G.R. No. 206579 , December 01, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. GLORIA F. TUYAY, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Gloria F. Tuyay is the owner of Glo Herbal Trading and Manufacturing. The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a Letter of Authority to examine her books for taxable years 2000-2002. For failure to submit her books, the BIR used the expenditure method and subsequently issued assessment notices for deficiency income tax and value-added tax for 2001 and 2002. On June 3, 2005, the BIR filed a criminal complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Tuyay for violations of Sections 254 and 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code. The DOJ found probable cause, and Informations were filed with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on October 23, 2009. During the pendency of the criminal cases, Tuyay availed of the tax amnesty under Republic Act No. 9480 by filing her Notice of Availment, Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth, Tax Amnesty Return, and making payment on February 21 and 26, 2008. Tuyay moved to dismiss CTA Crim. Case No. 0-154 (for violation of Sec. 255) on the ground of immunity from criminal liability under the tax amnesty. The CTA Third Division initially denied the motion but later granted reconsideration and dismissed the case on October 4, 2011, following a similar dismissal by the CTA First Division in a related case (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-155). The People, represented by BIR Special Prosecutors, appealed to the CTA En Banc. The CTA En Banc dismissed the petition in its March 5, 2012 Resolution for lack of authority of the BIR prosecutors to represent the People, as the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is the proper representative. Motions for reconsideration were denied, with the CTA En Banc rejecting a second motion for reconsideration as a prohibited pleading. The People then filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CTA En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in not recognizing the authority of the BIR Special Prosecutors to institute and prosecute the tax evasion case on appeal.
2. Whether the CTA En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that those who avail of tax amnesty with pending criminal cases for tax evasion filed before the DOJ are immune from prosecution under the Tax Amnesty Act.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
1. On the Authority of BIR Prosecutors: The CTA En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The OSG has the primary authority to represent the People in criminal proceedings before the CTA. While a Memorandum of Agreement existed deputizing BIR prosecutors, the failure to initially submit proof of this deputization and the subsequent filing of a prohibited second motion for reconsideration were valid grounds for the CTA En Banc’s dismissal of the appeal. The CTA’s actions were in accordance with procedural rules and did not constitute a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment.
2. On the Tax Amnesty Coverage: The CTA En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The exclusion under Section 8(e) of RA 9480 applies to “those with pending criminal cases for tax evasion and other criminal offenses under Chapter II of Title X of the NIRC of 1997, filed in court.” The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) expanded this by adding “or in the Department of Justice.” This expansion is invalid as it contravenes the clear letter of the law, which limits the disqualification to cases already filed in court. A pending preliminary investigation before the DOJ does not constitute a “pending criminal case” in court. Since Tuyay’s availment in February 2008 preceded the filing of the Informations in court in October 2009, she was not disqualified from availing of the amnesty and was entitled to its immunity. The CTA’s interpretation and application of the law were correct.