Judy Anne Santos vs. People of the Philippines

 G.R. No. 173176             August 26, 2008

JUDY ANNE L. SANTOS, petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.

FACTS:

BIR Commissioner Parayno wrote to the DOJ Secretary Gonzales a letter regarding the possible filing of criminal charges against petitioner MS. JUDY ANNE LUMAGUI SANTOS. In said letter the commissioner recommended the criminal prosecution of the petitioner for substantial underdeclaration of income, which constitutes as prima facie evidence of false or fraudulent return under Section 248(B) of the NIRC and punishable under Sections 254 and 255 of the Tax Code. The commissioner refer the matter to DOJ for preliminary investigation and filing of an information in court if evidence so warrants.

After an exchange of affidavits and other pleadings by the parties, Prosecution Attorney issued a Resolution finding probable cause and recommending the filing of a criminal information against petitioner for violation of Section 255 in relation to Sections 254 and 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended. The said Resolution was approved by Chief State Prosecutor. 

Petitioner filed with the CTA First Division a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground among others the information is void ab initio, being violative of due process, and the equal protection of the laws. Petitioner asserts that she has been denied due process and equal protection of the laws when similar charges for violation of the NIRC against Regina Encarnacion A. Velasquez (Velasquez) were dismissed by the DOJ in its for the reason that Velasquez’s tax liability was not yet fully determined when the charges were filed.

CTA First Division denied petitioner’s Motion to Quash. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation, which was again denied by the CTA First Division.

Petitioner filed with the CTA en banc a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review. However, CTA en banc denied petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.

ISSUES:

(1) WHETHER THERE IS DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS.

(2)WHETHER A RESOLUTION OF A CTA DIVISION DENYING A MOTION TO QUASH IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL TO THE CTA EN BANC.

RULING:

(1) NONE, The Court is unconvinced.

First, a motion to quash should be based on a defect in the information which is evident on its face. The same cannot be said herein. The Information against petitioner appears valid on its face; and that it was filed in violation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws is not evident on the face thereof. 

Petitioner cannot claim denial of due process when she was given the opportunity to file her affidavits and other pleadings and submit evidence before the DOJ during the preliminary investigation of her case and before the Information was filed against her. Due process is merely an opportunity to be heard. In addition, preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ is merely inquisitorial. It is not a trial of the case on the merits. Its sole purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether the respondent therein is probably guilty of the crime. It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence. Hence, if the investigating prosecutor is already satisfied that he can reasonably determine the existence of probable cause based on the parties’ evidence thus presented, he may terminate the proceedings and resolve the case.

Petitioner cannot likewise aver that she has been denied equal protection of the laws. The equal protection clause exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It is intended to eliminate discrimination and oppression based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences among men, the equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both as to the privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. 

Petitioner was not able to duly establish to the satisfaction of this Court that she and Velasquez were indeed similarly situated, i.e., that they committed identical acts for which they were charged with the violation of the same provisions of the NIRC; and that they presented similar arguments and evidence in their defense - yet, they were treated differently.

Furthermore, that the Prosecution Attorney dismissed what were supposedly similar charges against Velasquez did not compel Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas to rule the same way on the charges against petitioner. Petitioner has failed to show that, in charging her in court, that there was a "clear and intentional discrimination" on the part of the prosecuting officials.

The discretion of who to prosecute depends on the prosecution’s sound assessment whether the evidence before it can justify a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense.

(2) NO. The Honorable Supreme Court opined that a resolution denying a motion to quash is not a proper subject of an appeal to the Court En Banc because a ruling denying a motion to quash is only an interlocutory order, as such, it cannot be made the subject of an appeal. Hence, since a denial of a Motion to Quash is not appealable, granting petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review will only be an exercise in futility considering that the dismissal of the Petition for Review that will be filed by way of appeal is mandated both by law and jurisprudence.

Ultimately, the CTA en banc denial of Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition is meritorious.