G.R. No. L-41919-24 May 30, 1980
QUIRICO P. UNGAB, petitioner,
vs.
HON. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance, Branch 1, 16TH Judicial District, Davao City, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, and JESUS N. ACEBES, in his capacity as State Prosecutor, respondents.
FACTS:
BIR Examiner Ben Garcia examined the income tax returns filed by Ungab. e discovered that the Ungab failed to report his income derived from sales of banana saplings. As a result, the BIR District Revenue Officer at Davao City sent a "Notice of Taxpayer" to Ungab informing him that there is due from him representing income, business tax and forest charges.
Upon receipt of the notice, Ungab wrote the BIR District Revenue Officer protesting the assessment, claiming that he was only a dealer or agent on commission basis in the banana sapling business and that his income, as reported in his income tax returns for the said year, was accurately stated.
BIR Examiner Ben Garcia, however, was fully convinced that the Ungab had filed a fraudulent income tax return so that he submitted a "Fraud Referral Report," to the Tax Fraud Unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. After examining the records of the case, the Special Investigation Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue found sufficient proof that the herein Ungab is guilty of tax evasion.
In a second indorsement to the Chief of the Prosecution Division, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue approved the prosecution of the petitioner. State Prosecutor Jesus Acebes finds probable cause and filed six (6) informations against the petitioner with the Court of First Instance of Davao City,
Ungab filed a motion to quash the informations upon the grounds that: (1) the informations are null and void for want of authority on the part of the State Prosecutor to initiate and prosecute the said cases; and (2) the trial court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the above-entitled cases in view of his pending protest against the assessment made by the BIR Examiner.
However, the trial court denied the motion. Ungab filed the instant recourse. As prayed for, a temporary restraining order was issued by the Court, ordering the respondent Judge from further proceeding with the trial and hearing of Criminal Case.
ISSUE:
Whether the filing of the informations was precipitate and premature since the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has not yet resolved his protests against the assessment of the Revenue District Officer; and that he was denied recourse to the Court of Tax Appeals.
RULING:
The contention is without merit. What is involved here is not the collection of taxes where the assessment of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may be reviewed by the Court of Tax Appeals, but a criminal prosecution for violations of the National Internal Revenue Code which is within the cognizance of courts of first instance. While there can be no civil action to enforce collection before the assessment procedures provided in the Code have been followed, there is no requirement for the precise computation and assessment of the tax before there can be a criminal prosecution under the Code.
An assessment of a deficiency is not necessary to a criminal prosecution for willful attempt to defeat and evade the income tax. A crime is complete when the violator has knowingly and willfuly filed a fraudulent return with intent to evade and defeat the tax. The perpetration of the crime is grounded upon knowledge on the part of the taxpayer that he has made an inaccurate return, and the government's failure to discover the error and promptly to assess has no connections with the commission of the crime.
The protest of Ungab against the assessment of the District Revenue Officer cannot stop his prosecution for violation of the National Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, the respondent Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to quash filed by the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition dismissed. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued is hereby set aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment