G.R. No.

176317 July 23, 2014

FACTS: Zafra (petitioner) was the only Revenue Collection Agent of the BIR of San Fernando La Union from 1993-1995 on July 6,
1995. An audit was conducted on the cash and non-cash accountability of Zafra. After thorough examination of documents,
there was a discrepancy for a total of P614,151.93. The audit team required Zafra to restitute the missing amount but Zafra did
not comply. Thus, 18 cases for malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents was filed against him and
found guilty thereof. On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of Zafra and further opined that he should also be guilty of
malversation through negligence.
The petitioner contends that the RTC and the CA erroneously convicted him of several counts of malversation of public
funds through falsification of public documents on the basis of the finding that he had been negligent in the performance of his
duties as Revenue District Officer; that the acts imputed to him did not constitute negligence; and that he could not be
convicted of intentional malversation and malversation through negligence at the same time.

ISSUE: Whether or not Zafra may be convicted of intentional malversation and malversation through negligence at the same
time.

RULING: Yes. Even if it were assumed that the findings by the CA warranted his being guilty only of malversation through
negligence, the Court would not be barred from holding him liable for the intentional crime of malversation of public funds
through falsification of public documents because his appealing the convictions kept the door ajar for an increase in his liability.
It is axiomatic that by appealing he waived the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, leaving him open to being
convicted of whatever crimes the Court would ultimately conclude from the records to have been actually committed by him
within the terms of the allegations in the informations under which he had been arraigned.

G.R. No. 196508 September 24, 2014

FACTS: Amelia Chan married Leon Basilio Chua. During the subsistence of his marriage to Amelia, Chua, this time under the
name of Leonardo A. Villalon, allegedly contracted a second marriage with Erlinda Talde that took place on June 2, 1993. Amelia,
who was then living in the United States and could not personally file a case for bigamy in the Philippines, requested Benito Yao
Chua and Wilson Go to commence the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. A verified complaint-affidavit alleging the
commission of the crime of bigamy was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor in Antipolo. Consequently, an Information
was filed with the RTC. On arraignment, the petitioners pleaded not guilty.
During the pre-trial, Atty. Apollo V. Atencia appeared in behalf of Amelia, the private offended party. Leonardo filed an
omnibus motion with the RTC seeking to disqualify Atty. Atencia. Amelia opposed the omnibus motion, while the public
prosecutor joined the petitioners in disqualifying Atty. Atencia from appearing in the case. The RTC granted Leonardo’s omnibus
motion. Trial of the case ensued thereafter. Amelia filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA. The petition was
granted and annulled the order disqualifying Atty. Atencia to intervene in the case. : Petitioners argue that the CA gravely erred
when it ruled that: the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its March 3, 2006 resolution disqualifying Atty.
Atencia as private prosecutor, and that Atty. Atencia’s disqualification violatedthe respondent’s rights to intervene and be heard
in the bigamy case. They contend that, even with Atty. Atencia’s disqualification, the respondent was never denied her right to
participate in the proceedings and was even called to stand as a witness but the respondent never appeared before the court
because she was out of the country during the whole proceedings on the bigamy case.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Atencia’s disqualification violated the respondent’s rights to intervene and be heard in the bigamy
case.

RULING: YES. Section 16 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly allows an offended party to intervene
by counsel in the prosecution of the offense for the recovery of civil liability where the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense charged is instituted with the criminal action. The civil action shall be deemed instituted with
the criminal action, except when the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separatelyor
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
In this case, the CA found no such waiver from or reservation made by the respondent. The fact that the respondent,
who was already based abroad, had secured the services of an attorney in the Philippines reveals her willingness and interest to
participate in the prosecution of the bigamy case and to recover civil liability from the petitioners. Thus, the RTC should have
allowed, and should not have disqualified, Atty. Atencia from intervening in the bigamy case as the respondent, being the
offended party, is afforded by law the right to participate through counsel in the prosecution of the offense with respect to the
civil aspect of the case.

G.R. No. 197590 November 24, 2014

FACTS: Antonio Manly (respondent) is a stockholder and Exec. VP of Standard Realty Corporation,a family-owned corporation.
The BIR issued Letter of Authority to investigate spouses’ internal revenue tax liabilities for taxable year 2003 and prior years.
The CIR issued a letter to spouses requiring to submit documentary evidence to substantiate source of cash purchase of a 256-
sqm log cabin in Tagaytay worth P17,511,010.00. Spouses failed to comply with the letter. The Revenue officers executed a joint
affidavit alleging that respondent’s reported annual income is modest (more or less P150,000.00 a year) but the spouses were
able to purchase in cash a luxurious vacation house, a Toyota Rav4, and a Toyota Prado. Hence, the Revenue officers concluded
that respondent’s ITRs for 2000, 2001 and 2003 were underdeclared.
Since the under declaration exceeded 30% of the reported or declared income, it was considered a prima facie evidence
of fraud with intent to evade the payment of proper taxes due to the government. The Revenue officers recommended the filing
of criminal complaints (tax evasion etc.) against spouses for failing to supply correct info in ITR. The spouses denied the
accusations alleging that they used their accumulated savings from their earnings from the past years. CIR also failed to issue
deficiency assessment. The State Prosecutor found probable cause. On appeal the CA found no no probable cause because the
CIR failed to state exact tax liability and to show sufficient proof of their likely source of income. The CA further said that before
one could be prosecuted for tax evasion, the fact that a tax is due must first be proved.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is probable cause to indict respondent spouses for tax evasion.

RULING: YES. The amount of tax due from respondent spouses was specifically alleged in the Complaint-Affidavit. The
computation, as well as the method used in determining the tax liability, was also clearly explained. The revenue officers
likewise showed that the under declaration exceeded 30% of the reported or declared income.
Respondent spouses’ defense that they had sufficient savings to purchase the properties remains self-serving at this
point since they have not yet presented any evidence to support this. Moreover, by just looking at the tables presented by
petitioner, there is a manifest showing that respondent spouses had under declared their income. The huge disparity between
respondent Antonio’s reported or declared annual income for the past several years and respondent spouses’ cash acquisitions
for the years 2000, 2001, and 2003 cannot be ignored. Infact, it makes uswonder how they were able to purchase the properties
in cash given respondent Antonio’s meager income.
In view of the foregoing, the SC is convinced that there is probable cause to indict respondent spouses for tax evasion as
petitioner was able to show that a tax is due from them. Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, is defined
as such facts that are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, that the accused is probably
guilty thereof, and that he should be held for trial. It bears stressing that the determination of probable cause does not require
actual or absolute certainty, nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt; it only requires reasonable belief or probability that
more likely than not a crime has been committed by the accused.