PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SHIH CHUN HSUING, T 400 MAC-ARTHUR HI-WAY, TIKAY, MALOLOS, BULACAN

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of 'Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY Third Division PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-296 Plaintiff (XV -17-INV -120-394) For: Violation of Sections 255 and -versus- 256 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. SHIH CHUN HSUING Members: T 4000 Mac-Arthur Hi-way, Tikay, BAUTISTA, Chairperson Malolos, Bulacan PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ, and (AT-LARGE), COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, JL Accused. ov Promulgated: 2 6 2012 ~~ o:::x ._3.�1["3~ �......._ X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X RESOLUTION On September 18, 2012, the Court promulgated a Resolution ordering Assistant City Prosecutor Randy C. Caingal and City Prosecutor Hilda A. Fantastico- Ibuyan to make the necessary correction on the Resolution dated July 3, 2012, issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzu ela City, resolving the complaint filed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; to forward the original or certified true copies of the recommendation for criminal prosecution of the accused, or approval of the filing of Information by the Conm1issioner of the Bureau Internal Revenue; to present the Affidavit or Counter-Affidavit of the accused, if any and the entire records of the Preliminary investigation; and to present additional evidence, if any. On September 28, 2012, prosecution filed its " Manifestation with Compliance" submitting the Corrected Resolution dated September 24, 2012; stating that the

Resolution CTA Crim . Case No. 0 -296 People of the Philippines v . Shih Chun Hsung accused did not appear during the preliminary investigation; and that a certified true copy of Revenue Delegation Order No. 02-07 was attached to its "Manifestation with Compliance" dated August 29, 2012. Prosecution's "Manifestation with Compliance" is hereby NOTED. However, prosecution still failed to submit the original or a certified true copy of the recommendation for criminal prosecution of the accused, or approval of the filing of Information by the Commissioner of the Bureau Internal Revenue, as ordered by the Court in its Resolution dated July 3, 2012. Section 220 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended states: "SEC. 220. For1/l nnd Mode of Proceeding in Actions Arising under this Code. - Civil and criminal actions and proceedings instituted in behalf of the Government under the authority of this Code or other law enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall be brought in the name of the Government of the Philippines and shall be conducted by legal officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue but no civil or criminal action for the recovery of taxes or the enforcement of any fine, penalty or forfeiture under this Code shall be filed in court without the approval of the Commissioner." (Underlining Ours.) Section 2 of Rule 9 of the 2005 Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended states further: "SEC. 2. Institution of crilllinnl nctions. - All criminal actions before the Court in Division in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be instituted by the filing of an information in the name of the People of the Philippines. In criminal actions involving violations of the National Internal Revenue Code and other laws enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue must approve their filing. In criminal actions involving violations of the Tariff and Customs code and other laws enforced by the Bureau of Customs, the Commissioner of Customs must approve their filing " (Underlining Ours.)

Resolution CTA Crim . Case No. 0-296 People of the Philippines v. Shih Chun Hsung Prosecution explains in its "Manifestation with Compliance" dated September 28, 2012, that the submission of a certified true copy of Revenue Delegation Authority Order No. 02-07 in its "Manifesta tion and Compliance" dated August 29, 2012 is in compliance with the order of the Court asking for the submission of the original or certified true copies of the recommendation for criminal prosecution of the accused or approval of the filing of Information by the Commissioner of the Bureau Internal Revenue. Prosecution is mistaken in its belief that the Revenue Delegation Authority and the recommendation for prosecution of the accused or approval of filin g of Information by the BIR are one and the same. They are two separate requirements. Unlike general delegation of powers, the latter requirement is a letter recommendation from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ordering the specific prosecution or filing of the criminal case against the accused. In addition, the recommendation for filing of crimin al charges against the accused, issued by Regional Director Tomas C. Rosales, dated April 3, 2012 is a mere machine copy. Thus, failure to present the same to the Court upon order is a ground for dismissal. In view of th e for ego ing, the case is hereby DISMISSED for failure to comply with the Court's o rd e rs . SO ORDERED. L Associate Justice (On Leave) OLGA PALANCA- EN RIQUEZ Associate Ju stice