusehis
discretionindenyingthemotiontoquashfiledbythepetitioner.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionshouldbe,asitisherebydismissed.Thetemporaryrestrainingorderheretofore
issuedisherebysetaside.Withcostsagainstthepetitioner.
SOORDERED.
Barredo(Chairman),Aquino,AbadSantosandDeCastro,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes

1 w p h 1 . t

t . h q w

1Rollo,p.134.
2Id,pp.136140.
3Id,p.141.
4Id,p.11.
5Id,p.13.
6Id,p.15.
7Id,p.17.
8Id,p.19.
9Id,p.21.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1980/may1980/gr_41919_24_1980.html

3/4

9/5/2015

G.R.No.L4191924

10Id,p.23.
11Id,p.40.
12G.R.No.L19611,February27,197137SCRA640.
13Rollo,p.35.
14Guzikvs.U.S.,54F2d618.
15Merten'sLawofFederalIncomeTaxation,Vol.10,Sec.55A.05,p.21.
16Peoplevs.ChingLakaliasAngYouChu,L10609,May23,1958.
*Mr.JusticePacificoP.deCastro,amemberoftheFirstDivision,wasdesignatedtositinthe
SecondDivision.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1980/may1980/gr_41919_24_1980.html

4/4