G.R. No. 260374 / 260426, June 28, 2022
FR. CHRISTIAN B. BUENAFE, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FERDINAND ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, JR., ET AL., RESPONDENTS. / BONIFACIO PARABUAC ILAGAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FERDINAND ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, JR., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondent Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. was criminally charged for violation of the National Internal Revenue Code for failure to pay income tax and to file income tax returns for the years 1982 to 1985. On July 27, 1995, the Quezon City Regional Trial Court found him guilty. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in a Decision promulgated on October 31, 1997, acquitted him of the charges for non-payment of taxes but found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of failure to file income tax returns for the taxable years 1982 to 1985. The CA ordered him to pay deficiency taxes and fines. This CA Decision became final and executory on August 31, 2001. Petitioners filed petitions before the Commission on Elections seeking the cancellation or denial of due course to Marcos Jr.’s certificate of candidacy for President, and his disqualification. They argued that his final conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude, disqualifying him under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code, and that he committed a material misrepresentation in his COC regarding his liability for an offense carrying the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification.

ISSUE

Does the final and executory 1997 Court of Appeals Decision, which convicted Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. for failure to file income tax returns, disqualify him from running for or holding public office?

RULING

No. The petitions were denied. The concurring opinion of Justice Gaerlan elaborated that not all tax crimes inherently involve moral turpitude. The determination depends on the specific statutory provisions violated and the attendant circumstances. The crime of failure to file a tax return, under the applicable provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, is malum prohibitum. The law did not require willfulness or intent to defraud as an element of the offense for the years in question (1982-1985). The penalty imposed was a fine, which is not an accessory penalty that carries perpetual disqualification from public office. The conviction, therefore, did not involve moral turpitude and did not attach the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification. Consequently, Marcos Jr. was not disqualified from being a candidate, and there was no material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy.