PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARTIN Q. CANDIDO, New Time Saver Construction Corp.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA Criminal Case No. 0-215 Plaintiff For: Vio. Of Sec 108 (A) of NIRC PHILIPPINES, of 1997, as amended - versus- Members: MARTIN Q. CANDIDO, MANAHAN, Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and New Time Saver Construction Room 201 Eugenio Bldg., #63 Paso De ANGELES,JL Blas, Valenzuela City, (AT LARGE) Promul~ated : Accused. AUG 0 6 2024 x-------- - ----------------------- ~ ----- ~- : ~~~~~ ---x RESOLUTION On July 11, 2011, an Information was filed against accused Martin Q . Candido, charging him for violation of Section 108 (A) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. The accusatory portion of which states: That on or about November 25, 2005, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this H onorable Court, the above-nam ed accu sed, in his capacity as Vice President of New Time Saver Corporation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail and refuse to pay tax liabilities the amount of P1,493,244.25 as deficiency business tax (VAT) for the year 2002 despite receipt of assessment notice and demand to pay said deficiency taxes from the commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Contrary To Law. This case merits dismissal.

RESOLUTION CTA Criminal Case No. 0 -215 Page 2 of3 Section 7(b)(l) of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282, reads: Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise: b. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided: 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (Pl ,OOO,OOO.OO) or w here there is no specified amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate....1 Relatedly, Section 3(b)(l), Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA)3 clarified that the CTA in Division possesses exclusive original jurisdiction over tax criminal offenses, provided the following conditions concur: first, the offense charged pertains to, among others, violation of the NIRC; and second, the principal amount of taxes and fees claimed, exclusive of charges and penalties is at least Pl,OOO,OOO.OO. In turn, the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. Once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. 4 Indeed, the Information charged accused for v iolation of Section 108 (A) of the NIRC. Stated therein is that the amount of the alleged deficiency business tax due for the taxable year 2002 was ~1,493,244,.25. Yet, these averments hardly suffice to bestow the Boldfacing supplied. 2 SECTION 3. Cases Within tile ]11risdiction of the Court in Divisions. - The Cou rt in Divisions shall exercise: (b) Exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving crimina l offenses, to wit: I I I (1) Original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Inte rnal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administe red by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is one million pesos or more; ... Boldfacing supplied. 3 A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA. Cabral v. Bracamonte, G.R. No. 233174, Janua ry 23, 2019.

RESOLUTION CTA Criminal Case N o. o �-215 Court with jurisdiction over CTA Crim. Case No. 215. The Information failed to expressly state that the amount of F1,493,244,.25, pertaining to the principal amount of taxes and fees, is exclusive of charges and penalties as mandated by Section 7(b)(1) of RA No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282, in relation to Section 3(b)(1), Rule 4 of the RRCTA. In sum, the allegations in the prosecution's Information failed to demonstrate the Court's jurisdiction over this case. For this reason, dismissal of CTA Criminal Case No. 0-215 is in order. WHEREFORE, CTA Criminal Case No. 0-215 is withdrawn from the archives and accordingly DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. ~�?: CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ~~f. 'RnA~A-r~ MARIAN iv~F. REY'1Ps~FAJJ{Rno Associate Justice HENRY /.l;NGELES Associate Justice