G.R. No. 127777 , October 1, 1999
Petronila C. Tupaz, petitioner, vs. Honorable Benedicto B. Ulep, Presiding Judge of RTC Quezon City, Branch 105, and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

On June 8, 1990, an information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City against petitioner Petronila C. Tupaz and her late husband Jose J. Tupaz, Jr., as corporate officers of El Oro Engravers Corporation, for nonpayment of deficiency corporate income tax for the year 1979. The MeTC dismissed the information for lack of jurisdiction. On January 10, 1991, State Prosecutor Esteban A. Molon, Jr. filed two identical informations for the same offense with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-91-17321 (raffled to Branch 105, presided by respondent Judge Benedicto B. Ulep) and Q-91-17322 (raffled to Branch 86). Petitioner posted bail and was arraigned in Criminal Case No. Q-91-17321 on September 20, 1994, pleading not guilty. The information was later amended to allege the date of the offense, but petitioner was not re-arraigned. On May 20, 1996, Judge Ulep granted the prosecution’s motion to withdraw the information in Criminal Case No. Q-91-17321 and dismissed the case. However, on May 28, 1996, the prosecution filed a motion to reinstate the information, stating the withdrawal was made due to a palpable mistake, as the prosecutor mistakenly thought the case involved a different tax deficiency. On August 6, 1996, respondent judge granted the motion and ordered the reinstatement of the information. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Petitioner then filed this special civil action for certiorari, arguing that the offense had prescribed and that reinstating the information would expose her to double jeopardy.

ISSUE

1. Whether the offense of nonpayment of deficiency corporate income tax for the year 1979 had prescribed.
2. Whether the reinstatement of the information in Criminal Case No. Q-91-17321 after its dismissal upon the prosecution’s motion would place petitioner in double jeopardy.

RULING

1. On the issue of prescription, the Court ruled that the offense had not prescribed. Petitioner argued that Batas Pambansa Blg. 700, which reduced the prescriptive period for assessment and collection of internal revenue taxes from five to three years, should be applied retroactively as it is favorable to the accused. The Court held that B.P. Blg. 700 applies prospectively to assessments and collections of internal revenue taxes beginning taxable year 1984. Since the deficiency tax involved was for taxable year 1979, the five-year prescriptive period under the 1977 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) applied. The assessment issued on July 16, 1984, was within the five-year period from the filing of the tax return in April 1980. Furthermore, the Court distinguished between the prescriptive period for assessment/collection of taxes and the prescriptive period for prosecuting tax offenses. The period for filing criminal information is governed by Act No. 3326 , which provides a prescription of five years from the commission of the violation. The offense was committed on or about August 1984 or subsequently thereafter, as alleged in the amended information. The complaint for preliminary investigation was filed on June 8, 1989, and the information was filed in court on January 10, 1991, both within the five-year prescriptive period.
2. On the issue of double jeopardy, the Court ruled that the reinstatement of the information violated petitioner’s right against double jeopardy. Jeopardy attached when petitioner was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and the case was dismissed upon the prosecution’s motion without her express consent. The dismissal order of May 20, 1996, was unconditional and did not state that it was without prejudice. The prosecution’s motion for withdrawal and dismissal did not indicate it was without prejudice, and petitioner did not expressly consent to the dismissal. Consequently, the dismissal was final and with prejudice to the re-filing of the case. Therefore, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the information. The petition was GRANTED. The Court enjoined the RTC, Branch 105, from trying Criminal Case No. Q-91-17321 and ordered its dismissal.