Taxation Case no.

48

G.R. No. 173176 August 26, Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City,
2008 recommending the criminal prosecution of MS. JUDY ANNE
LUMAGUI SANTOS for substantial underdeclaration of
JUDY ANNE L. SANTOS, petitioner, income, which constitutes as prima facie evidence of
vs. false or fraudulent return under Section 248(B) of the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and BUREAU OF NIRC and punishable under Sections 254 and 255 of the Tax
INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. Code.
In said letter, BIR Commissioner Parayno summarized the
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under findings of the investigating BIR officers that petitioner, in
Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by petitioner Judy her Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year 2002 filed
Anne L. Santos (Santos) seeking the reversal and setting with the BIR, declared an income of P8,033,332.70 derived
aside of the Resolution,2 dated 19 June 2006, of the Court of from her talent fees solely from ABS-CBN; initial documents
Tax Appeals (CTA) en banc in C.T.A. EB. CRIM. No. 001 which gathered from the BIR offices and those given by
denied petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File petitioners accountant and third parties, however,
Petition for Review. Petitioner intended to file the Petition for confirmed that petitioner received in 2002 income in the
Review with the CTA en banc to appeal the Resolutions amount of at least P14,796,234.70, not only from ABS-CBN,
dated 23 February 20063 and 11 May 20064 of the CTA First but also from other sources, such as movies and product
Division in C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012 denying, endorsements; the estimated tax liability arising from
respectively, her Motion to Quash the Information filed petitioners underdeclaration amounted to P1,718,925.52,
against her for violation of Section 255, in relation to including incremental penalties; the non-declaration by
Sections 254 and 248(B) of the National Internal Revenue petitioner of an amount equivalent to at least 84.18% of the
Code (NIRC), as amended; and her Motion for income declared in her return was considered a substantial
Reconsideration. underdeclaration of income, which constituted prima facie
There is no controversy as to the facts that gave rise to the evidence of false or fraudulent return under Section 248(B) 6
present Petition. of the NIRC, as amended; and petitioners failure to account
On 19 May 2005, then Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as part of her income the professional fees she received
Commissioner Guillermo L. Parayno, Jr. wrote to the from sources other than ABS-CBN and her underdeclaration
Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Raul M. Gonzales a of the income she received from ABS-CBN amounted to
letter5 regarding the possible filing of criminal charges manifest violations of Sections 2547 and 255,8 as well as
against petitioner. BIR Commissioner Parayno began his Section 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended.
letter with the following statement: After an exchange of affidavits and other pleadings by the
I have the honor to refer to you for preliminary investigation parties, Prosecution Attorney Olivia Laroza-Torrevillas issued
and filing of an information in court if evidence so warrants, a Resolution9 dated 21 October 2005 finding probable cause
the herein attached Joint Affidavit of RODERICK C. ABAD, and recommending the filing of a criminal information
STIMSON P. CUREG, VILMA V. CARONAN, RHODORA L. against petitioner for violation of Section 255 in relation to
DELOS REYES under Group Supervisor TEODORA V. Sections 254 and 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended. The said
PURINO, of the National Investigation Division, BIR National Resolution was approved by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito

DAZZLE DUTERTE 1
Taxation Case no. 48

R. Zuno. In a Resolution14 dated 8 December 2005, the CTA First

Pursuant to the 21 October 2005 DOJ Resolution, an Division granted the Peoples Ex Parte Motion and admitted
Information10 for violation of Section 255 in relation to the second Information.
Sections 254 and 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended, was filed The CTA First Division then issued on 9 December 2005 a
with the CTA on 3 November 2005 and docketed as C.T.A. warrant for the arrest of petitioner.15 The tax court lifted and
Crim. Case No. 0-012. However, the CTA First Division, after recalled the warrant of arrest on 21 December 2005 after
noting several discrepancies in the Information filed, petitioner voluntarily appeared and submitted herself to its
required the State Prosecutor to clarify and explain the jurisdiction and filed the required bail bond in the amount of
same, and to submit the original copies of the parties P20,000.00.16
affidavits, memoranda, and all other evidence on record. 11 On 10 January 2006, petitioner filed with the CTA First
Consequently, Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas, on behalf of Division a Motion to Quash17 the Information filed in C.T.A.
respondent People, submitted on 1 December 2005 a Crim. Case No. 0-012 on the following grounds:
Compliance with Ex Parte Motion to Admit Attached 1. The facts alleged in the INFORMATION do not constitute
Information.12 Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas moved that an offense;
the documents submitted be admitted as part of the record 2. The officer who filed the information had no authority to
of the case and the first Information be substituted by the do so;
attached second Information. The second Information 13 3. The Honorable Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction
addressed the discrepancies noted by the CTA in the first over the subject matter of the case; and
Information, by now reading thus: 4. The information is void ab initio, being violative of due
The undersigned Prosecution Attorney of the Department of process, and the equal protection of the laws.
Justice hereby accuses JUDY ANNE SANTOS y Lumagui of In a Resolution18 dated 23 February 2006, the CTA First
the offense of violation of Section 255, of Republic Act No. Division denied petitioners Motion to Quash and accordingly
8424, otherwise known as the "Tax Reform Act of 1997," as scheduled her arraignment on 2 March 2006 at 9:00 a.m.
amended, committed as follows: Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or
"That on or about the 15th day of April, 2003, at Quezon City, Reinvestigation,19 which was again denied by the CTA First
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Division in a Resolution20 dated 11 May 2006.
Court, the above-named accused did then and there, Petitioner received a copy of the 11 May 2006 Resolution of
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously file a false and the CTA First Division on 17 May 2006. On 1 June 2006,
fraudulent income tax return for taxable year 2002 by petitioner filed with the CTA en banc a Motion for Extension
indicating therein a gross income of P8,033,332.70 when in of Time to File Petition for Review, docketed as C.T.A. EB.
truth and in fact her correct income for taxable year 2002 is CRIM. No. 001. She filed her Petition for Review with the CTA
P16,396,234.70 or a gross underdeclaration/difference of en banc on 16 June 2006. However, in its Resolution 21 dated
P8,362,902 resulting to an income tax deficiency of 19 June 2006, the CTA en banc denied petitioners Motion
P1,395,116.24 excluding interest and penalties thereon of for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, ratiocinating
P1,319,500.94 or a total income tax deficiency of that:
P2,714,617.18 to the damage and prejudice of the In the case before Us, the petitioner is asking for an
government of the same amount.["] extension of time to file her Petition for Review to appeal the

DAZZLE DUTERTE 2
Taxation Case no. 48

denial of her motion to quash in C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012. Code or the Local Government Code shall be maintained,
As stated above, a resolution denying a motion to quash is except as herein provided, until and unless an appeal has
not a proper subject of an appeal to the Court En Banc been previously filed with the CTA and disposed of in
under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9282 because a ruling denying accordance with the provisions of this Act.
a motion to quash is only an interlocutory order, as such, it A party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of
cannot be made the subject of an appeal pursuant to said the CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may
law and the Rules of Court. Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules file a petition for review with the CTA en banc.
of Court provides that "no appeal may be taken from an Petitioners primary argument is that a resolution of a CTA
interlocutory order" and Section 1 (i) of Rule 50 provides for Division denying a motion to quash is a proper subject of an
the dismissal of an appeal on the ground that "the order or appeal to the CTA en banc under Section 18 of Republic Act
judgment appealed from is not appealable". Time and again, No. 1125, as amended, because the law does not say that
the Supreme Court had ruled that the remedy of the only a resolution that constitutes a final disposition of a case
accused in case of denial of a motion to quash is for the may be appealed to the CTA en banc. If the interpretation of
accused to enter a plea, go to trial and after an adverse the law by the CTA en banc prevails, a procedural void is
decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner created leaving the parties, such as petitioner, without any
authorized by law. remedy involving erroneous resolutions of a CTA Division.
Since a denial of a Motion to Quash is not appealable, The Court finds no merit in the petitioners assertion.
granting petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File The petition for review under Section 18 of Republic
Petition for Review will only be an exercise in futility Act No. 1125, as amended, may be new to the CTA,
considering that the dismissal of the Petition for Review that but it is actually a mode of appeal long available in
will be filed by way of appeal is mandated both by law and courts of general jurisdiction.
jurisprudence.22 Petitioner is invoking a very narrow and literal reading of
Ultimately, the CTA en banc decreed: Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners Motion for Indeed, the filing of a petition for review with the CTA en
Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed on June 1, banc from a decision, resolution, or order of a CTA Division is
2006 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.23 a remedy newly made available in proceedings before the
Now comes petitioner before this Court raising the sole issue CTA, necessarily adopted to conform to and address the
of: changes in the CTA.
WHETHER A RESOLUTION OF A CTA DIVISION DENYING A There was no need for such rule under Republic Act No.
MOTION TO QUASH IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL TO 1125, prior to its amendment, since the CTA then was
THE CTA EN BANC UNDER SECTION 11 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. composed only of one Presiding Judge and two Associate
9282, AMENDING SECTION 18 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125. 24 Judges.27 Any two Judges constituted a quorum and the
Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, 25 as amended by concurrence of two Judges was necessary to promulgate any
Republic Act No. 9282,26 provides: decision thereof.28
SEC. 18. Appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc. No The amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 9282 to
civil proceedings involving matters arising under the Republic Act No. 1125 elevated the rank of the CTA to a
National Internal Revenue Code, the Tariff and Customs collegiate court, with the same rank as the Court of Appeals,

DAZZLE DUTERTE 3
Taxation Case no. 48

and increased the number of its members to one Presiding involving criminal offenses arising from violations of the
Justice and five Associate Justices. 29 The CTA is now allowed National Internal Revenue Code or the Tariff and Customs
to sit en banc or in two Divisions with each Division Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
consisting of three Justices. Four Justices shall constitute a Revenue or Bureau of Customs.
quorum for sessions en banc, and the affirmative votes of (g) Decisions, resolutions or order on motions for
four members of the Court en banc are necessary for the reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division in the
rendition of a decision or resolution; while two Justices shall exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal
constitute a quorum for sessions of a Division and the offenses mentioned in the preceding subparagraph; x x x.
affirmative votes of two members of the Division shall be Although the filing of a petition for review with the CTA en
necessary for the rendition of a decision or resolution. 30 banc from a decision, resolution, or order of the CTA
In A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, the Revised CTA Rules, this Court Division, was newly made available to the CTA, such mode
delineated the jurisdiction of the CTA en banc31 and in of appeal has long been available in Philippine courts of
Divisions.32 Section 2, Rule 4 of the Revised CTA Rules general jurisdiction. Hence, the Revised CTA Rules no longer
recognizes the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA en elaborated on it but merely referred to existing rules of
banc to review by appeal the following decisions, procedure on petitions for review and appeals, to wit:
resolutions, or orders of the CTA Division: RULE 7PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS
SEC. 2. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court en banc. SEC. 1. Applicability of the Rules of the Court of Appeals.
The Court en banc shall exercise exclusive appellate The procedure in the Court en banc or in Divisions in original
jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: and in appealed cases shall be the same as those in
(a) Decisions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration petitions for review and appeals before the Court of Appeals
or new trial of the Court in Divisions in the exercise of its pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rules 42, 43,
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over: 44 and 46 of the Rules of Court, except as otherwise
(1) Cases arising from administrative agencies Bureau of provided for in these Rules.
Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, Department of RULE 8PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CASES
Finance, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of xxxx
Agriculture; SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode of appeal.
(2) Local tax cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in xxxx
the exercise of their original jurisdiction; and (b) An appeal from a decision or resolution of the Court in
(3) Tax collection cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts Division on a motion for reconsideration or new trial shall be
in the exercise of their original jurisdiction involving final taken to the Court by petition for review as provided in
and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court en banc shall
penalties, where the principal amount of taxes and penalties act on the appeal.
claimed is less than one million pesos; xxxx
xxxx RULE 9PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES
(f) Decisions, resolutions or orders on motions for SEC. 1. Review of cases in the Court. The review of
reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division in the criminal cases in the Court en banc or in Division shall be
exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction over cases governed by the applicable provisions of Rule 124 of the

DAZZLE DUTERTE 4
Taxation Case no. 48

Rules of Court. that "(o)nly final judgments or orders shall be subject to

xxxx appeal." Interlocutory or incidental judgments or orders do
SEC. 9. Appeal; period to appeal. not stay the progress of an action nor are they subject of
xxxx appeal "until final judgment or order is rendered for one
(b) An appeal to the Court en banc in criminal cases decided party or the other." The test to determine whether an order
by the Court in Division shall be taken by filing a petition for or judgment is interlocutory or final is this: "Does it leave
review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court something to be done in the trial court with respect to the
within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the decision or merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory; if it does
resolution appealed from. The Court may, for good cause, not, it is final". A court order is final in character if it puts an
extend the time for filing of the petition for review for an end to the particular matter resolved or settles definitely the
additional period not exceeding fifteen days. (Emphasis matter therein disposed of, such that no further questions
ours.) can come before the court except the execution of the order.
Given the foregoing, the petition for review to be filed with The term "final" judgment or order signifies a judgment or
the CTA en banc as the mode for appealing a decision, an order which disposes of the cause as to all the parties,
resolution, or order of the CTA Division, under Section 18 of reserving no further questions or directions for future
Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, is not a totally new determination. The order or judgment may validly refer to
remedy, unique to the CTA, with a special application or use the entire controversy or to some definite and separate
therein. To the contrary, the CTA merely adopts the branch thereof. "In the absence of a statutory definition, a
procedure for petitions for review and appeals long final judgment, order or decree has been held to be x x x
established and practiced in other Philippine courts. one that finally disposes of, adjudicates, or determines the
Accordingly, doctrines, principles, rules, and precedents laid rights, or some right or rights of the parties, either on the
down in jurisprudence by this Court as regards petitions for entire controversy or on some definite and separate branch
review and appeals in courts of general jurisdiction should thereof, and which concludes them until it is reversed or set
likewise bind the CTA, and it cannot depart therefrom. aside." The central point to consider is, therefore, the effects
General rule: The denial of a motion to quash is an of the order on the rights of the parties. A court order, on
interlocutory order which is not the proper subject of the other hand, is merely interlocutory in character if it is
an appeal or a petition for certiorari. provisional and leaves substantial proceeding to be had in
According to Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of connection with its subject. The word "interlocutory" refers
Court, governing appeals from the Regional Trial Courts to "something intervening between the commencement and
(RTCs) to the Court of Appeals, an appeal may be taken only the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is
from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of not a final decision of the whole controversy." 34
the case or of a matter therein when declared by the Rules In other words, after a final order or judgment, the court
to be appealable. Said provision, thus, explicitly states that should have nothing more to do in respect of the relative
no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order. 33 rights of the parties to the case. Conversely, "an order that
The Court distinguishes final judgments and orders from does not finally dispose of the case and does not end the
interlocutory orders in this wise: Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions in
Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court provides determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other,

DAZZLE DUTERTE 5
Taxation Case no. 48

but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done only from a final order or judgment, and not from an
by the Court, is interlocutory."35 interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of
The rationale for barring the appeal of an interlocutory order appeals in a single action, which must necessarily suspend
was extensively discussed in Matute v. Court of Appeals,36 the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during
thus: the pendency of the appeal. If such appeal were allowed,
It is settled that an "interlocutory order or decree made in the trial on the merits of the case would necessarily be
the progress of a case is always under the control of the delayed for a considerable length of time, and compel the
court until the final decision of the suit, and may be adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses, for one of the
modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds shown at any parties may interpose as many appeals as incidental
time before final judgment . . ." Of similar import is the questions may be raised by him, and interlocutory orders
ruling of this Court declaring that "it is rudimentary that rendered or issued by the lower court.37
such (interlocutory) orders are subject to change in the There is no dispute that a court order denying a motion to
discretion of the court." Moreover, one of the inherent quash is interlocutory. The denial of the motion to quash
powers of the court is "To amend and control its process and means that the criminal information remains pending with
orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. the court, which must proceed with the trial to determine
In the language of Chief Justice Moran, paraphrasing the whether the accused is guilty of the crime charged therein.
ruling in Veluz vs. Justice of the Peace of Sariaya, "since Equally settled is the rule that an order denying a motion to
judges are human, susceptible to mistakes, and are bound quash, being interlocutory, is not immediately appealable, 38
to administer justice in accordance with law, they are given nor can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. Such
the inherent power of amending their orders or judgments order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by
so as to make them conformable to law and justice, and an appeal from the judgment after trial.39
they can do so before they lose their jurisdiction of the case, The Court cannot agree in petitioners contention that there
that is before the time to appeal has expired and no appeal would exist a procedural void following the denial of her
has been perfected." And in the abovecited Veluz case, this Motion to Quash by the CTA First Division in its Resolutions
Court held that "If the trial court should discover or be dated 23 February 2006 and 11 May 2006, leaving her
convinced that it had committed an error in its judgment, or helpless. The remedy of an accused from the denial of his or
had done an injustice, before the same has become final, it her motion to quash has already been clearly laid down as
may, upon its own motion or upon a motion of the parties, follows:
correct such error in order to do justice between the An order denying a Motion to Acquit (like an order denying a
parties. . . . It would seem to be the very height of absurdity motion to quash) is interlocutory and not a final order. It is,
to prohibit a trial judge from correcting an error, mistake, or therefore, not appealable. Neither can it be the subject of a
injustice which is called to his attention before he has lost petition for certiorari. Such order of denial may only be
control of his judgment." Corollarily, it has also been held reviewed, in the ordinary course of law, by an appeal from
"that a judge of first instance is not legally prevented from the judgment, after trial. As stated in Collins vs. Wolfe, and
revoking the interlocutory order of another judge in the very reiterated in Mill vs. Yatco, the accused, after the denial of
litigation subsequently assigned to him for judicial action." his motion to quash, should have proceeded with the trial of
Another recognized reason of the law in permitting appeal the case in the court below, and if final judgment is

DAZZLE DUTERTE 6
Taxation Case no. 48

rendered against him, he could then appeal, and, upon such an interlocutory order (1) when the tribunal issued such
appeal, present the questions which he sought to be order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse
decided by the appellate court in a petition for certiorari. of discretion; and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order
In Acharon vs. Purisima, the procedure was well defined, is patently erroneous, and the remedy of appeal would not
thus: afford adequate and expeditious relief.46
"Moreover, when the motion to quash filed by Acharon to Recourse to a petition for certiorari to assail an interlocutory
nullify the criminal cases filed against him was denied by order is now expressly recognized in the ultimate paragraph
the Municipal Court of General Santos his remedy was not to of Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court on the
file a petition for certiorari but to go to trial without subject of appeal, which states:
prejudice on his part to reiterate the special defenses he In all the above instances where the judgment or final order
had invoked in his motion and, if, after trial on the merits, an is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an
adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.
manner authorized by law. This is the procedure that he As to whether the CTA en banc, under its expanded
should have followed as authorized by law and precedents. jurisdiction in Republic Act No. 9282, has been granted
Instead, he took the usual step of filing a writ of certiorari jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari is not
before the Court of First Instance which in our opinion is raised as an issue in the Petition at bar, thus, precluding the
unwarranted it being contrary to the usual course of law." 40 Court from making a definitive pronouncement thereon.
Hence, the CTA en banc herein did not err in denying However, even if such an issue is answered in the negative,
petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for it would not substantially affect the ruling of this Court
Review, when such Petition for Review is the wrong remedy herein, for a party whose motion to quash had been denied
to assail an interlocutory order denying her Motion to Quash. may still seek recourse, under exceptional and meritorious
While the general rule proscribes the appeal of an circumstances, via a special civil action for certiorari with
interlocutory order, there are also recognized exceptions to this Court, refuting petitioners assertion of a procedural
the same. The general rule is not absolute. Where special void.
circumstances clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of an The CTA First Division did not commit grave abuse of
appeal, then the special civil action of certiorari or discretion in denying petitioners Motion to Quash.
prohibition may exceptionally be allowed. 41 This Court Assuming that the CTA en banc, as an exception to the
recognizes that under certain situations, recourse to general rule, allowed and treated petitioners Petition for
extraordinary legal remedies, such as a petition for Review in C.T.A. EB. CRIM. No. 001 as a special civil action
certiorari, is considered proper to question the denial of a for certiorari, 47 it would still be dismissible for lack of merit.
motion to quash (or any other interlocutory order) in the An act of a court or tribunal may only be considered as
interest of a "more enlightened and substantial justice"; 42 or committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was
to promote public welfare and public policy; 43 or when the performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment,
cases "have attracted nationwide attention, making it which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
thereof";44 or when the order was rendered with grave abuse evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a
of discretion.45 Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to assail duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law,

DAZZLE DUTERTE 7
Taxation Case no. 48

as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic amended, which provides:
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. In this SEC. 220. Form and Mode of Proceeding in Actions Arising
connection, it is only upon showing that the court acted under this Code. - Civil and criminal actions and proceedings
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of instituted in behalf of the Government under the authority of
discretion that an interlocutory order such as that involved this Code or other law enforced by the Bureau of Internal
in this case may be impugned. Be that as it may, it must be Revenue shall be brought in the name of the Government of
emphasized that this practice is applied only under certain the Philippines and shall be conducted by legal officers of
exceptional circumstances to prevent unnecessary delay in the Bureau of Internal Revenue but no civil or criminal action
the administration of justice and so as not to unduly burden for the recovery of taxes or the enforcement of any fine,
the courts.48 penalty or forfeiture under this Code shall be filed in court
Certiorari is not available to correct errors of procedure or without the approval of the Commissioner.
mistakes in the judges findings and conclusions of law and Petitioners argument must fail in light of BIR Commissioner
fact. It is only in the presence of extraordinary Paraynos letter dated 19 May 2005 to DOJ Secretary
circumstances evincing a patent disregard of justice and fair Gonzales referring "for preliminary investigation and filing
play where resort to a petition for certiorari is proper. A of an information in court if evidence so warrants," the
party must not be allowed to delay litigation by the sheer findings of the BIR officers recommending the criminal
expediency of filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of prosecution of petitioner. In said letter, BIR Commissioner
the Revised Rules of Court based on scant allegations of Parayno already gave his prior approval to the filing of an
grave abuse.49 information in court should the DOJ, based on the evidence
A writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every submitted, find probable cause against petitioner during the
controversial interlocutory ruling: it is resorted to only to preliminary investigation. Section 220 of the NIRC, as
correct a grave abuse of discretion or a whimsical exercise amended, simply requires that the BIR Commissioner
of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Its function is approve the institution of civil or criminal action against a
limited to keeping an inferior court within its jurisdiction and tax law violator, but it does not describe in what form such
to relieve persons from arbitrary acts acts which courts or approval must be given. In this case, BIR Commissioner
judges have no power or authority in law to perform. It is not Paraynos letter of 19 May 2005 already states his express
designed to correct erroneous findings and conclusions approval of the filing of an information against petitioner
made by the courts.50 and his signature need not appear on the Resolution of the
The Petition for Review which petitioner intended to file State Prosecutor or the Information itself.
before the CTA en banc relied on two grounds: (1) the lack of Still on the purported lack of authority of Prosecution
authority of Prosecuting Attorney Torrevillas to file the Attorney Torrevillas to file the Information, petitioner asserts
Information; and (2) the filing of the said Information in that it is the City Prosecutor under the Quezon City Charter,
violation of petitioners constitutional rights to due process who has the authority to investigate and prosecute offenses
and equal protection of the laws. allegedly committed within the jurisdiction of Quezon City,
Anent the first ground, petitioner argues that the such as petitioners case.
Information was filed without the approval of the BIR The Court is not persuaded. Under Republic Act No. 537, the
Commissioner in violation of Section 220 of NIRC, as Revised Charter of Quezon City, the City Prosecutor shall

DAZZLE DUTERTE 8
Taxation Case no. 48

have the following duties relating to the investigation and commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer
prosecution of criminal offenses: the probation and correction system.53 Under the DOJ is the
SEC. 28. The City Attorney - His assistants - His duties. Office of the State Prosecutor whose functions are described
xxxx as follows:
(g) He shall also have charge of the prosecution of all Sec. 8. Office of the Chief State Prosecutor. - The Office of
crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of city ordinances, in the Chief State Prosecutor shall have the following functions:
the Court of First Instance and the municipal courts of the (1) Assist the Secretary in the performance of powers and
city, and shall discharge all the duties in respect to the functions of the Department relative to its role as the
criminal prosecutions enjoined by law upon provincial prosecution arm of the government;
fiscals. (2) Implement the provisions of laws, executive orders and
(h) He shall cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, rules, and carry out the policies, plans, programs and
misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances and have the projects of the Department relative to the investigation and
necessary information or complaints prepared or made prosecution of criminal cases;
against the persons accused. He or any of his assistants (3) Assist the Secretary in exercising supervision and control
may conduct such investigations by taking oral evidence of over the National Prosecution Service as constituted under
reputable witnesses, and for this purpose may issue P.D. No. 1275 and/or otherwise hereinafter provided; and
subpoena, summon witnesses to appear and testify under (4) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law
oath before him, and the attendance or evidence of an or assigned by the Secretary.54
absent or recalcitrant witness may be enforced by As explained by CTA First Division in its Resolution dated 11
application to the municipal court or the Court of First May 2006:
Instance. No witness summoned to testify under this section [T]he power or authority of the Chief State Prosecutor
shall be under obligation to give any testimony which tend Jovencito Zuo, Jr. and his deputies in the Department of
to incriminate himself. Justice to prosecute cases is national in scope; and the
Evident from the foregoing is that the City Prosecutor has Special Prosecutors authority to sign and file informations in
the power to investigate crimes, misdemeanors, and court proceeds from the exercise of said persons authority
violations of ordinances committed within the territorial to conduct preliminary investigations.55
jurisdiction of the city, and which can be prosecuted before Moreover, there is nothing in the Revised Quezon City
the trial courts of the said city. The charge against Charter which would suggest that the power of the City
petitioner, however, is already within the exclusive original Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute crimes,
jurisdiction of the CTA,51 as the Information states that her misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances committed
gross underdeclaration resulted in an income tax deficiency within the territorial jurisdiction of the city is to the exclusion
of P1,395,116.24, excluding interest and penalties. The City of the State Prosecutors. In fact, the Office of the State
Prosecutor does not have the authority to appear before the Prosecutor exercises control and supervision over City
CTA, which is now of the same rank as the Court of Appeals. Prosecutors under Executive Order No. 292, otherwise
In contrast, the DOJ is the principal law agency of the known as the Administrative Code of 1987.
Philippine government which shall be both its legal counsel As regards petitioners second ground in her intended
and prosecution arm.52 It has the power to investigate the Petition for Review with the CTA en banc, she asserts that

DAZZLE DUTERTE 9
Taxation Case no. 48

she has been denied due process and equal protection of denied equal protection of the laws.
the laws when similar charges for violation of the NIRC, as The equal protection clause exists to prevent undue favor or
amended, against Regina Encarnacion A. Velasquez privilege. It is intended to eliminate discrimination and
(Velasquez) were dismissed by the DOJ in its Resolution oppression based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of
dated 10 August 2005 in I.S. No. 2005-330 for the reason real differences among men, the equal protection clause
that Velasquezs tax liability was not yet fully determined does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that
when the charges were filed. all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances
The Court is unconvinced. and conditions, both as to the privileges conferred and
First, a motion to quash should be based on a defect in the liabilities enforced.59
information which is evident on its face. 56 The same cannot Petitioner was not able to duly establish to the satisfaction
be said herein. The Information against petitioner appears of this Court that she and Velasquez were indeed similarly
valid on its face; and that it was filed in violation of her situated, i.e., that they committed identical acts for which
constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of they were charged with the violation of the same provisions
the laws is not evident on the face thereof. As pointed out of the NIRC; and that they presented similar arguments and
by the CTA First Division in its 11 May 2006 Resolution, the evidence in their defense - yet, they were treated differently.
more appropriate recourse petitioner should have taken, Furthermore, that the Prosecution Attorney dismissed what
given the dismissal of similar charges against Velasquez, were supposedly similar charges against Velasquez did not
was to appeal the Resolution dated 21 October 2005 of the compel Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas to rule the same
Office of the State Prosecutor recommending the filing of an way on the charges against petitioner. In People v. Dela
information against her with the DOJ Secretary. 57 Piedra,60 this Court explained that:
Second, petitioner cannot claim denial of due process when The prosecution of one guilty person while others equally
she was given the opportunity to file her affidavits and other guilty are not prosecuted, however, is not, by itself, a denial
pleadings and submit evidence before the DOJ during the of the equal protection of the laws. Where the official action
preliminary investigation of her case and before the purports to be in conformity to the statutory classification,
Information was filed against her. Due process is merely an an erroneous or mistaken performance of the statutory duty,
opportunity to be heard. In addition, preliminary although a violation of the statute, is not without more a
investigation conducted by the DOJ is merely inquisitorial. It denial of the equal protection of the laws. The unlawful
is not a trial of the case on the merits. Its sole purpose is to administration by officers of a statute fair on its face,
determine whether a crime has been committed and resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled
whether the respondent therein is probably guilty of the to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless
crime. It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional
display of the parties evidence. Hence, if the investigating or purposeful discrimination. This may appear on the face of
prosecutor is already satisfied that he can reasonably the action taken with respect to a particular class or person,
determine the existence of probable cause based on the or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a
parties evidence thus presented, he may terminate the discriminatory design over another not to be inferred from
proceedings and resolve the case.58 the action itself. But a discriminatory purpose is not
Third, petitioner cannot likewise aver that she has been presumed, there must be a showing of "clear and

DAZZLE DUTERTE 1
0
Taxation Case no. 48

intentional discrimination." Appellant has failed to show heinous crimes and the enforcement of law would suffer a
that, in charging appellant in court, that there was a "clear complete breakdown. (Emphasis ours.)
and intentional discrimination" on the part of the In the case at bar, no evidence of a clear and intentional
prosecuting officials. discrimination against petitioner was shown, whether by
The discretion of who to prosecute depends on the Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas in recommending the filing
prosecutions sound assessment whether the evidence of Information against petitioner or by the CTA First Division
before it can justify a reasonable belief that a person has in denying petitioners Motion to Quash. The only basis for
committed an offense. The presumption is that the petitioners claim of denial of equal protection of the laws
prosecuting officers regularly performed their duties, was the dismissal of the charges against Velasquez while
and this presumption can be overcome only by proof those against her were not.
to the contrary, not by mere speculation. Indeed, And lastly, the Resolutions of the CTA First Division dated 23
appellant has not presented any evidence to overcome this February 2006 and 11 May 2006 directly addressed the
presumption. The mere allegation that appellant, a arguments raised by petitioner in her Motion to Quash and
Cebuana, was charged with the commission of a crime, Motion for Reconsideration, respectively, and explained the
while a Zamboanguea, the guilty party in appellants eyes, reasons for the denial of both Motions. There is nothing to
was not, is insufficient to support a conclusion that the sustain a finding that these Resolutions were rendered
prosecution officers denied appellant equal protection of the capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily, as to constitute
laws. grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
There is also common sense practicality in sustaining jurisdiction.
appellants prosecution. In sum, the CTA en banc did not err in denying petitioners
While all persons accused of crime are to be treated Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.
on a basis of equality before the law, it does not Petitioner cannot file a Petition for Review with the CTA en
follow that they are to be protected in the banc to appeal the Resolution of the CTA First Division
commission of crime. It would be unconscionable, for denying her Motion to Quash. The Resolution is interlocutory
instance, to excuse a defendant guilty of murder because and, thus, unappealable. Even if her Petition for Review is to
others have murdered with impunity. The remedy for be treated as a petition for certiorari, it is dismissible for
unequal enforcement of the law in such instances lack of merit.
does not lie in the exoneration of the guilty at the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for
expense of society x x x. Protection of the law will be Review is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
extended to all persons equally in the pursuit of their lawful SO ORDERED.
occupations, but no person has the right to demand
protection of the law in the commission of a crime.
Likewise, [i]f the failure of prosecutors to enforce the
criminal laws as to some persons should be converted into a
defense for others charged with crime, the result would be
that the trial of the district attorney for nonfeasance would
become an issue in the trial of many persons charged with

DAZZLE DUTERTE 1
1