G.R. Nos. 108135-36; August 14, 2000
POTENCIANA M. EVANGELISTA, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Potenciana M. Evangelista, Chief of the Revenue Accounting Division (RAD) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Information alleged that she and her co-accused caused undue injury to the government and gave unwarranted benefits to Tanduay Distillery, Inc. by preparing and submitting false memoranda and certifications stating that Tanduay paid ad valorem taxes, which led to the approval of its P180-million tax credit application. The Sandiganbayan convicted Evangelista. The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated September 30, 1999, affirmed her conviction, finding her grossly negligent for issuing a certification containing Tax Numeric Codes (TNCs) whose meaning she did not verify, which became a basis for the grant.
Evangelista filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing her certification was not false and was, in fact, unfavorable to Tanduay’s application as it indicated no proof of ad valorem tax payments. She further contended she was convicted of acts not alleged in the Information, violating her right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against her. The Solicitor General joined her cause, recommending acquittal.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Potenciana M. Evangelista is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

No. The Motion for Reconsideration is granted, and petitioner is acquitted. The Court, upon re-examination, found that Evangelista’s certification in the 1st Indorsement was not favorable to Tanduay’s tax credit claim. The TNCs used (3011-0001 and 0000-0000) were standard BIR codes for classifying tax payments, and her mere use of these codes without descriptive words did not constitute a false statement or gross negligence. The purpose of TNCs was precisely to expedite communication within the BIR. Her certification effectively showed no record of ad valorem tax payments, which was against the grant of the credit.
Crucially, the acts for which she was convicted—issuing a certification without explaining the TNCs—were materially different from the acts alleged in the Information, which accused her of preparing false documents stating Tanduay paid ad valorem taxes. This variance violated her constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, depriving her of the opportunity to mount a proper defense. The prosecution’s evidence failed to establish with moral certainty that she committed the corrupt practices as charged. Applying the maxim nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege, her omission was not a criminal act punishable under the law. Consequently, her conviction is set aside.