Taxpayer’s rights in criminal prosecutions
By: Raida Argeli Grefiel on July 31,2025
IN criminal cases filed by the state against an individual or entity accused of violating a law or ordinance, the People of the Philippines stand as plaintiff or initiator of the lawsuit.
Because of the weight of criminal prosecutions, there are long-standing principles in criminal law to protect the interests of the accused. Among these is the in dubio pro reo doctrine, which means that, when in doubt, rule for the accused.
Closely related to this is the equipoise rule, which provides that “when the evidence is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.”
In criminal cases involving taxation, we delve into the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 31 Tagum City, Miners Chemical Industries Corp. and its President/CEO Jeanifer Pizon Ajoc, which teaches two other key points in criminal law: the right against double jeopardy; and legal personality in criminal cases.
For context, the RTC acquitted the accused taxpayer of the crimes of tax evasion and issuance of unregistered invoices punishable under the National Internal Revenue Code.
Through an original action by way of a petition for certiorari, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) challenged the RTC’s decision before the Court of Tax Appeals en banc. The CIR’s main allegation was that the RTC disregarded the evidence presented and the existence of the elements of the offenses charged.
Our courts adhere to the principle that a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. This stems from Section 21 of the Bill of Rights in the 1987 Constitution, which states that “no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.”
At its core, the right against double jeopardy protects individuals from being subjected to repeated litigation for the same offense, once a case has been conclusively terminated.
Nevertheless, despite the rule against double jeopardy, Philippine jurisprudence has recognized that an acquittal of an accused may be challenged through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or a denial of due process rendering the judgment void.
In the Miners case, the CIR essentially questioned the RTC’s appreciation and evaluation of the facts and evidence propounded by the parties.
In response, the CTA emphasized that allegations on misappreciation of facts, evidence or misapplication of law do not pertain to errors of jurisdiction, but rather errors of judgment arising from the court’s exercise of its judicial authority.
Our courts have consistently defined grave abuse of discretion as the “capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.” That is to say, the abuse must be “patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.”
In the Miners case, the CIR’s allegations of the RTC’s misappreciation of facts and evidence, if correct, cannot justify the reversal of an acquittal without violating the accused’s right against double jeopardy, as this imputation pertains to an error of judgment, and not an error of jurisdiction curable by a certiorari.
As a preliminary matter, it should be emphasized that in criminal cases, only the state may appeal the criminal aspect. The authority to represent the State in such matters is vested in the Office of the Solicitor General, which is the legal defender of the government. Under the Administrative Code, the OSG is mandated to represent the government in criminal, civil and special proceedings.
Notably, in the Miners case, it was the CIR that sought the reinstatement of the judgment of conviction before the CTA without the OSG’s conformity.
For this reason, the CTA ruled that the CIR lacked legal standing to file the case.
Raida Argeli G. Grefiel is an associate of Mata-Perez, Tamayo & Francisco (MTF Counsel). She can be reached at info@mtfcounsel.com.