JUDY ANNE SANTOS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

-

 JUDY ANNE L. SANTOS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

G.R. NO. 173176 : August 26, 2008. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Topic: Judicial Remedies in Detail (Section 220, NIRC) > Period within which the action may be filed > Where should these cases be filed.

Doctrine:

FACTS: Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Parayno, Jr. wrote to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Raul M. Gonzales a letter[5] regarding the possible filing of criminal charges against petitioner. In his letter he referred for preliminary investigation and filing of an information in court if evidence so warrants, the Joint Affidavit from the National Investigation Division recommending the criminal prosecution of MS. JUDY ANNE LUMAGUI SANTOS for substantial under declaration 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.

Prosecution Attorney issued a Resolution finding probable cause and recommending the filing of a criminal information against petitioner. An information was filed before the Court of Tax Appeals.

The CTA First Division issued in 2005 a warrant for the arrest of petitioner. The tax court lifted and recalled the warrant of arrest in 2005 after petitioner voluntarily appeared and submitted herself to its jurisdiction and filed the required bail bond in the amount of P20,000.00.

Petitioner filed with the CTA First Division a Motion to Quash. CTA First Division in its resolution, denied petitioner's Motion to Quash and accordingly scheduled her arraignment. Petitioner filed with the CTA en banc a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review. CTA En Banc denied the petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review for lack of merit.

ISSUE: Whether a resolution of a CTA division denying a motion to quash is a proper subject of an appeal to the CTA en banc under section 11 of RA no. 9282, amending section 18 of RA no. 1125.

Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125,25 as amended by Republic Act No. 9282,26 provides:

SEC. 18. Appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc. - No civil proceedings involving matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code, the Tariff and Customs Code or the Local Government Code shall be maintained, except as herein provided, until and unless an appeal has been previously filed with the CTA and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act. A party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of the CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may file a Petition for Review with the CTA en banc.

HELD: No. The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order which is not the proper subject of an appeal or a petition for certiorari .

Although the filing of a Petition for Review with the CTA en banc from a decision, resolution, or order of the CTA Division, was newly made available to the CTA, such mode of appeal has long been available in Philippine courts of general jurisdiction. Hence, the Revised CTA Rules no longer elaborated on it but merely referred to existing rules of procedure on petitions for review and appeals,

According to Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, governing appeals from the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) to the Court of Appeals, an appeal may be taken only from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case or of a matter therein when declared by the Rules to be appealable. Said provision, thus, explicitly states that no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order.

It is also a recognized reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment, and not from an interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency of the appeal. If such appeal were allowed, the trial on the merits of the case would necessarily be delayed for a considerable length of time, and compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses, for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as incidental questions may be raised by him, and interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court.37

There is no dispute that a court order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory. The denial of the motion to quash means that the criminal information remains pending with the court, which must proceed with the trial to determine whether the accused is guilty of the crime charged therein. Equally settled is the rule that an order denying a motion to quash, being interlocutory, is not immediately appealable, nor can it be the subject of a Petition for Certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial.

Instant Petition for Review is DENIED.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

GOCHAN vs. YOUNG

-
  VIRGINIA O. GOCHAN , FELIX Y. GOCHAN III, MAEGOCHANEFANN, LOUISE Y. GOCHAN, ESTEBAN Y.GOCHAN, JR., DOMINIC Y. GOCHAN, FELIX O. GOCHAN III,MERCEDES R. GOCHAN, ALFREDO R. GOCHAN, ANGELINAR. GOCHAN-HERNAEZ, MARIA MERCED R. GOCHAN,CRISPO R. GOCHAN, JR., MARION R. GOCHAN, MACTANREALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and FELIXGOCHAN & SONS REALTY CORPORATION, petitioners, vs.  RICHARD G. YOUNG , DAVID G. YOUNG, JANE G. YOUNG-LLABAN, JOHN D. YOUNG, JR., MARY G. YOUNG-HSU andALEXANDER THOMAS G. YOUNG as heirs of Alice Gochan; theINTESTATE ESTATE OF JOHN D. YOUNG, SR.; and CECILIA GOCHAN-UY and MIGUEL C. UY, for themselves and on behalf and for the benefit of FELIX GOCHAN & SONS REALTYCORPORATION, respondents. G.R. No. 131889. March 12, 2001. PANGANIBAN, J. Topic:  Piercing the veil of corporate fiction Principles/Doctrines:  The notion of corporate entity will be pierced or disregarded and the individuals composing it will be treated as identical if the corporate entity is...
Read more

ARNOLD HALL vs. PICCIO

-
ARNOLD HALL  and BRADLEY P. HALL, petitioners, vs. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO , Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, FRED BROWN, EMMA BROWN, HIPOLITA CAPUCIONG, in his capacity as receiver of the Far Eastern Lumber and Commercial Co., Inc., respondents. G.R. No. L-2598. June 29, 1950. BENGZON, J.   Topic:  Classification of Corporation as to Legal Status. De Facto Corporation   FACTS:   The petitioners  C. Arnold Hall and Bradley P. Hall, and the respondents  Fred Brown, Emma Brown, Hipolita D. Chapman and Ceferino S. Abella, signed and acknowledged in Leyte , the article of incorporation of the Far Eastern Lumber and Commercial Co., Inc. , organized to engage in a general lumber business to carry on as general contractors, operators and managers.   Immediately after the execution of said articles of incorporation, the corporation proceeded to do business with the adoption of by-laws and the election of its officers.  On December 2, 1947, th...
Read more

PEO-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC AND ELAMPARO

-
POE-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC AND ELAMPARO G.R.NO. 221697. MARCH 2016 FACTS: Grace Poe was found in a church in Iloilo sometime in 1968. The children of the who found her reported the incident before the Local Civil Registrar. It was named as Mary Grace Militar. She was subsequently adopted by Fernando Peo Jr. and Susan Roces sometime in 1974. In year 2006, a Certificate of Live Birth in the name of Mary Grace Poe was issued by the Civil Registrar of Iloilo. At the age oof 18 Poe was registered as a voter of San Juan. She married to Teodoro Llamanzares and flew to U.S.A after the wedding. In 2001, Poe became naturalized American Citizen. In 2004, Peo come back to the Philippines to support her father’s candidacy. She then returned to U.S. After learning of her father’s deteriorating condition, Poe returned within the same year. Because she wanted to be with her grieving mother, she and her husband decided to move and reside permanently in the Philippine in year 2005....
Read more