G.R. No. L-46881 September 15, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. MARIANO CASTAÑEDA JR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch III, VICENTE LEE TENG, PRISCILLA CASTILLO VDA. DE CURA and FRANCISCO VALENCIA, respondents.

FACTS

Based on sworn information filed by informants under Republic Act No. 2338 , the Bureau of Internal Revenue investigated private respondents for alleged violations of the National Internal Revenue Code. Following the execution of search warrants, multiple criminal informations were filed. In 1973, Criminal Cases Nos. 439 and 440 were filed against Francisco Valencia, Apolonio Erespe, and Priscilla Castillo de Cura for possession of counterfeit tax labels and untaxed articles. In 1974, six more informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 538-543) were filed against Vicente Lee Teng and Francisco Valencia for failure to pay annual privilege taxes from 1966 to 1972. Accused Valencia moved to quash the latter six cases, claiming lack of preliminary investigation and entitlement to tax amnesty under Presidential Decree No. 370. The respondent judge granted the motion, quashing all cases against Valencia. The judge further held that the dismissal inured to the benefit of co-accused Lee Teng and de Cura, leading the People to file this petition for certiorari and mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in quashing the criminal informations based on the accused’s claim of tax amnesty under P.D. No. 370.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the questioned orders, and ordered the reinstatement of the criminal cases. The legal logic is clear: P.D. No. 370 explicitly excludes from its amnesty coverage “tax cases which are the subject of a valid information under Republic Act No. 2338 as of December 31, 1973.” The sworn complaints submitted by the informants to the BIR in 1971 constituted precisely such “valid information” under R.A. 2338, which defines an informer as any person, except government employees, who voluntarily discloses a violation of revenue laws. Since the informants here were private citizens and their sworn statements detailed specific violations, a valid information existed well before the December 31, 1973 cutoff. Consequently, the cases derived from these informations were not extinguished by the amnesty. The respondent judge’s ruling to the contrary was a patent misapplication of the law, constituting grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the dismissal of cases against one accused (Valencia) on a personal ground like amnesty does not inure to the benefit of co-accused charged under a theory of conspiracy, as conspiracy must be proven during trial and does not allow for such automatic exoneration. The cases must be reinstated for proper proceedings.