PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DEXTER FEDERICO P. CERIALES, HELEN B. LAGURA, and ROSALINDA (all c/o ALC Industries Inc., A.B. Locsin Bldg. 7844 Makati Ave. cor. Guerrero St. Makati City)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFT AX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, C.T.A. CRIM. CASE NO. 0-168 (I.S. No. 2006-1199) For: Violation of Section 254 of the National Internal Revenue Code -versus- Members: BAUTISTA, Chairperson PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ, and COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, JL DEXTER FEDERICO P. CERIALES, HELEN B. LAGURA, and ROSALINDA B. MENDOZA, all c/o ALC Industries, Inc., A.B. Locsin Bldg., 7844 Makati Ave. cor. Guerrero St., Makati City, Accused. Promulgated: MAR 0 3 2010 . 3 : ~-- x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~~------~-------x RESOLUTION Accused, Dexter Federico P. Ceriales, Helen B. Lagura and Rosalinda B. Mendoza, are charged before this Court with Violation of Section 254 of the National Internal Revenue Code ("NIRC") in an Information which reads, as follows: The undersigned State Prosecutor accuses DEXTER FEDERICO P. CERIALES, HELEN B. LAGURA, and ROSALINDA B. MENDOZA of the crime of Violation of Sec. 254 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of the Philippines, committed as follows: That on or about the 17th day of April, 2000, and subsequent thereto, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovementioned accused, conspiring and confederating with one another, being the President, Vice-President for Administration and Treasurer, respectively, of ALC Industries, Inc. (ALCI), and as such, the corporation's responsible corporate officers, did, then and there, knowingly, willfully and unlawfully attempt to evade or defeat tax by not declaring in ALCI' s corporate income tax return for year 1999 the income it derived from its sale to

Resolution CTA Crim. Case No. 0-168 Robin International, Ltd., on June 4, 1999, of construction tools and equipment worth Three Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$3,450,000.00), which is subject to tax, in violation of the above cited law. CONTRARY TO LAW. Manila, August 20, 2009. Section 7 (b) (1) of Republic Act No. 9282, which took effect on April 23, 2004, amending Republic Act No. 1125 [The Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA")] provides: Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise: (a) XXX (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 where there is no specified amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CT A shall be appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in the same proceeding by the CT A, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be recognized. (2) xxx (Boldfacing supplied) Pursuant to the aforequoted provision, the CTA has exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or the Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered 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 Pl,OOO,OOO.OO or more.

Resolution ( 1'A Crim. Case No. 0-168 Page 3 o£3 It is doctrinal that in criminal cases, jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.l In this case, the Information only alleges that the accused did not declare in ALCI' s corporate income tax return for year 1999 the income it derived from its sale to Robin International, Ltd., on June 4, 1999, of construction tools and equipment worth US$3,450,000.00, which is subject to tax. Records show that the amount of US$3,450,000.00 pertains to the consideration of the subject sale. 2 There is no amount of taxes and fees claimed, exclusive of charges and penalties, stated in the Information, which amount should be at least P1,000,000.00 in order to vest jurisdiction upon this Court pursuant to Sec. 7 (b) (1) of Republic Act No. 9282. It bears stressing that in pleadings filed in courts of special jurisdiction, the special facts giving the court jurisdiction must be specially alleged and set out.3 Succinctly, the Information filed against the accused failed in this regard. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Information filed against the accused Dexter Federico P. Ceriales, Helen B. Lagura and Rosalinda B. Mendoza is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to the filing of a new Information in the proper forum. SO ORDERED. ~/~/- ~- ~-- OLGA PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ A~ CO~ANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Associate Justice 1People of the Philippines v. Cawaling, et. al., G.R. No. 117970, 293 SCRA 267, July 28, 1998, citing Lim vs. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 408, 418, December 19, 1995. 2 Rollo, p. 4. 3 Tirona v. Alejo, G.R. No. 129313, 367 SCRA 17, October 10,2001.