TAX1.14 Martinez v.

CA

The grant of a motion to dismiss must be based upon the judges own personal conviction that there was no case against the accused.
The trial judge must himself be convinced that there was indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused, and this conclusion can
be arrived at only after an assessment of the evidence in the possession of the prosecution. What was imperatively required was the
trial judge's own assessment of such evidence, it not being sufficient for the valid and proper exercise of judicial discretion merely
to accept the prosecution's word for its supposed insufficiency.

TAX2.14 People v. Jose Mendez

FACTS: same with 8.13

ISSUE: Whether the imposition of civil liability by the CTA should be automatic when the accused is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and no assessment from the BIR is necessary.

RULING: No. While the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 255, failure to file return or to supply
correct information, this court will not impose the alleged tax liabilities, considering that there was not assessment issued against
the accused. The computations presented by the prosecution to prove civil liabilities may not be used because the BIR did not
follow the assessment procedures provided for in the Tax Code, and the civil liabilities for the non-payment of tax may not be
determined and imposed.

TAX3.14 People v. Estelita Delos Angeles

See book.

TAX4.14 People v. Mallari

TAX5.14 People v. Benjamin Kintanar

FACTS: Benjamin Kintanar, is charged in the CTA of two (2) consolidated cases for failure to file his ITRs for the taxable
years 2000 and 2001 on his taxable income in the estimated amounts in violation of the first paragraph of Section 255 of
the NIRC.
Kintanar raised the issue that he merely relied on the representation made by his accountant that he did not verify
the contents of the returns.

ISSUE: Whether Kintanar is considered to willfully violate his tax duties by relying on the representation of his accountant
on his tax returns.

RULING: Kintanar’s reliance on the representation made by his accountant, with deliberate refusal or avoidance to verify
the contents of his income tax return and to inquire its authenticity constitutes “willful blindness.”

TAX6.14 People v. Gloria Kintanar

FACTS: Ms. Kintanar claimed that she did not actively participate in the filing of her joint ITR with her husband since she entrusted
such duty to the latter who, in turn, hired an accountant to perform their tax responsibilities. She testified that she did not know
how much her tax obligation was; nor did she bother to inquire or determine the facts surrounding the filing of her ITRs. The CTA
found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 255 of the NIRC.

ISSUE: Whether the CTA erred in finding that there was evident lack of concern onf the accused for intentionally disregarding her
tax responsibilities to the government.

RULING: No. Petitioner’s sole reliance on her husband to file their ITRs is not a valid reason to justify her non-filing, considering
that she knew from the start that she and her husband are mandated by law to file their ITRs. Such neglect or omission, as aptly
found by the CTA, is tantamount to “deliberate ignorance” or “conscious avoidance”.

TAX7.14 People v. Imelda Marcos

A CTA Criminal Case. No full text.

TAX8.14 Castro v. Collector

FACTS: This is an appeal from a decision of the CTA holding petitioner Castro liable under the War Profits Tax Law, Republic
Act No. 55, and ordering her to pay a deficiency war profits tax. Castro was previously acquitted in the criminal case instituted
against her for violation of the War Profits Tax Law.

ISSUE: Whether the acquittal is a bar to the collection of the taxes assessed, and specially of the 50% surcharge

RULING: No. the acquittal in the criminal case could not operate to discharge petitioner from the duty to pay the tax, since that
duty is imposed by statute prior to and independently of any attempts on the part of the taxpayer to evade payment. The obligation
to pay the tax is not a mere consequence of the felonious acts charged in the information, nor is it a mere civil liability derived from
crime that would be wiped out by the judicial declaration that the criminal acts charged did not exist.

TAX9.14 Republic v. Patanao

FACTS: Patanao, a timber concessionaire, was prosecuted for failure to file ITR and for non-payment of income tax. He was
acquitted. Later, the government sued him civilly for the collection of the tax due. However, Patanao alleges that the civil claim
cannot prosper anymore because he was already acquitted in the criminal case and that the collection of the tax was not reserved
in the criminal action.

ISSUE: Whether Patanao’s contention is correct

RULING: No. same ruling with 8.14.

TAX10.14 People v. Ching Lak

FACTS: On March 31, 1954, the Ching Lak was charged with violation of RA 55 or having failed and refused to pay war profits
taxes due on Feb 17, 1948. Ching Lak herein filed his motion to quash on the ground that more than 5 years have elapsed since the
refusal up to the filing of the information.
The Solicitor General contends, however, that the Internal Revenue examiners submitted an amended assessment and,
therefore, the prescriptive period for violation of the war profits tax law should be considered as having been suspended up to the
issuance of the amended assessment.

ISSUE: Whether the lower court erred in holding that the criminal liability of the defendant had been extinguished by prescription

RULING: No. A petition for reconsideration of an assessment may affect the suspension of the prescriptive period for the collection
of taxes, but not the prescriptive period of a criminal action for violation of law.

TAX11.14 People v. Tierra

Facts: BIR Examiner reported that appellant had filed false and fraudulent returns by overstating his purchases and overdeclaring
his expenses. During the investigation, the appellant could not produce the pertinent vouchers and other documents verifying the
correctness of the returns. Four separate informations were filed against appellant for filing a false and fraudulent ITR and refusing
to pay the deficiency income tax.
Appellant contends that his criminal liability has been extinguished because of the failure of the government to take any
timely action, judicial or administrative, to collect his income tax liabilities, and because of this failure, the right of the government
to collect the taxes was lost by prescription de.

Issue: Whether his criminal liability arising from his failure to satisfy the civil liability is extinguished by the extinguishment of
his civil liability by prescription

Held: No. In a criminal action that was instituted against the taxpayer for having filed a false and fraudulent return and for failure
to pay the taxes, any subsequent satisfaction of the tax liability, by payment or prescription, will not operate to extinguish such
criminal liability, since the duty to pay the tax is imposed by statute independent of any attempt on the part of the taxpayer to evade
payment.
TAX12.14 People v. Balagtas

TAX13.14 Collector v. Universtiy of Sto. Tomas

skip

TAX14.14 People v. Lucio Tan

FACTS:
The CIR filed a Complaint with the DOJ charging Fortune Tobacco Corp with fraudulent tax evasion for supposed non-payment
of the correct taxes. RTC dismissed the case on the ground of untimeliness, explaining that the DOJ filed a Motion for
Reconsideration 14 days after the receipt of the order of the MTC. The 14 days should be deducted from the total period of the
prescribed 60 days. Hence, the DOJ Panel had the remaining period of 46 days within which to file the petition for certiorari.
However, It was only 11 days after the lapse of the last day within which to file the petition for certiorari that the DOJ Panel filed
the present petition.

ISSUE: WN RTC is correct in dismissing the case.

RULING: No. Technicalities will have to yield to the paramount interest of the nation to enforce its laws against tax evasion,
especially where the amounts involved are huge.