70. Judy anne santos vs.

People

[G.R. NO. 173176 : August 26, 2008]

FACTS:

 May 19, 2005 BIR Commissioner Payno wrote to the

DOJ Secretary regarding the possible filing of criminal
charges against petitioner

 It was found that petitioner Santos made substantial

under declarations in her income which constituted
prima facie evidence of a false or fraudulent under
declarations in her income which constituted prima
facie evidence of a false or fraudulent return

 Pursuant to a DOJ resolution issued by Prosecutor,

which recommends the filing of criminal information
against petitioner, an information was filed with the
CTA

 In 2006, petitioner fild with the CTA 1st division a

motion to uash on the ground that prosecuting
attorney lacks the authority to file the iformation
because said information was filed without the
approval of the BIR Commissioner in violation of Sec
220 of the NIRC which provides that

 “No criminal action shall be filed in court

whithout the approval of the Commissioner”

ISSUE: was the information in violation of Sec 220 for

being filed without the approval of the BIR Commissioner?

RULING: NO

Petitioner argument must fail in light of the BIR

Commissioners letter dated May 19, 2005 to DOJ Secretary
referring for “preliminary investigation and filing of an
information in court if evidence so warrants” the findings
of the BIR officers recommending the criminal prosecution
of the petitioner

In said letter, BIR Commissioner already gave his prior

approval to the filing of an information in court should the
DOJ, based on evidence submitted, find probable cause
against petitioner during the preliminary investigation

Sec 220 of the NIRC, simply requires that the BIR

Commissioner approve the institution of civil or criminal
action against a tax law violator, but does not describe in
what form such approval must be given

In this case, BIR Commissioner’s letter already states his

express approval of the filing of an information against the
petitioner and his signature need not appear on the
resolution of the state prosecutor or on the information
itself.