PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIEANDY A. FRICKE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA Criminal Case No. 0-199 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 255 of the PHILIPPINESI National Internal Revenue Code of the Philippines (NIRC) - versus - Me m bers: MANAHAN, Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and ANGELES, JL MARIEANDY A. FRICKE PAroUmGulUga6tEZi..<lLf,l1,_ (No. 111 Guava Drive, Ayala, Alabang Muntinlupa City), Accused. X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X RESOLUTION On Febr u ary 11, 2017, an Information was filed against accused Marieandy A. Fricke, charging her for violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended . The accusatory portion of w hich states: That sometime in the year 2007, and subsequent thereto, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines, and wi thin the jurisdiction of this H onorable Court, the above-named accused did, then and there, w illfully, unlawfully, and feloniously fail to make and file a capital gains tax return at the time required by law, despite selling a piece of real property worth Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00) to Melito C. Chua and Malisa C. Chua on Au gust 30, 2007, which transaction is subject to capital gains tax in the principal amount of Two Million Eight Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five and 20/ 100 Pesos (P2,865,565.20) or a total amoun t of Five Million Nine Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty One and 04/ 100 Pesos (P5,954,931.04), inclusive of surcharges and interests, w hich she failed to pay, resulting in the d epriva tion of revenu es for the govenunent in th e mentioned amount.

RESOLUTION CfA Criminal Case No. 0 -199 CONTRARY TO LAW. This case merits dismissal. Section 7(b)(1) 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 where 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)(1), 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 P1,000,000.00. 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 Boldfacing supplied. 2 SECI'ION 3. Cases Within the jurisdiction of the Court in Divisions. - The Court in Divisions shall exercise: (b) Exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses, to wit: I I I (1) O rigina l jurisd iction over all criminal offenses a rising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Custo ms Code and other laws administe red by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, where the p rincipal amoun t of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is one million pesos or morei ... Boldfacing supplied. 3 A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA. 4 Cabral v. Bracamonte, G.R. No. 233174, January 23, 2019.

RESOLUTION CTA Criminal Case No. 0-199 Page 3 of3 Indeed, the Information charged accused for violation of Section 255 of the NIRC, as amended. Stated therein is that the amount of the alleged tax due was ~,954,931.04. Yet, these averments hardly suffice to bestow the Court with jurisdiction over CTA Crim. Case No. 0-199. The Information failed to expressly state that the amount of ~,954,931.04, 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. 0-199 is in order. WHEREFORE, CTA Criminal Case No. 0-199 charging accused Marieandy A. Fricke of violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended is WITHDRAWN from the archives and accordingly DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. ~�r.. ~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice /NJW..J ~. � f. ~ -fa.t'41l~ MARIAN IVf'F. REYEl-FAJA'RDO Associate Justice HENRY si!GELES Associate Justice