Facts: Damian Ret filed 2 false and fraudulent returns for 1948 and 1949 for which he was assessed by the BIR the sums of P34,907.33 and P68,338.40 including 50% surcharge for found. Demand was made on January 3, 1951 for payment.
Ret refused to pay. On June 20, 1951, an assessment notice was issued but he still refused. Subsequently, Ret was prosecuted in 2 criminal cases for filing false or fraudulent returns. He pleaded guilty thereto and was sentenced to pay a fined of P300 in each case.
After his conviction, on September 21, 1957, the Government filed a complaint for the collection of Ret’s income taxes but the lower court dismissed the case on the ground that the government’s right to collect by judicial action had prescribed as more than five (now three) years had elapsed from the date of the assessment of Ret’s taxes.
The government however contended that prescription did not take place because the prescriptive period for collection was suspended when the 2 informations were filed on May 29, 1952 and began to run again from the receipt of the court’s decision on April 20, 1955.
Issue: Whether or not the prescriptive period was suspended when the 2 informations were filed.
Held: According to the SC, however, the prescriptive period for the civil action is suspended during the pendency of the criminal nation only when the civil liability arises from the offense committed. However, such rule does not apply here because the criminal actions for the violations are entirely separate and distinct from the civil suit.
The court further stated that there is nothing in the law which would have stopped the plaintiff-appellant from filing the civil suit simultaneously with or during the pendency of the criminal case.
0 comments:
Post a Comment