8/31/2016 G.R.No.

L46881

TodayisWednesday,August31,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.L46881September15,1988

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,petitioner,
vs.
HON.MARIANOCASTAEDAJR.,JudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofPampanga,BranchIII,VICENTE
LEETENG,PRISCILLACASTILLOVDA.DECURAandFRANCISCOVALENCIA,respondents.

TheSolicitorGeneralforpetitioner.

MartinN.RoqueforrespondentsPriscillaCastilloVda.deCuraandFranciscoValencia.

AntonioN.SantosforrespondentJudge.

FELICIANO,J.:

InthisPetitionforcertiorariandmandamus,thePeopleseektheannulmentoftheOrdersofrespondentJudge
quashingcriminalinformationsagainsttheaccuseduponthegroundsthat:(a)accusedFranciscoValenciawas
entitledtotaxamnestyunderPresidentialDecreeNo.370and(b)thatthedismissalofthecriminalcasesagainst
accused Valencia inured to the benefit of his coaccused Vicente Lee Teng and Priscilla Castillo de Cura, and
denyingthePeople'sMotionforReconsiderationofsaidOrders.

Sometimein1971,two(2)informantssubmittedsworninformationunderRepublicActNo.2338(entitled"AnAct
toProvideforRewardtoInformersofViolationsoftheInternalRevenueandCustomsLaws,"effectiveJune19,
1959) to the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR"), concerning alleged violations of provisions of the Internal
RevenueCodecommittedbytheprivaterespondents,Therecordofthiscaseincludesanaffidavitexecutedon
27December1971byMr.WilliamChan,oneofthesaidinformers,describingthedetailsofallegedviolationsof
thetaxcode. 1Afterconductinganinvestigation,theBIRappliedforandobtainedsearchwarrantsfromExecutiveJudge
MalcolmSarmiento.FollowinginvestigationandexaminationbytheBIRofthematerialsanddocumentsyieldedbyservice
ofsuchsearchwarrants,criminalinformationswerefiledincourtagainsttheprivaterespondents.

InJuly1973,StateProsecutorEstanislaoL.GranadosDepartmentofJustice,filedwiththeCourtofFirstInstance
of Pampanga an information docketed as Criminal Case No. 439 for violation of Sec. 170 (2) of the National
Internal Revenue Code, as amended, against Francisco Valencia, Apolonio G. Erespe y Comia and Priscilla
CastillodeCura,committedasfollows:

Thatonoraboutthe19thdayofJanuary,1972,inthepremisesofValenciaDistillerylocatedatdel
Pilar Street, San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the abovenamed
Court, the accused FRANCISCO VALENCIA, APOLONIO ERESPE Y COMIA and PRISCILLA
QUIAZONOR"QUIAPO"alias"MARYJO,"conspiringandconfederatingwithoneanother,didthen
andtherewillfully,unlawfully,andfeloniouslyhaveintheirpossession,custodyandcontrol,falseand
counterfeitorfakeinternalrevenuelabelsconsistingoffive(5)sheetscontainingten(10)labelseach
purportingtoberegularlabelsoftheTanduayDistillery,Inc.bearingSerialNos.2571891to2571901
to2571910,2571911to2571920,05381to05390and05391to05400.

CONTRARYtotheprovisionsofSection170,paragraph2oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode,as
amended.2

Onthesamedate,anothercriminalinformationdocketedasCriminalCaseNo.440wasfiledbythesameState
ProsecutorinthesamecourtforviolationofSection174(3)oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode,asamended
againstthesamepersons,chargingthemasfollows:

That on or about the 19th day of January 1972 in the premises of Valencia Distillery located at del
PilarStreet,SanFernando,Pampanga,PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,
the accused FRANCISCO VALENCIA, APOLONIO G. ERESPE y COMIA and PRISCILLA QUIAZON
or QUIANO alias MARY JO, conspiring and confederating together, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, have in their possession, custody and control, locally manufactured
articles subject to specific tax, the tax on which has not been paid in accordance with law, THIRTY
THREE (33) boxes of 24 bottles each of alleged Anejo Rum, 375 cc., NINE (9) BOXES of alleged
Tanduay Rum of TWELVE (12) BOTTLES each, 750 cc., TWENTY (20) BOXES of alleged Ginebra
SanMiguelGinofTWENTYFOUR(24)BOTTLESeach,375cc.,THREE(3)BOXESOFTWENTY
FOUR (24) BOTTLES each, 375 cc., of Ginebra San Miguel Gin, ONE (1) GALLON bottle of wine
improver,NINElbs.netwithactualcontentsof1/5ofthebottle,ONE(1)SMALLBOTTLE,1Ib,net,
of Rum Jamaica, halffull, ONE (1) BOTTLE, 1 Ib. net of the wine improvers (full), TWELVE (12)
BOTTLES of alleged Tanduay Rum, 750 cc., pale, FOUR (4) BOTTLES of Ginebra San Miguel
(alleged) 350 cc. and TWO (2) BOTTLES of Tanduay Rum, 375 cc. the total specific tax due on
whichisP160.01.

CONTRARYtoSection174oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode,asamended.3

AsaresultoffurtherinvestigationofthesworncomplaintsfiledbytheinformerswiththeBIR,on14March1974,
six(6)morecriminalinformationsdocketedasCriminalCasesNos.,538543werefiledinthePampangaCourtof
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/sep1988/gr_l_46881_1988.html 1/5
8/31/2016 G.R.No.L46881

First Instance against Vicente Lee Teng alias "Vicente Lee," alias "Lee Teng," and Francisco Valencia. These
informationschargedthetwo(2)withviolationsofSection178,inrelationtoSections182(A)(1)(3c)and208of
theNationalInternalRevenueCode,asamendedbasedontheirfailuretopayannualprivilegetaxesforeachof
thesix(6)yearsfrom1966to1972.Thesix(6)informationsuniformlychargedtheaccusedasfollows:

The undersigned State Prosecutor accuses VICENTE LEE TENG alias VICENTE LEE alias LEE
TENG,andFRANCISCOVALENCIAofthecrimeofViolationofSec.178inrelationwithSec.182(A)
(1)3candSec.208oftheNationalInternalRevenueCodeasamended,committedasfollows:

Thatonoraboutthe19thofJanuary1972,[alsoduringtheyears1967,1968,1969,1970and1971]
in the premises of Valencia Distillery located at del Pilar Street, San Fernando, Pampanga,
PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,conspiring
andconfederatingtogetherandmutuallyhelpingoneanother,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfully
andfeloniouslydistill,rectify,repaircompoundormanufacturealcoholicproductssubjecttospecific
taxwithouthavingpaidtheprivilegetaxtherefor.CONTRARYTOLAW.4

On 22 April 1974, after arraignment, accused Valencia filed a Motion to Quash Criminal Cases Nos. 538543
inclusive, upon the grounds that the six (6) informations had been filed without conducting the necessary
preliminaryinvestigationandthathewasentitledtothebenefitsofthetaxamnestyprovidedbyP.D.No.370.The
StateProsecutoropposedtheMotiontoQuasharguingthatthenecessarypreliminaryinvestigationinthesix(6)
criminalcaseshadinfactbeenconductedandthatinanycase,failuretoholdthepreliminaryinvestigationwas
not a ground for a motion to quash. The State Prosecutor further argued that the accused Valencia was not
entitled to avail himself of the benefits of P.D. No. 370 since his tax cases were the subject of valid information
submittedunderR.A.No.2338asof31December1973.

The respondent Judge granted the Motion to Quash and issued an Order, dated 15 July 1974, dismissing not
only Criminal Cases Nos. 538543 but also Criminal Cases Nos. 439 and 440 insofar as accused Francisco
Valenciawasconcerned.AMotionforReconsiderationbythePeoplewassimilarlydeniedbyrespondentJudge.

On 14 December 1975, the remaining accused Vicente Lee Teng and Priscilla Castillo de Cura, having been
arraigned,filedMotionstoQuashCriminalCasesNos.538543and439and440,uponthecommongroundthat
the dismissal of said cases insofar as accused Francisco Valencia was concerned, inured to their benefit. The
PeopleopposedtheMotionstoQuashuponthegroundthattheaccusedwerenotentitledtothebenefitsofthe
tax amnesty under P.D. No. 370 and that, assuming the dismissal of said criminal cases was valid insofar as
accused Valencia was concerned, the resulting immunity from criminal prosecution was personal to accused
Valencia.

The respondent Judge granted the Motions to Quash by Vicente Lee Teng and Priscilla Castillo de Cura, and
deniedthePeople'sMotionforReconsideration.

Therearetwo(2)preliminaryissueswhichneedtobeaddressedbeforedealingwiththequestionsofsubstantive
law posed by this case. The first preliminary issuewhether or not the People of the Philippines are guilty of
lacheswas raised by private respondents in their Answer. 5 The respondent Judge denied the People's Motion for
Reconsideration of his Order granting Francisco Valencia's Motion to Quash the eight (8) criminal cases, on 18 November
1974. Vicente Lee Teng and Priscilla Castillo de Cura filed their respective Motions to Quash on 14 December 1975
respondent Judge granted their Motions to Quash on 31 March 1976. The People filed a Motion for Reconsideration which
was denied on 17 February 1977. Approximately seven (7) months later, on 12 September 1977, the present Petition for
certiorariandmandamuswasfiledbythePeople.Initially,theCourtresolvedtodismissthisPetitioninaResolutiondated5
July 1978. The People, however, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Order and the Court, in its Resolution of 1
October1979,setasideitsResolutionofdismissalandconsideredthiscaseassubmittedfordecision.

Ordinarily,perhaps,aPetitionforcertioraribroughtseven(7)monthsafterrenditionofthelastordersoughttobe
set aside might be regarded as barred by laches. In the case at bar, however, the Court believes that the
equitableprincipleoflachesshouldnotbeappliedtobarthisPetitionforcertiorariandMandamus.Theeffectof
such application would not be the avoidance of an inequitable situation (the very raison d'etre of the laches
principle),butrathertheperpetuationofthestateoffactsbroughtaboutbytheordersoftherespondentJudge,a
stateoffactswhich,aswillbeseenlater,ismarkedbyagrossdisregardofthelegalrightsofthePeople.The
Court,inotherwords,iscompelledtotakeintoaccountboththeimportanceofthesubstantiveissuesraisedin
this case and the nature of the result brought about by the respondent Judge's orders. Moreover, on a more
practicallevel,thedismissalofthecaseswasresistedvigorouslybytheprosecutionwhichfiledbothoppositions
to the Motion to Dismiss and Motions for Reconsideration of the Orders granting the Motions to Quash. The
privaterespondents,inotherwords,wereundernoillusionastothepositiontakenandurgedbythePeoplein
thisCase.Weholdthat,inthecircumstancesofthiscase,thePetitionforcertiorariandmandamusisnotbarred
bylaches.

ThesecondpreliminaryissuewasalsoraisedbyprivaterespondentsintheirAnswer,thatis,whetherornotthe
defense of double jeopardy became available to them with the dismissal by respondent Judge of the eight (8)
criminal cases. This defense need not detain us for long for it is clearly premature in the present certiorari
proceeding. In the certiorari petition at bar, the validity and legal effect of the orders of dismissal issued by the
respondentJudgeoftheeight(8)criminalcasesarepreciselyinissue.ShouldtheCourtupholdthesedismissal
ordersasvalidandeffectiveandshouldasecondprosecutionbebroughtagainsttheaccusedrespondents,that
secondprosecutionmaybedefendedagainstwiththepleaofdoublejeopardy.If,upontheotherhand,theCourt
finds the dismissal orders to be invalid and of no legal effect, the legal consequence would follow that the first
jeopardy commenced by the eight (8) informations against the accused has not yet been terminated and
accordingly a plea of second jeopardy must be rejected both here and in the continuation of the criminal
proceedingsagainsttherespondentsaccused.

Weturn,therefore,tothefirstsubstantiveissuethatneedstoberesolved:whetherornottheaccusedValencia,
LeeTenganddeCuraareentitledtothebenefitsavailableunderP.D.No.370.

ThescopeofapplicationofthetaxamnestydeclaredbyP.D.No.370ismarkedoutinthefollowingbroadterms:

1.Ataxamnestyisherebygrantedtoanyperson,naturalorjuridical,whoforanyreasonwhatsoever
failedtoavailofPresidentialDecreeNo.23andPresidentialDecreeNo.157or,insoavailingofthe
said Presidential Decrees failed to include all that were required to be declared therein if he now
voluntarily discloses under this decree all his previously untaxed income and/or wealth such as
earnings,receipts,gifts,bequestsoranyotheracquisitionsfromanysourcewhatsoeverwhichareor
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/sep1988/gr_l_46881_1988.html 2/5
8/31/2016 G.R.No.L46881

were previously taxable under the National Internal Revenue Code, realized here or abroad by
condoning all internal revenue taxes including the increments or penalties on account of non
paymentaswellasallcivil,criminaloradministrativeliabilities,undertheNationalInternalRevenue
Code,theRevisedPenalCode,theAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct,theRevisedAdministrative
Code,theCivilServiceLawsandRegulations,lawsandregulationsonImmigrationandDeportation,
oranyotherapplicablelaworproclamation,asitisherebycondoned,providedataxoffifteen(15%)
per centum on such previously untaxed income and/or wealth is imposed subject to the following
conditions:

a.Suchpreviouslyuntaxedincomeand/orwealthmusthavebeenearnedorrealizedpriorto1973,
exceptthefollowing:

b. Capital gains transactions where the taxpayer has availed of Presidential Decree No. 16, as
amended,buthasnotcompliedwiththeconditionsthereof

c.Taxliabilitieswithorwithoutassessments,onwithholdingtaxatsourceprovidedunderSections53
and54oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode,asamended

d.TaxliabilitieswithassessmentnoticesissuedasofDecember31,1973

e. Tax cases which are the subject of a valid information under Republic Act No. 2338 as of
December31,1973and

f.Propertytransferredbyreasonofdeathorbydonationduringtheyear1972.

xxxxxxxxx

The first point that should be made in respect of P.D. No. 370 is that compliance with all the requirements of
availmentoftaxamnestyunderP.D.No.370wouldhavetheeffectofcondoningnotjustincometaxliabilitiesbut
also"all internal revenue taxes including the increments or penalties on account of nonpayment as well as all
civil,criminaloradministrativeliabilities,undertheInternalRevenueCode,theRevisedPenalCode,theAntiGraft
and Corrupt Practices Act, the Revised Administrative Code, the Civil Service Laws and Regulations, laws and
regulations on Immigration and Deportation, or any other applicable law or proclamation." Thus, entitlement to
benefits of P.D. No. 370 would have the effect of condoning or extinguishing the liabilities consequent upon
possession of false and counterfeit internal revenue labels the manufacture of alcoholic products subject to
specific tax without having paid the annual privilege tax therefor, and the possession, custody and control of
locallymanufacturedarticlessubjecttospecifictaxonwhichthetaxeshadnotbeenpaidinaccordancewithlaw,
in other words, the criminal liabilities sought to be imposed upon the accused respondents by the several
informationsquotedabove.

It should be underscored, secondly, that to be entitled to the extinction of liability provided by P.D. No. 370, the
claimant must have voluntarily disclosed his previously untaxed income or wealth and paid the required fifteen
percent(15%)taxonsuchpreviouslyuntaxedincomeorwealthimposedbyP.D.No.370.6Wherethedisclosureof
such previously untaxed income or wealth was not voluntary but rather the accompaniment or result of tax cases or tax
assessmentsalreadypendingasof31December1973,theclaimantisnotentitledtothebenefitsofP.D.No.370.Section
1(a)(4)ofP.D.No.370,expresslyexcludedfromthecoverageofP.D.No.370:"taxcaseswhicharethesubjectofavalid
information under R.A. No. 2338 as of December 31, 1973." 7 In the instant case, the violations of the National Internal
Revenue Code with which the respondent accused were charged, had already been discovered by the BIR when P.D. No.
370tookeffecton9January1974,byreasonofthesworninformationoraffidavitcomplaintsfiledbyinformerswiththeBIR
underRepublicActNo.2338priorto31December1973.

Itisnecessarytonotethatthe"validinformationunderRepublicActNo.2338"referredtoinSection1(a)(4)of
P.D.No.370,refersnottoacriminalinformationfiledincourtbyafiscalorspecialprosecutor,butrathertothe
sworninformationorcomplaintfiledbyaninformerwiththeBIRunderR.A.No.2338inthehopeofearningan
informer'sreward.ThesworninformationorcomplaintfiledwiththeBIRunderR.A.No.2338maybeconsidered
"valid"wherethefollowingconditionsarecompliedwith:

(1)thattheinformationwassubmittedbyapersonotherthananinternalrevenueorcustomsofficial
oremployeeorotherpublicofficial,orarelativeofsuchofficialoremployeewithinthesixthdegreeof
consanguinity

(2) that the information must be definite and sworn to and must state the facts constituting the
groundsforsuchinformationand

(3) that such information was not yet in the possession of the BIR or the Bureau of Customs and
does not refer to "a case already pending or previously investigated or examined by the
CommissionerofInternalRevenueortheCommissionerofCustoms,oranyoftheirdeputies,agents
orexaminers,asthecasemaybe,ortheSecretaryofFinanceoranyofhisdeputiesoragents.8

In the instant case, not one but two (2) "informations' or affidavitcomplaints concerning private respondents'
operationssaidtobeinviolationofcertainprovisionsoftheNationalInternalRevenueCode,hadbeenfiledwith
the BIR as of 31 December 1973. In fact, those two (2) affidavitcomplaints had matured into two (2) criminal
informationsincourtCriminalCasesNos.439and440againsttherespondentaccused,by31December1973.
The six (6) informations docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 538543, while filed in court only on 14 March 1974,
hadbeenbaseduponthesworninformationpreviouslysubmittedasof31December1973totheBIR.

It follows that, even assuming respondent accused Francisco Valencia was otherwise entitled to the benefits of
P.D.No.370,noneoftheinformationsfiledagainsthimcouldhavebeencondonedundertheexpressprovisions
ofthetaxamnestystatute.

Accused Valencia argued that the People were estopped from questioning his entitlement to the benefits of the
tax amnesty, considering that agents of the BIR had already accepted his application for tax amnesty and his
paymentoftherequiredfifteenpercent(15%)specialtax.

Thiscontentiondoesnotpersuade.Atthetimehepaidthespecialfifteenpercent(15%)taxunderP.D.No.370,
accusedFranciscoValenciahadinfactalreadybeensubjectedbytheBIRtoextensiveinvestigationsuchthatthe
criminal charges against him could not be condoned under the provisions of the amnesty statute. Further,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/sep1988/gr_l_46881_1988.html 3/5
8/31/2016 G.R.No.L46881

acceptance by the BIR agents of accused Valencia's application for tax amnesty and payment of the fifteen
percent(15%)specialtaxwasnomorethanaministerialdutyonthepartofsuchagents.AccusedValenciadoes
notpretendthattheBIRhadactuallyruledthathewasentitledtothebenefitsofthetaxamnestystatute.Inany
case, even assuming, though only arguendo, that the BIR had so ruled, there is the long familiar rule that
"erroneousapplicationandenforcementofthelawbypublicofficersdonotblock,subsequentcorrectapplication
ofthestatuteandthatthegovernmentisneverestoppedbymistakeorerroronthepartofitsagent."9whichfinds
applicationinthecaseatbar.Stillfurther,ataxamnesty,muchliketoataxexemption,isneverfavorednorpresumedin
lawandifgrantedbystatute,thetermsoftheamnestylikethatofataxexemptionmustbeconstruedstrictlyagainstthe
taxpayerandliberallyinfavorofthetaxingauthority.10Valencia'spaymentofthespecialfifteenpercent(15%)taxmustbe
regardedaslegallyineffective.

We turn to the second substantive issue which is whether or not the dismissal by the respondent court of the
criminal informations against accused Valencia, inured to the benefit of Valencia's coaccused. Because of the
conclusionreachedabove,thatis,thataccusedFranciscoValenciawasnotlegallyentitledtothebenefitsofP.D.
No. 370 and that the dismissal of the criminal information as against him was serious error on the part of the
respondentJudge,itmaynotbestrictlynecessarytodealwiththissecondissue.Therewasinfactnothingthat
could have inured to the benefit of Valencia's coaccused. It seems appropriate to stress, nonetheless, that co
accused and corespondents Lee Teng and Priscilla Castillo de Cura, in order to enjoy the benefits of the tax
amnestystatutehereinvolved,mustshowthattheyhaveindividuallycompliedwithandcomewithinthetermsof
thatstatute.11Thefactthatconspiracyhadbeenallegedineachofthecriminalinformationshereinvolvedcertainlycould
notresultinanautomaticexemptionofLeeTengandPriscillaCastillodeCurafromcompliancewiththerequirementsofthe
taxamnestystatute.Inthesecondplace,assuming,forpresentpurposesonly,thataccusedFranciscoValenciawas(and
hewasnot)legallyentitledtothebenefitsofP.D.No.370thedefenseofamnestywhich(hypothetically)becameavailable
to Valencia was personal to him. Once more, the allegation of conspiracy made in the several criminal informations here
involved,didnothavetheeffectofmakingadefenseavailabletoonecoconspiratorautomaticallyavailabletotheotherco
conspirators. The defense of the tax amnesty under P.D. No. 370 is, like insanity, a personal defense for that defense
relatestothecircumstancesofaparticularaccusedandnottothecharacteroftheactschargedinthecriminalinformation.
The statute makes the defense of extinguishment of liability available only under very specific circumstances and on the
basis of reciprocity, as it were: the claimant must disclose his previously untaxed income or wealth (which then may be
effectively subjected to future taxation) and surrender to the Government fifteen percent (15%) of such income or wealth
then, and only then, would the claimant's liability be extinguished. Lee Teng and Pricilla Castillo de Cura never pretended
thattheyhadcompliedwiththerequirementsofPDNo.370,includingthatofreciprocity.

WeconcludethattherespondentJudge'serrorinrespectofthefirstandsecondsubstantiveissuesconsidered
aboveissogrossandpalpableastoamounttoarbitraryandcapriciousactionandtograveabuseofdiscretion.
Those orders effectively prevented the People from prosecuting and presenting evidence against the accused
respondentstheydeniedthePeopleitsdayincourt.Itiswellsettledthat:

[a]purelycapriciousdismissalofaninformationashereininvolved,moreover,deprivestheStateof
fairopportunitytoprosecuteandconvict.Itdeniestheprosecutionitsdayincourt.Accordingly,itisa
dismissal without due process and, therefore, null and void. A dismissal invalid for lack of a
fundamentalrequisite,suchasdueprocess,willnotconstituteaproperbasisfortheclaimofdouble
jeopardy.12

WHEREFORE,theOrdersofrespondentJudgedated15July1974,18November1974,31March1976and17February1977
are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge no longer being with the Judiciary, the branch of the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga seized of Criminal
Cases Nos. 439 and 440, and 538543 inclusive, against the surviving respondent accused, 13 is hereby ORDERED to proceed with the trial of these
criminalcases.Costsagainstprivaterespondents.

SOORDERED.

Fernan,C.J.,Gutierrez,Jr.,BidinandCortes,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1Rollo,pp.3436Annex"J"ofPetition.

2Rollo,p.16Annex"A"ofPetition.

3Rollo,p.18,1Annex"B"ofPetition.

4Rollo,pp.2031,Annexes"C,""D,""E,""F,""G",and"H"ofPetition.

5Rollo,p.51.

6VictorNepomuceno,etal.v.Hon.JuanB.Montecillo,etc.,etal.,118SCRA254(1982).

7ThelessthanprecisedraftingofSection1(a)(1)to(4)ofP.D.No.370is,fortunately,clarifiedby
theimplementingRulesofP.D.No.370.Section4ofRevenueRegulationsNo.274,dated14
January1974,entitled"PresidentialDecreeNo.370enlargingthecoverageofthetaxamnestyon
previouslyuntaxedincomeand/orwealthsubjecttocertainconditions'(70OfficialGazette,p.1472
[25February1974]),providesasfollows:

"Section4.Casesnotcoveredbyamnesty.Thefollowingcasesarenotcoveredbytheamnesty
subjectoftheseregulations:

(1)CapitalgainstransactionswherethetaxpayerhasavailedofPresidentialDecreeNo.16,as
amended,buthasnotcompliedwiththeconditionsthereof,

(2)Taxliabilitieswithorwithoutassessments,onwithholdingtaxatsourceprovidedunderSections
53and54oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode,asamended

(3)TaxliabilitieswithassessmentnoticesissuedasofDecember31,1973

(4)TaxcaseswhicharethesubjectofavalidinformationunderRepublicActNo.2338asof
December31,1973and

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/sep1988/gr_l_46881_1988.html 4/5
8/31/2016 G.R.No.L46881

(5)Propertytransferredbyreasonofdeathorbydonationduringtheyear1972."(emphasis
supplied)

8Section1,R.A.No.2338.

9E.Rodriguez,Inc.v.CollectorofInternalRevenue,28SCRA1119(1969)TanGuanv.Courtof
TaxAppeals,19SCRA903(1967)VisayanCebuTerminalCo.,Inc.v.CommissionerofInternal
Revenue,13SCRA357(1965)Florov.PhilippineNationalBank,5SCRA906(1962)TheCollector
ofInternalRevenuev.EllenWoodMcGrath,etal.,111Phil.222(1961)Gutierrez,etal.v.Courtof
TaxAppeals,101Phil.713(1957)andAtlasConsolidatedMiningandDev.Corp.v.Commissionerof
InternalRevenue,102SCRA246(1981).

10E.Rodriguez,Inc.v.TheCollectorofInternalRevenue,28SCRA1119(1969)Commissionerof
InternalRevenuev.A.D.Guerrero,21SCRA180(1967).

11See,inthisconnection,Barrioquintoetal.v.Fernandez,etal.,82Phil.642(1949)CfPeoplev.
Guillermo,86Phil.395(1960)andPeoplev.Pasilan122Phil.46(1965)14SCRA694.

SincetheGovernmentitselfisboundbythetermsandrestrictionsembodiedinanamnestystatute
Macagaanv.People,152SCRA430[1987]),theclaimantofamnestymustbesimilarlyheldbound
bythoseterms.

12Peoplev.Balisacan17SCRA1119(1966)Serinov.Zosa,40SCRA433(1971)andPeoplev.
Surtida,43SCRA29(1972).

13ThecaseagainstLeeTengbecamemootandacademicbyreasonofhisdeathon14January
1978.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/sep1988/gr_l_46881_1988.html 5/5