People vs. Ligot

A petition for certiorari assailing a judgment of acquittal rendered by a CTA Division in a criminal tax case must be filed with the CTA En Banc, not directly with the Supreme Court, consistent with the principle of hierarchy of courts. Even if the petition were properly lodged, an acquittal is reviewable by certiorari only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction — such as a denial of due process or a sham trial — and not for mere errors in the evaluation of evidence or in the appreciation of the probative weight of the prosecution’s proofs.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) investigated Jacinto C. Ligot, a former military comptroller, and his wife Erlinda Y. Ligot for possible tax violations after discovering acquisitions of real properties, vehicles, and bank deposits that far exceeded the modest incomes declared in their joint income tax returns (ITRs) and Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs). The National Investigation Division (NID) of the BIR constructed a theory that the unexplained excess represented undeclared income, leading to the filing of four criminal Informations before the Court of Tax Appeals — one for failure to supply correct and accurate information under Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) for taxable year 2001, and three for attempt to evade or defeat tax under Section 254 of the NIRC for taxable years 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Charges and Alleged Underdeclarations: The Informations alleged that for taxable year 2001, the spouses failed to supply correct and accurate information in their joint ITR, reporting only P188,895.80 in compensation income while omitting other income of P41,854,181.57, resulting in a deficiency income tax of P43,933,223.73. For 2002, 2003, and 2004, they were charged with willfully attempting to evade tax by failing to report aggregate other incomes of P103,601,281.22, P165,367,784.39, and P148,955,700.14, respectively, with corresponding deficiency taxes exceeding P100 million per year.

Prosecution’s Evidence: The NID-BIR audit team identified real and personal properties allegedly acquired by the spouses or through third parties during the relevant years: a 14.34-hectare parcel in Malaybalay City (Piana Properties); a parcel in Tanay, Rizal (Tanay Property) purchased for P2,000,000; two condominium units and a parking slot in Paseo Parkview Tower 2 (in the name of Jacinto’s sister Miguela); improvements on farmland in Imbayao, Malaybalay, costing P5,199,296.26; a condominium unit in Essensa East Forbes worth P22,954,545.45; a property in Anaheim, California for $322,181; an Orange County, California property for $599,500; a Malaybalay City property in the name of the spouses’ daughter Riza; and a Toyota Hilux registered in the name of their son Paolo. The prosecution also cited bank deposits, investments, and amortization payments detailed in an AMLC Investigation Report, showing total unexplained expenditures and deposits for both spouses that far exceeded their declared ITR incomes.

Exclusion of Bank Evidence: The CTA Third Division denied the prosecution’s ex parte motion for subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum directed at bank officials, holding that producing the spouses’ bank records would violate Republic Act Nos. 1405, 6426, and 8367. The CTA also suppressed and struck from the record the testimony and judicial affidavit of AMLC Officer Villar, ruling that the bank documents he referred to were not originals and did not fall within exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule, and that admitting them would contravene RA 1405. The CTA further held that the exceptions to bank secrecy laws could not be extended to tax evasion cases.

Defense Evidence (Tanay Property): Defense witnesses testified that the Tanay Property was purchased by a group of around 50 military officers who pooled their money. Violeta Melendres, the seller, executed a single Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Jacinto as representative of all buyers. Col. Ruben Clarito collected individual contributions and issued receipts. A subdivision survey was conducted, but processing of individual titles was halted pending reclassification of the land from agricultural to residential.

CTA’s Factual Findings on Specific Properties: The CTA found that the prosecution failed to establish ownership or authentication of the following: - Piana Properties: Paolo Ligot did not sign the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale. - Paseo Parkview Tower 2 Properties: No documentary evidence traced the check payments to the spouses’ bank accounts. - Toyota Hilux: The testimony that would have shown Jacinto’s ownership was not formally offered. - Imbayao Farm Improvements: The tax declarations were merely stamped “Certified Photocopy of the Record” by a Sandiganbayan clerk of court, not by the City Assessor, and thus were not authenticated as public records. - Malaybalay Property: The tax declaration was never formally offered. - Essensa Property: The condominium certificate of title and sale document were not presented or identified by the custodian. - Orange County Property: The foreign documents were unauthenticated photocopies; even as private documents, their due execution and authenticity were not proved under Section 20, Rule 132. - Tanay Property: An implied trust existed between Jacinto and his co-buyers; the evidence cast doubt on the claim that Jacinto paid for the entire property with undeclared income.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Evaluating Evidence: Petitioner maintained that the CTA Third Division blatantly disregarded evidence showing that accused-respondents had undeclared income and concealed real properties that were likely sources of income, thereby committing grave abuse of discretion.

• Reviewability of Acquittal via Certiorari: Petitioner argued that a judgment of acquittal may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, by way of exception, upon a clear showing that the court a quo acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or denied the prosecution due process.

• Double Jeopardy Bar: Accused-respondents contended that double jeopardy had already attached upon their acquittal by the CTA and that the finality of the acquittal barred further review.

• Absence of Grave Abuse of Discretion: They argued that the petition failed to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CTA Third Division, as the acquittal was rendered after a full trial where the prosecution was given the opportunity to present its evidence.

• Propriety of Direct Resort to the Supreme Court: Whether the petition for certiorari should have been filed first with the CTA En Banc, consistent with the principle of hierarchy of courts.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the CTA Third Division acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in acquitting accused-respondents of the offenses charged.

• Propriety of Direct Resort to the Supreme Court: The petition was dismissed at the outset for violating the principle of hierarchy of courts. Section 2(f), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the CTA vests in the CTA En Banc exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions, resolutions, or orders of a CTA Division in criminal cases arising from violations of the NIRC. That appellate jurisdiction includes the authority to issue a writ of certiorari, which is inherent in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, as settled in City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo. No distinction is drawn by the rule between judgments of conviction and acquittal. Thus, a Rule 65 petition assailing a CTA Division’s acquittal must be lodged with the CTA En Banc; only after the En Banc has ruled may a party adversely affected appeal to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Even if the petition were properly filed, it lacked merit. The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy bars an appeal from a judgment of acquittal. Although an acquittal may be reviewed through a special civil action for certiorari, this remedy is available only upon a clear showing that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction — for instance, when the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or the trial was a sham. Petitioner merely questioned the CTA’s appreciation of evidence and its conclusion that the prosecution’s proofs were insufficient and legally inadmissible. An error in the evaluation of evidence is an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction, and cannot be remedied by certiorari. The CTA’s findings that the prosecution failed to authenticate crucial documents, that many exhibits were excluded under bank secrecy laws, and that the evidence did not establish ownership of the listed properties, demonstrated that the acquittal was the product of a considered judicial determination — not of a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of power. To reexamine the evidence would be to permit an appeal of an acquittal and would violate the respondents’ right against double jeopardy.

• Hierarchy of Courts in CTA Criminal Cases — Under Section 2(f), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the CTA, the CTA En Banc has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions, resolutions, or orders of a CTA Division in criminal offenses arising from violations of the NIRC. This jurisdiction includes the power to issue writs of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. A party seeking to annul a CTA Division’s judgment of acquittal must first file a Rule 65 petition with the CTA En Banc; filing directly with the Supreme Court violates the hierarchy of courts.

• Certiorari Jurisdiction of the CTA — The authority of the CTA to issue writs of certiorari is inherent in its appellate jurisdiction, as affirmed in City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo. The constitutional mandate that judicial power includes the duty to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion supports the CTA’s power to issue such writs in cases within its exclusive appellate cognizance. No split jurisdiction between the CTA and the regular courts may be countenanced.

• Double Jeopardy and Review of Acquittals — A judgment of acquittal is final and cannot be appealed without placing the accused twice in jeopardy. The sole exception is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which lies only when the prosecution proves that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as denying the prosecution its day in court or conducting a sham trial. An error in the weighing of evidence or in the assessment of its probative value is a mere error of judgment, not jurisdictional error, and remains insulated from review.

• “The prevailing doctrine is that the authority to issue writs of certiorari involves the exercise of original jurisdiction which must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or by law and cannot be implied from the mere existence of appellate jurisdiction. … On the strength of the above constitutional provisions, it can be fairly interpreted that the power of the CTA includes that of determining whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in issuing an interlocutory order in cases falling within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the tax court. It, thus, follows that the CTA, by constitutional mandate, is vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in these cases.” (Rationale for the CTA’s certiorari powers)

• “[A]ny error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari.” (Core distinction between error of jurisdiction and error of judgment)

• “It is an ‘anathema to the orderly administration of justice’ if there will be a split jurisdiction between the CTA En Banc and the Court over petitions for certiorari.” (On avoiding split jurisdiction)

• City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo, 726 Phil. 9 (2014) — The Court relied on this case as the doctrinal anchor for the CTA’s inherent power to issue writs of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, and extended its rationale to criminal cases.
• CE Casecnan Water and Energy Co., Inc. v. The Province of Nueva Ecija, 760 Phil. 835 (2015) — Followed, affirming the CTA’s exclusive jurisdiction over certiorari petitions assailing interlocutory orders in local tax cases.
• The Philippine American Life and General Insurance Co. v. Secretary of Finance, 747 Phil. 811 (2014) — Cited for the proposition that City of Manila marked a departure from earlier rulings and recognized the CTA’s certiorari power by implication.
• People v. Ting, G.R. No. 221505, December 5, 2018 — Applied for the requisites of double jeopardy and the narrow exception permitting review of an acquittal via certiorari on grounds of grave abuse of discretion.
• First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, 553 Phil. 526 (2007) — Cited for the rule that an error in the evaluation of evidence is an error of judgment not correctible by certiorari.

• Section 2(f), Rule 4, Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (A.M. No. 04-11-07-CTA) — Confers upon the CTA En Banc exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions, resolutions, or orders of a CTA Division in criminal cases arising from violations of the NIRC. Applied to require that the Rule 65 petition be filed with the CTA En Banc, not the Supreme Court.
• Sections 254 and 255, National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended — The substantive provisions under which accused-respondents were charged (attempt to evade or defeat tax; failure to supply correct and accurate information).
• Section 21, Article III, 1987 Constitution — The double jeopardy clause, which barred petitioner from appealing the acquittal absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion.
• Republic Act No. 1405 (Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act), R.A. No. 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposit Act), R.A. No. 8367 (Revised Non-Stock Savings and Loan Association Act of 1997) — Bank secrecy laws that the CTA invoked to exclude the AMLC report and related bank documents, holding that their exceptions do not extend to tax evasion prosecutions.
• Sections 7, 20, and 24, Rules 130 and 132, 1997 Rules of Court — Evidentiary provisions on the proof of public records, private documents, and foreign official records, which the CTA applied in excluding or discounting numerous prosecution exhibits for lack of proper authentication.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Gaerlan, and Singh, JJ., concurred. Dimaampao, J., on official leave.

N/A — There were no dissenting opinions.