GR 152532; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152532. August 16, 2005
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Fourth Division) and BIENVENIDO A. TAN JR., Respondent.
FACTS
The case originated from a tax assessment by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) against San Miguel Corporation (SMC) for deficiency specific and ad valorem taxes amounting to over ₱342 million for 1985-1986. SMC protested, leading to a review by BIR officials. After internal deliberations with varying recommendations on the proper tax liability, then-BIR Commissioner Bienvenido A. Tan Jr. approved SMC’s offer of a ₱10 million compromise settlement in 1988. The Ombudsman subsequently filed an information before the Sandiganbayan, charging Tan with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft Law) for allegedly giving unwarranted benefit to SMC through gross negligence or manifest partiality.
The Sandiganbayan initially convicted Tan in a Decision dated March 2, 2001. However, upon Tan’s motion for reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan reversed itself in a Resolution dated January 23, 2002, acquitting him. The prosecution filed this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the acquittal was rendered with grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in acquitting respondent Bienvenido A. Tan Jr.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court held that a judgment of acquittal rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction upon a valid information and after the accused has pleaded is immediately final and unappealable. The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy bars any review, whether by appeal or by a special civil action for certiorari, unless there is a clear showing that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion or that the State was denied due process. The Court found no such abuse in this case.
The Sandiganbayan’s acquittal was based on its re-evaluation of the evidence, concluding that Tan did not act with gross negligence or manifest partiality. The Court noted that the subject of taxation involved complex and perplexing legal issues, and Tan’s act of abating an assessment he deemed excessive and erroneous after considering conflicting internal BIR recommendations was a legitimate exercise of his discretionary power as Commissioner. His approval of the compromise was not shown to be arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious. Since the acquittal was not tainted with grave abuse, the Court upheld it, emphasizing that certiorari cannot be used to correct errors of judgment but only errors of jurisdiction.