G.R. No. 249606. July 06, 2022.
ALICIA O. FERNANDEZ, ANTHONY JOEY S. TAN, REYNALDO V. CESA, AND ERGARDO V. MARTINEZ, PETITIONERS, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners, corporate officers of Kingson Trading International Corporation, were charged with violating the Tariff and Customs Code for the fraudulent importation of steel bars. The Information alleged that from May to July 2006, they conspired to import 2,406 bundles of steel, deliberately misdeclaring them as low-duty “round bars” when they were actually higher-duty “reinforced/deformed steel bars,” and undervaluing them using falsified documents to evade approximately PhP15.8 million in duties and taxes. The shipment was consigned to Kingson, and the misdeclaration was discovered upon physical examination and chemical analysis by customs authorities.
The prosecution established that the petitioners, as President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and Corporate Secretary of Kingson, were the responsible officers managing the corporation’s affairs. The defense argued they were merely nominal officers without active involvement in the import transaction. The CTA First Division found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction affirmed by the CTA En Banc, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners, as corporate officers, may be held criminally liable for the fraudulent importation committed by the corporation.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the convictions. The ruling is anchored on the well-established principle that a corporation’s separate juridical personality does not shield its officers from personal criminal liability when they knowingly participate in the commission of a crime. The Court emphasized that a corporate officer cannot hide behind the corporate veil when they are the actual, present, and efficient actor in the felonious act.
The legal logic proceeds from the nature of the offense under Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code, which penalizes any person who makes or attempts to make any fraudulent entry of imported goods. The law’s use of the term “any person” unequivocally includes corporate agents. For liability to attach, the prosecution must prove the officer’s active participation and criminal intent. Here, the Court found such participation and intent sufficiently established. Petitioners, holding the highest executive positions, were presumed to have knowledge of and control over the corporation’s major transactions, including this substantial importation involving falsified documents and a massive tax deficiency. Their claim of being nominal officers was belied by their official designations in corporate documents and the sheer scale of the operation, which they, as the governing body, would have necessarily authorized or permitted. Their collective failure to exercise due diligence to prevent the fraud made them criminally culpable as principals under the law.