PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMELINO T. MAESTRO

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-661 Plaintiff, Members: -versus- CASTANEDA, JR., Chairperson, CASANOVA, and MANAHAN,].]. Promulgated: EMELINO T. MAESTRO, MAY 2 4 Z018 / ~ r/ Accused. ~:~ ;-~- )(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -)( RESOLUTION For resolution of this Court is accused's Motion to Quash1 filed on March 23, 2018, sans plaintiff's Comment as per Records Verification dated April 24, 2018. Citing the cases of Francisco S. Tatad vs. The Sandiganbayan, et. a/.,2 and Casiano A. Angchangco, jr. vs. The Honorable Ombudsman, et. a/.,3 accused moves to quash the Information4 filed against him on February 5, 2018, due to alleged inordinate delay of more than si)( (6) years from the filing of the initial complaint until the filing of the Information before the Court of Ta)( Appeals (CTA). Accordingly, he suffered prejudice and his reputation as professional Certified Public Accountant and public speaker, in relation to his crusade and advocacy for ta)( accounting, was besmirched. To prove the same, accused narrates that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), through Chief Revenue Officer Neil U. Cordero and Revenue Officer Eulema DV Demadura, filed a Joint Complaint Affidavit before the Department of Justice (DOJ) Ta)( Force of BIRon October 13, 2011; that accused filed his Counter Affidavit on February 3, 2012; that 1 Docket (Vol. II), pp . 598-602. 2 G.R. No. 72335 -39, March 21, 1988. 3 G.R. No. 122728, February 13, 1997. 4 Docket (Vol. 1), pp . 6-7.

RESOLUTION CTA Criminal Case No. 0-661 the aforesaid complainants filed their Joint Reply-Affidavit on February 3, 2012; that accused filed a Motion for Speedy Resolution on February 20, 2013; that DOJ issued a Resolution dated July 24, 2017 on August 4, 2017, finding probable cause against him; that after more than 6 years from the filing of the initiatory complaint, the DOJ filed an Information dated July 24, 2017 before the CTA on February 5, 2018. We find the Motion meritorious. Section 16, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that "(a)ll persons shall have a right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies." In this accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious action from all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice. The need for a speedy disposition of cases is more pronounced in criminal cases since what is at stake is the honor, reputation and life of the accused. Thus, in determining whether the accused has been denied of his/her right to a speedy disposition of his/her case, the following factors may be considered and balanced: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay.5 Below is the summary of the proceedings conducted and pleadings filed based on the records attached to the Information and the subject Motion: April14, 2008 Accused filed his Annual Income Tax Return for July 29, 2010 2007 with no entries thereon other than the notation "THIS IS A TENTATIVE RETURN FINAL & ADJUSTED RETURN INCLUDING TAX BASED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SHALL BE FILED AS SOON AS THEY BECAME AVAILABLE"6. A Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 2009 00044654 dated July 15, 2010 was issued authorizing Revenue Officers (RO) F. Madrid, S. Bahia, R. Yanguas and A. Alaan to examine accused's records from taxable years 2007 to 2009.7 5 Francisco Dela Pefia, et al., vs. The Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, the Special Prosecutor and Commission on Audit, Region XI, G.R. No. 144542, June 29, 2001. 6 Par. 6, Joint Complaint-Affidavit, Docket (Vol. 1), p. 80 and pp. 84-86. 7 Ibid., p. 439.

RESOLUTION CTA Criminal Case No. 0-661 Page 3 of8 September 14, LOA No. 032-2010-00000292 was issued 2010 authorizing (RO) Flaviano Madrid, Socrates Bahia, Renato Yanguas, Aldwin Alaan and GS- Charlito August 16, 2011 Samson to examine accused's records from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009 (replacing LOA dated August 17,2011 July 16, 2010.8 October 13, 2011 A Memorandum was issued by Regional Director Alfredo V. Misajon to Mr. Neil U. Cordero, OIC-Chief, October 28, 2011 Special Investigation Division, to ascertain if there November 14, is a factual and legal basis to warrant the inclusion 2011 of the accused's case to the RATE Program.9 November 14, OIC Chief Cordero instructed Revenue Officer E. 2011 Demadura and Group Supervisor J. Tabora to verify November 16, and make a report on the accused's tax case.1o 2011 Commissioner of Internal Revenue Kim S. Jacinto- Henares referred to Secretary of Justice Leila De November 22, Lima the Joint Complaint Affidavit of Chief Revenue 2011 Officer Cordero and Revenue officer Demadura for November 28, preliminary investigation and filing of Information a_gainst the accused.11 Accused requested the BIR, among others, to provide him with photocopies of his 2007, 2008, 2008, 2009 tax docket.12 Accused requested the BIR, among others, to provide him with photocopies of his 2007, 2008, 2008, 2009 tax docket. 13 Accused filed a letter to the Office of Ombudsman invokingthe writ of amparo or habeas data.14 OIC Regional Director Simplicio A. Madulara sent a letter to the accused, in reference to the accused's letter dated October 28, 2011 and November 14, 2011, informing the latter that there is a pending case against him at DOJ. 15 Prosecutor Attorney Monica T. Liwag issued a subpoena requiring the accused to appear on December 1, 2011 for the preliminary investigation of his case.16 Accused filed before the DOJ a Motion to Suspend 8 Jd., p. 454. 9 Jd., p. 93. 10 ld., p. 94. 11 ld., pp. 77-83. 12 As per November 16, 2011 Letter of OIC Regional Director Simplicio A. Madulara to the accused, Jd., p. 46. 13 As per November 16, 2011 Letter of OIC Regional Director Simplicio A. Madulara to the accused, Id., p. 46. 14 ld., pp. 56-67. 15 ld., p. 46. 16 ld., p. 55.

RESOLUTION CTA Criminal case No. 0-661 Page 4 of8 2011 the Preliminary Investigation and Subpoena the Official Documents from the BIR officials. He also December 1, prayed that the hearing on December 1, 2011 be 2011 reset to December 16, 2011.17 December 2, A Hearing was held but the accused was not 2011 present. Thus, the hearing was reset on December December 15, 15, 2011. 2011 Prosecutor Attorney Liwanag issued a subpoena directing the accused to appear on December 15, December 24, 2011 for the preliminary investigation of his case. 2011 A Hearing was held wherein accused submitted a December 29, Motion to Produce All Material Evidences and 2011 agreed to submit his Counter Affidavit on January January 2, 2012 12, 2012.18 Accused requested for a copy of the 2007 Report January 4, 2012 Investigation.19 Accused claimed that he received a letter from the January 25, 2012 BIR denying him to have a copy of the 2007 Report Investigation. 2o February 3, 2012 Accused filed an Urgent Motion praying that he be provided with a copy of the Report Investigation February 15, for taxable�year 2007.21 2012 The DOJ issued a Resolution denying accused's request to be furnished with a copy of the requested document and directed accused to file his Counter-Affidavit.22 A Subpoena was issued by Prosecutor Atty. Liwag requiring the accused to attend the hearing on February 3, 2012.23 � A hearing was held before the DOJ24 � Accused filed his Counter Affidavit25 � Date of Joint Reply Affidavit of Neil u. Cordero and Eulema DV Demadura26 Accused filed a Motion for Reinvestigation and Re- assignment Reiteration and for other Purposes requesting that a new prosecutor attorney shall handle his case.27 17 ld., pp. 52-54. 18 ld., p. 43. 19 As per Letter dated December 27, 2011, ld., p. 498. 20 ld., p. 39; Par. 9, as per Accused's Urgent Motion filed on January 2, 2012, ld., p. 37. 21 ld., pp. 37-38; As per DOJ Resolution dated January 4, 2012, ld., pp. 35-36. 22 ld., pp. 35-36. 23 Ibid., p. 27. 24 ld., p. 24. 25 Par. 2, Motion to Quash, Docket (Vol. II), p. 598. 26 Docket (Vol. 1)., pp. 395-400. 27 Ibid., pp. 122; ld., pp. 126-160.

RESOLUTION CTA Criminal Case No. 0-661 Page 5 of8 February 20, Accused filed a Motion for Speedy Resolution dated 2013 February 17, 2013 with the DOJ.28 April 8, 2013 Accused filed a Motion for Reinvestigation and Re� Assignment (Amended April 8, 2013) with the DOJ, October 10, 2013 praying that a new Prosecutor Attorney shall conduct and conclude the preliminary August 4, 2017 investigation. 29 February 5, 2018 Department Order No. 774 was issued reconstituting the task Force of BIR. Thus, the instant case was transferred from Prosecution Attorney Liwag to Assistant State Prosecutor Mark Roland S. Estepa.3o Assistant State Prosecutor Mark Roland S. Estepa issued a Resolution dated July 24, 2017 finding probable cause against the accused.31 The criminal case against the accused was filed before the Court of Tax A___QQeals.32 Length ofDelay It is clear from the foregoing that more than five (5) years had lapsed from the time the Joint Complaint Affidavit of Chief Revenue Officer Cordero and Revenue Officer Demadura was referred by Commissioner Henares to DOJ on October 13, 2011, before the latter found probable cause against the accused on July 24, 2017. To our mind, such delay amounts to a violation of the accused's constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case following the ruling in Luz S. Almeda vs. Office of the Ombudman (Mindanao) and the People of the Philippines33, to wit: "In Coscolluela34, the fact that it took the Ombudsman eight years to resolve a case under preliminary investigation was considered violative of the right to speedy disposition of cases. In Cervantes3s, it took the OSP six years from the filing of the initiatory complaint before deciding to file an information; this was struck down as well. In Tatad v. Sandiganbayan36, a three-year delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation by the Tanodbayan was 28 Par. 3, Motion to Quash, Docket (Vol. II), p. 598; Annex D. 29 Docket (Vol. 1)., pp. 95-121. 30 As per DOJ Resolution dated July 24, 2017, Ibid, pp. 8-9. 31 ld., pp. 8-21. 32 1d., p. 6. 33 G.R. No. 204267, July 25, 2016. 34 Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, 714 Phil. 55, 61 (2013). 35 Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan, 366 Phil. 602, 609 (1999). 36 242 Phil. 563 (1988).

RESOLUTION CTA Criminal Case No. 0-661 Page 6 of8 considered violative of the right. In Lopez, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman37, the preliminary investigation was resolved close to four years from the time all the counter- and reply- affidavits were submitted to the Ombudsman, and this was similarly struck down. In People v. Sandiganbayan38, the fact-finding investigation and preliminary investigation by the Ombudsman lasted nearly five years and five months, which the Court considered an inordinate delay. The same is true in Angchangco, Jr.39 and Roque v. Office of the Ombudsman40, where the delay involved a period of six years, more or less. In Licaros41, the failure of the Sandiganbayan to decide the case even after the lapse of more than 10 years after it was submitted for decision was declared to involve 'more than just a mere procrastination in the proceedings'." Reason for the Delay In the DOJ Resolution dated July 24, 2017, Assistant State Prosecutor Mark Roland S. Estepa points out that the instant case was previously assigned to Prosecution Attorney Monica T. Liwag. However, due to the issuance of Department Order No. 774 dated October 10, 2013, which reconstituted the Task Force of BIR, the subject case was re-assigned to him. Now, even if We start counting from October 10, 2013, the date of the issuance of the aforesaid Department Order, the fact still remains that it still took Assistant Prosecutor Estapa more than three (3) years to resolve the preliminary investigation proceedings against the accused on August 4, 2017, and six (6) months to actually file the Information before the CTA on February 5, 2018, without any explanation whatsoever. Thus, We find the delay in the termination of preliminary investigation brought about by the issuance of the said Department Order unjustified. 37 417 Phil. 39 (2001). 38 People v. Sandiganbayan, 723 Phil. 444, 489 (2013). 39 Angchangco, Jr. v. Hon. Ombudsman, 335 Phil. 766, 770 (1997). 40 366 Phil. 568 (1999). 41 Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, 421 Phil. 1075, 1092 (2001).

RESOLUTION CTA Criminal Case No. 0-661 Page 7 ofB Assertion ofthe Right to Speedy Disposition ofthe Case Records show that accused wasted no time to assert his right to have the case against him be resolved as shown in his Motion for Speedy Resolution filed before the DOJ on February 20, 2013.42 Accused was Prejudiced by the Delay The protracted conduct of the investigation as well as the delay in the issuance of finding probable cause certainly caused distress, anxiety and embarrassment on the part of the accused considering his reputation as professional Certified Public Accountant. This is in accord with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafael L. Coscol/uela vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division and People of the Philippines and Edwin N. Nacionales, eta/., vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division), et a/.43, viz: "Lest it be misunderstood, the right to speedy disposition of cases is not merely hinged towards the objective of spurring dispatch in the administration of justice but also to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding a criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time. Akin to the right to speedy trial, its 'salutary objective' is to assure that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose. This looming unrest as well as the tactical disadvantages carried by the passage of time should be weighed against the State and in favor of the individual. x x x" In view of the violation of accused's right to speedy disposition of his case as herein discussed, the Court has no recourse but to dismiss the instant case. WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused's Motion to Quash is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-661 is hereby DISMISSED. 42 Par. 3, Motion to Quash, Docket {Vol. II), p. 598; Annex D. 43 G.R. No. 191411, July 15, 2013.

RESOLUTION CTA Criminal Case No. 0-661 Page 8 of8 SO ORDERED. a-~~,J; JUANrro C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice CAESAR A. CASANOVA ?~'7~~ Associate Justice CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice