GR 190487; (April, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 190487, April 13, 2011
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, vs. PETER SHERMAN, MICHAEL WHELAN, TEODORO B. LINGAN, ATTY. OFELIA B. CAJIGAL and the COURT OF TAX APPEALS, Respondents.
FACTS
Mark Sensing Philippines, Inc. (MSPI) imported 255,870,000 pieces of finished bet slips and 205,200 rolls of finished thermal papers from June 2005 to January 2007. The shipments were released from the Clark Special Economic Zone (CSEZ) and delivered to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) without payment of duties and taxes. The Bureau of Customs (BOC), under its Run After The Smugglers (RATS) Program, filed a criminal complaint before the Department of Justice (DOJ) against MSPI officials Peter Sherman, Michael Whelan, Atty. Ofelia B. Cajigal, and Teodoro B. Lingan, among others, for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code and Republic Act No. 7916. State Prosecutor Rohaira Lao-Tamano found probable cause and recommended the filing of an Information. An Information was subsequently filed before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on April 11, 2009. However, the Secretary of Justice, by Resolution dated March 20, 2009, reversed the State Prosecutor’s finding and directed the withdrawal of the Information. The BOC’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The State Prosecutor then filed a Motion to Withdraw Information with Leave of Court before the CTA, to which the BOC filed an Opposition. The CTA, by Resolution dated September 3, 2009, granted the withdrawal and dismissed the Information. The BOC filed a motion for reconsideration before the CTA, but it was “Noted Without Action” in a Resolution dated October 14, 2009, as an Entry of Judgment had already been issued since the State Prosecutor did not file a motion for reconsideration. The BOC filed the present petition for certiorari, not represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Tax Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in noting without action the Bureau of Customs’ motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dismissing the criminal Information.
RULING
No, the Court of Tax Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition is bereft of merit and is dismissed.
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution of crimes is an executive function, vested in the public prosecutor who has control and supervision over criminal cases. While special prosecutors from agencies like the BOC may be designated to assist, control remains with the public prosecutor. The CTA’s act of merely noting without action the BOC’s motion for reconsideration was proper because the Entry of Judgment had been issued after the State Prosecutor, who controlled the case, did not file a motion for reconsideration. The participation of a private complainant, such as the BOC, is limited to that of a witness. Furthermore, the petition was defective as the BOC filed it without being represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, contravening the doctrine that the OSG must represent government agencies in litigation. Since the BOC’s motion for reconsideration before the CTA did not bear the imprimatur of the public prosecutor to whom control of the prosecution belongs, the petition must fail.