7/25/2019 People vs Castaneda tax 1 digest
1/2
People vs. Castaneda
By virtue of Republic Act No. 2338 (An Act to Provide for Reward
to
Informers of Violations of the Internal Revenue and Customs
Laws) William
Chan, one of the informers, sumitted a sworn information
concernin!
alle!ed violations of "rovisions of the Internal Revenue Code
committed y
the "rivate res"ondents#
Criminal informations were filed y $tate Prosecutor %ranados
with the Court
of &irst Instance of Pam"an!a a!ainst "rivate res"ondents
Vicente Lee,
&rancisco Valencia and Priscilla Castillo de Cura for the
alle!ed violation of
Sec. 170 (2) '(possession, custody and control, false and
counterfeit or fake
internal revenue labels), violation of Section 174 (3)
'(possession, custody
and control, locally manufactured articles subject to specific
tax) and
Sections 182 (A) (1) (3c) and 208'(failure to pay annual
privilege taxes for
the year 1966 to 1972 ) of the ational Internal Revenue Code as
amended#
alencia filed a motion to uash on the !round of failure to
conduct
"reliminary investi!ation and enefits of ta* amnesty "rovided y
P+ o#
-.# /otion to uash was o""osed y the $tate Prosecutor and ar!ued
that
the res"ondent was not entitled to the ta* amnesty "rovided y P+
o# -.#
C&I 0ud!e Castaneda !ranted the motion to uash and dismissed
all the
criminal informations with res"ect to Valencia# /R y the Peo"le
was denied#
1owever, the two remainin! accused Lee, de Cura were arrai!ned#
2hey
filed also /otion to 3uash on the !round that the dismissal of
the cases filed
a!ainst Valencia inured to their enefit# Peo"le o""osed a!ain
the /3 on the
same !round raised a!ainst Valencia# 0ud!e Castaneda !ranted the
/otions
to 3uash and denied the Peo"le4s /R#
1ence this "etition# (Certiorari and mandamus)
!SS"#S5
6# W7 the "etitioner Peo"le are !uilty of laches#8# W7 the
defense of doule 9eo"ardy can e raised y the "rivate
res"ondent as a defense#
# W7 "rivate res"ondents are entitled to the enefits availale
under
P#+# o# -.#
R"$!N%&
6# N#%A'!## $C held that ordinarily, a "etition for certiorari
rou!ht
seven (-) months after rendition of the last order sou!ht to e
set
aside mi!ht e re!arded as arred y laches# 1owever, the Court
elieves that the euitale "rinci"le of laches should not e
a""lied
to ar this "etition for certiorari and mandamus# /oreover,
the
dismissal of the cases was resisted vi!orously y the
"rosecution
which filed oth o""ositions to the /otion to +ismiss and /otions
for
Reconsideration of the orders !rantin! the /otions to 3uash#
2he
"rivate res"ondents, in other words, were under no illusion as
to the
"osition ta:en and ur!ed y the Peo"le in this case#
2. N#%A'!## $C held that ca"ricious dismissal of an information
as
herein involved de"rives the $tate of fair o""ortunity to
"rosecute
and to convict# It denies the "rosecution its day in court#
Accordin!ly,
it is a dismissal without due "rocess and, therefore, null and
void# A
dismissal invalid for lac: of a fundamental reuisite, such as
due
"rocess, will not constitute a "ro"er asis for the claim of
doule9eo"ardy# (#leents o *+ not p,esent - CR! $ectu,es).
3. N#%A'!#. $C reiterated that "ursuant to P* 370 ta* amnesty
is
herey !ranted to an/ pe,son natu,al o, u,idical o o, an/
,eason atsoeve, ailed to avail o P,esidential *ec,ee No. 23
and P,esidential *ec,ee No. 175 or, in so availin! of the
said
Presidential +ecrees failed to include all that were reuired to
e
declared therein# If he now voluntarily discloses under this
decree all
his "reviously unta*ed income and;or wealth which are or
were
"reviously ta*ale under the ational Internal Revenue Code
and
has the effect of condonin! or e*tin!uishin! the liailities
conseuentu"on "ossession of false and counterfeit internal revenue
laels< the
manufacture of alcoholic "roducts su9ect to s"ecific ta*
without
havin! "aid the annual "rivile!e ta*, and the "ossession,
custody
and control of locally manufactured articles su9ect to s"ecific
ta* on
which the ta*es had not een "aid in accordance with law#
P,ovided
oeve, tat a ta6 o iteen (1) pe, centu on suc
p,eviousl/ unta6ed incoe ando, ealt is iposed subect to
te ce,tain conditions&
a# $uch "reviously unta*ed income and;or wealth must have
een earned or reali=ed "rior to 6>-, e*ce"t the
followin!5
7/25/2019 People vs Castaneda tax 1 digest
2/2
# Ca"ital !ains transactions where the ta*"ayer has availed
of Presidential +ecree o# 6?, as amended, ut has not
com"lied with the conditions thereof-< and
f# Pro"erty transferred y reason of death or y donation
durin! the year 6>-8#
Pursuant to P+ -. the claimant must have voluntarily disclosed
his
"reviously unta*ed income or wealth and "aid the reuired (6@)
ta*
im"osed and in this case it was disclosed y the informers with
the BIR and
not y the claimants#
/oreover, , the violations of the ational Internal Revenue Code
with which
the res"ondents accused were char!ed, had already een discovered
y the
BIR when P#+# o# -. too: effect on > 0anuary 6>-, y reason
of the
sworn information or affidavitDcom"laints filed y informers with
the BIR
under Re"ulic Act o# 8 "rior to 6 +ecemer 6>-#
It follows that, even assumin! res"ondent accused &rancisco
Valencia was
otherwise entitled to the enefits of P#+# o# -., none of the
informations
filed a!ainst him could have een condoned under the e*"ress
"rovisions of
the ta* amnesty statute#
&urthermore at the time res"ondents "aid the s"ecial fifteen
"ercent (6@)
ta* under P#+# o# -., all the accused had in fact already een
su9ected y
the BIR to e*tensive investi!ation such that the criminal
char!es a!ainst him
could not e condoned under the "rovisions of the amnesty
statute#
