8/20/2019 Republic vs. Martin tax 1 digest

1/2

G.R. No. L-38019 May 16, 1980

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESvs.

SIMEONA MARTIN and HERMIN ARCEO

Fac !"

Hermin E. Arceo and Simeona Martin, private respondents herein, werecharged in the Court of First Instance of Riza , conspiring and confederatingtogether and he ping each other, did then and there wi fu !, un awfu ! andfe onious !, have in their possession such fa se and counterfeit sciencestamps worth "#$,$%$.$$ for, the purpose of using and se ing the same inthe pa!ment of interna revenue ta&, and in fact so d and offered for sa e apart of the same, with intent of gain thus defrauding the government.

'he accused fi ed two separate motions to (uash on the ground that the factscharged do not constitute an offense. 'he motion was granted and the casewas dismissed as Act )**% in fact fai ed to punish the possession andutterance of counterfeit science stamp ta&.

In arriving at his conc usion, respondent +udge e&pressed the opinion that theword pena ties found in Sec. * of R.A. -o. )**% refers to administrativepena ties, i e administrative fines provided for in the -ationa InternaRevenue Code /-IRC for short0, 1asing this view on Sec. ) of the same Act,which spea s of ta&es and pena ties which shou d 1e turned over 1! certainofficia s to the 'reasurer of the "hi ippines.

I!!#$%!"

/20 34- the offenses charged to the accused wou d constitute an offenserendering respondent +udge in error for dismissing the case5 6ES.

/70 34- pena ties found in section * re ating to administrative or criminaoffenses5 CRIMI-A8.

H$&d"

/20 In the sense respondents wou d construe the word pena ties in Sec. * of Repu1 ic Act )**% as referring to fines incident to the co ection of the

science stamp ta&, the same is c ear ! comprehended within the purview of the phrase at the same time and in the same manner

particu ar ! the

underscored portion, even without the phrase su1+ect to the same pena tiesas the documentar! stamp ta& , that fo ows in Sec. * of Repu1 ic Act )**%.3hen the aw re(uires co ection to 1e in the same manner as documentar!stamp ta&, the co ection of fines in the cases provided therein ma! a read!1e inc uded, such as those mentioned in Sec. 79: to 79# of the -IRC. 'hepena ties mentioned in the phrase su1+ect to the same pena ties wou d then

refer to Sec. 7*$ of the same Code, which are for specific offensesenumerated therein, there1! investing Repu1 ic Act )**% with the character of comp eteness, not that of incomp eteness which wou d 1e against areasona1 e presumptions as to how the egis ative 1od! performs itsfunctions.

In enacting Repu1 ic Act )**% and re ating it to the documentar! stamp ta&provisions of the -IRC in the manner it did, intended to ma e the ater aw aseffective and foo ;proof as the ear ier statute, considering their indred aimsand o1+ectives, and therefore are in pari materia with each other, 3e have nohesitation in adopting the construction of Sec. * of Repu1 ic Act )**% as

providing pena ties for the same acts as those enumerated in Sec. 7*$ of the-IRC ' 3hich c ear ! inc ude those charged in the information fi ed againstprivate respondents. It ma! even 1e more accurate to sa! that more than +uststatutes in pari materia with each other, Repu1 ic Act )**% is an amp ificationof the -IRC, as ma! 1e g eaned from the provisions of Sec. * of Repu1 ic Act)**% which states that in addition to the documentar! stamp ta&es imposedunder Sections 722 to 79) of Commonwea th Act -o. *

8/20/2019 Republic vs. Martin tax 1 digest

2/2

Sec. * of Repu1 ic Act )**%, to 1e nown as science stamp ta&es, to what isca ed documentar! stamp ta&es, Congress fai ed to provide the samesafeguards for 1oth ind of ta&es, particu ar ! against what is a read! nownas the most faci e form and common manner of su1verting the imposition of this ind of ta&es = stamp ta&es = that of counterfeiting the stamps, and thepossession or use of counterfeit stamps, the ver! acts with which privaterespondents are charged.

'he aw is, therefore, here1! dec ared to contain e&p icit ! c ear provision,particu ar ! in Sec. * thereof, for the punishment as crimina offense of theacts charged in the information su1+ect of the instant petition. In so dec aring,far from vio ating the ru e of strict construction of pena statutes, 3e are

giving the aw, Repu1 ic Act )**%, the on ! rationa interpretation ca ed for, adeparture from which wou d 1e to act not in conformit! with the proper e&ercise of our +udicia power of interpreting the aws, which, primari !, is togive effect to the manifest and p ain egis ative intent.

3HEREF4RE, the order comp ained of is here1! set aside, and et this case1e remanded to the court of origin for proper proceedings under theinformation a read! fi ed against private respondents.