Friday, March 21, 2014

Remedy on illegal search of vehicle

Galvante v. Hon. Casimiro et al (G.R. No. 162808, April 22, 2008)

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Petitioner's vehicle was search without his consent. He filed complaints before the Ombudsman. One of the criminal complaint he filed was warrantless search. 

Was the complaint proper?

No. The complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The conduct of a warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or any other special law. What the RPC punishes are only two forms of searches:

Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained. - In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceedingP1,000.00 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same.
Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality.

Petitioner did not allege any of the elements of the foregoing felonies in his Affidavit-Complaint; rather, he accused private respondents of conducting a search on his vehicle without being armed with a valid warrant. This situation, while lamentable, is not covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC.

The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search conducted on his vehicle is civil, (Silahis International Hotel, Inc. v. Soluta, G.R. No. 163087, February 20, 2006). under Article 32, in relation to Article 2219 (6) and (10) of the Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
x x x x
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
x x x x
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

and/or disciplinary and administrative, under Section 41 of Republic Act No. 6975.(Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990).

To avail of such remedies, petitioner may file a complaint for damages with the regular courts (Lui v. Matillano, G.R. No. 141176, May 27, 2004) or an administrative case with the PNP/DILG,(Cayago v. Lina, G.R. No. 149539, January 19, 2005) and not a criminal action with the Ombudsman.


Thursday, March 20, 2014

On credibility of witness, alibi and treachery
When it comes to the matter of credibility of a witness.
Settled are the guiding rules some of which are that:
(1) the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case;
(2) the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of a witness is entitled to great respect since it had the opportunity to examine his demeanor as he testified on the witness stand, and, therefore, can discern if such witness is telling the truth or not; and
(3) a witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.
Jurisprudence also tells us that when a testimony is given in a candid and straightforward manner, there is no room for doubt that the witness is telling the truth. (People v. Jalbonian, G.R. No. 180281, July 1, 2013).
On matters of alibi.
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.(People v. Hatsero, G.R. No. 192179, July 3, 2013.These requirements of time and place must be strictly met.
Court have consistently assigned less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by friends and relatives since it was established in jurisprudence that, in order for corroboration to be credible, the same must be offered preferably by disinterested witnesses.(People v. Basallo, G.R. No. 182457, January 30, 2013) Friends and relatives cannot be considered as a disinterested witness.
It is jurisprudentially settled that positive identification prevails over alibi since the latter can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable.(People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 190340, July 24, 2013)
It is likewise settled that where there is nothing to indicate that a witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. (People v. Zapuiz, G.R. No. 199713, February 20, 2013) 
On treachery
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real chance to defend himself.
Even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person, treachery may still be appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.
What is decisive in an appreciation of treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself.(People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014)
As per jurisprudence, when the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter.(People v. Cabtalan, G.R. No. 175980, February 15, 2012)

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

G.R. No. 199226

G.R. No. 199226: "Inconsistency on the place where the crime happened as a minor inconsistency which should generally be given liberal appreciation considering that the place of the commission of the crime in rape cases is after all not an essential element thereof. What is decisive is that [accused-appellant’s] commission of the crime charged has been sufficiently proved.

The alleged inconsistency is also understandable considering that AAA was only ten (10) years old at the time she testified before the trial court. Courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a harrowing experience like rape. Such inconsistencies on minor details are in fact badges of truth, candidness and the fact that the witness is unrehearsed. These discrepancies as to minor matters, irrelevant to the elements of the crime, cannot thus be considered a ground for acquittal. In this case, the alleged inconsistency in AAA’s testimony regarding the exact place of the commission of rape does not make her otherwise straightforward and coherent testimony on material points, less worthy of belief."



'via Blog this'

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

On separation pay of dismissed employee

Separation pay may be granted to a validly dismissed employee as an act of social justice or on equitable grounds only if the dismissal (1) was not for serious misconduct; and (2) did not reflect on the moral character of the employee. 
When a dismissed employee from work intentionally circumvented a strict company policy, manipulated another entity to carry out own instructions without the company’s knowledge and approval, and directed the diversion of funds under the guise of shortening the laborious process of securing funds from the head office for promotional activities. These transgressions were serious offenses that warranted employee's dismissal from employment and denial of the separation pay (Unilever Phil. Inc. vs. Rivera, G.R. 201701, June 5, 2013).

Psychological incapacity

Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility do not equate with psychological incapacity. Nor were his supposed sexual infidelity and criminal offenses manifestations of psychological incapacity. If at all, they would constitute grounds for an action for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. (Mendoza vs. Republic, G.R. 157649, November 12, 2012,) 

On credibility of child witness testimony

"Testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. When a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was really committed." (People vs. Saban, G.R. 110559, November 24,  1999.) 




Saturday, April 27, 2013

Donor's Tax


Donor’s Tax

A.      Nature of Donor’s Tax

LLadoc v. CIR (14 SCRA 292)
A gift tax is not a property tax, but an excise tax imposed on the transfer of property by way of gift inter vivos.

Facts: Sometime in 1957, M.B. Estate Inc., of Bacolod City, donated 10,000.00 pesos in cash to Fr. Crispin Ruiz, the parish priest of Victorias, Negros Occidental, and predecessor of Fr. Lladoc, for the construction of a new Catholic church in the locality. The donated amount was spent for such purpose.

On March 3, 1958, the donor M.B. Estate filed the donor's gift tax return. Under date of April 29, 1960. Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued an assessment for the donee's gift tax against the Catholic Parish of Victorias of which petitioner was the parish priest.

Issue: Whether or not the imposition of gift tax is valid despite the fact that the Constitution provides an exemptions and that Fr. Lladoc was not the Parish priest at the time of donation.

Held: Yes, the imposition of the gift tax was valid. Section 22(3) Article VI of the Constitution contemplates exemption only from payment of taxes assessed on such properties as Property taxes contra distinguished from Excise taxes. The imposition of the gift tax on the property used for religious purpose is not a violation of the Constitution. A gift tax is not a property by way of gift inter vivos, the imposition of which on property used exclusively for religious purposes, does not constitute an impairment of the Constitution. As well observed by the learned respondent Court, the phrase "exempt from taxation," as employed in the Constitution (supra) should not be interpreted to mean exemption from all kinds of taxes. And there being no clear, positive or express grant of such privilege by law, in favor of petitioner, the exemption herein must be denied.

Pirovano v. CIR (14 SCRA 232)
Sec. 32[B] of the NIRC provides that Gifts, bequests and devises are excluded from gross income liable to tax. Instead, such donations are subject to estate or gift taxes. However, if the amount is received on account of services rendered, whether constituting a demandable debt or not (such as remuneratory donations under Civil Law), the donation is considered taxable income.

Facts: De la Rama Steamship Co. insured the life of Enrico Pirovano who was then its President and General Manager. The company initially designated itself as the beneficiary of the policies but, after Pirovano’s death, it renounced all its rights, title and interest therein, in favor of Pirovano’s heirs.

The CIR subjected the donation to gift tax. Pirovano’s heirs contended that the grant was not subject to such donee’s tax because it was not a simple donation, as it was made for a full and adequate compensation for the valuable services by the late Priovano (i.e. that it was remuneratory).

Issue: WON the donation is remuneratory and therefore not subject to donee’s tax, but rather taxable as part of gross income.

Held: No. the donation is not remuneratory. There is nothing on record to show that when the late Enrico Pirovano rendered services as President and General Manager of the De la Rama Steamship Co. and was “largely responsible for the rapid and very successful development of the activities of the company", he was not fully compensated for such services. The fact that his services contributed in a large measure to the success of the company did not give rise to a recoverable debt, and the conveyances made by the company to his heirs remain a gift or a donation. The company’s gratitude was the true consideration for the donation, and not the services themselves.

1.       Definition:
A tax on the privilege of transmitting one’s property or property rights to another or others without adequate valuable consideration.

Donor’s tax shall be imposed upon the transfer by any person, resident or non-resident, of any property by gift. This tax shall be applied whether the transfer is by trust or otherwise, whether the gift is direct or indirect, and whether the property is real or personal, tangible or intangible. (Sec. 98, NIRC)

2.       Composition of gross gift (Sec. 98 and 104)
Gross gifts include real and personal property whether tangible or intangible or mixed wherever situated.

3.       Tax exempt, net gift (Sec. 99)
        If the net gift is not over PhP100,000, it shall be exempted from donor’s tax.

4.       Minimum and Maximum Rates (Sec 99)
a)      If the Donee is not a stranger- The minimum donor’s tax rate is 2% in excess of PhP100,000 but not over PhP200,000.     The maximum donor’s tax rate is 15% in excess of 10M.
b)      If the done is a stranger, the maximum and the minimum tax rate is fixed at 30% of the net gifts.

5.       Who is a stranger and applicable tax rate (Sec 99)
a)      A stranger is not the brother, sister (whether by whole or half blood), spouse, ancestor and lineal descendant; or
b)      Relative by consanguinity, in the collateral line, within the fourth civil degree of relationship.

B.      Composition of the gross gift (Sec. 104)             

1.       Resident and citizens; resident alien
         All properties, real or personal, tangible or intangible wherever situated

2.       Non-resident alien
Only properties situated in the Philippines provided that, with respect to intangible personal property, its inclusion in the gross estate is subject to the rule of reciprocity provided for under Section 104 of the NIRC.

Rule on Reciprocity: No tax shall be collected in respect of intangible personal property if
a)      the decedent at the time of his death or the donor at the time of donation was a citizen of and resident of a foreign country which at the time of his death or donation did not impose a transfer tax of any character, in respect of intangible personal property of citizens of the Philippines not residing in that foreign country; or
b)      the laws of the foreign country of which the decedent or donor was a citizen and resident at the time of his death or donation allows a similar exemption from transfer or death, taxes of every character or description in respect of intangible personal property owned by citizens of the Philippines not residing to that foreign country.

3.       Corporations
Shall be considered as situated in the Philippines and therefore the property shall be subject to tax, provided that-
a)      Franchise which must be exercised in the Philippines;
b)      Shares, obligations or bonds issued by any corporation or sociedad anonima organized or constituted in accordance with its laws;
c)       Shares, obligations or bonds by any foreign corporation 85% of the business of which is located in the Philippines;
d)      Shares, obligations or bonds issued by any foreign corporation if such shares, obligations or bonds have acquired a business situs in the Philippines;
e)      Shares, or rights in partnership, business or industry established in the Philippines, shall be considered as situated in the Philippines; provided further that imposition of such  donor’s tax is subject to Reciprocity Rule.

4.       Valuation of gifts made in the property (Sec 102)
a)      In case of personal property: the value to be taken into consideration is the fair market value at the time of the donation
b)      For real properties: Section 102 refers to Section 88 (B) which provides that the value to be considered shall be the (i) FMV as determined by the Commissioner; or (ii) FMV as showed in the schedule of values fixed by the Provincial or City Assessors, whichever is higher.

5.       Exemption of certain gifts made in the property (Sec 101)
a)      Resident and Citizens
-          For dowries or gifts made on account of marriage, the following should be present (i) the gift was made on account of marriage; (ii) it was made before or within one year after the celebration of marriage; (iii) the donor is the parent; (iv) the donee is the legitimate natural, or adopted children of the donor; and (v) the amount of the gift exempted is only to the extent of the first PhP100,000.00
-          For Gifts made for the use of the National Government or any entity created by any of its agencies which is not conducted for profit, or any political subdivision of the said government are exempt from donor’s tax. The only requirement to be exempt is that the done should be an agency not conducted for profits.
-          Gifts in favor of an educational and/or charitable, religious, cultural or social welfare corporation, institution, accredited nongovernment organization, trust or philanthropic organization or research institution or organization. To be exempted
(i)             Not more than 30% of the said gift should be used for administrative purposes;
(ii)           The donee must be a non-stock, non profit organization or institution;
(iii)          The donee organization or institution should be governed by trustees who do not receive dividends; and
(iv)         Said donee devotes all its income to the accomplishment and promotion of its purposes.

b)      Non-resident aliens
-          Gifts made for the use of the National Government or any entity created by any of its agencies which is not conducted for profit, or any political subdivision of the government;
-          Gifts in favor of an educational and/or charitable, religious, cultural or social welfare corporation, institution, accredited nongovernment organization, trust or philanthropic organization or research institution or organization. Unlike in the case of residents and citizens, for nonresidents who are not citizens of the Philippines, there is only one requirement that is not more than 30% of the gift should be used for administrative purposes.
c)       Corporations
-          Incorporated as a non-stock entity;
-          Pays no dividends;
-          Governed by trustee who received no compensation; and
-          Devotes all its income whether students’ fees or gifts, donations, subsidies or other forms of philanthropy to the accomplishment and promotion of the purposes enumerated in its articles of incorporation

C.      Other Matters

1.       Rule on Political Contributions (Sec 13 and 14 RA 7166)

    As provided in the Election Code, as amended by RA 7166, Sec 13, if the donee is a candidate, a political party or a coalition of parties, the donation is exempt from donor’s tax. As provided in Sec 14 of the law, the only requirement to be exempt thereof  is that the donation should be duly reported to the COMELEC.

Thus:
                Section 13. Authorized Expenses of Candidates and Political Parties. - The agreement amount that a candidate or registered political party may spend for election campaign shall be as follows:
(a) For candidates. - Ten pesos (P10.00) for President and Vice-President; and for other candidates Three Pesos (P3.00) for every voter currently registered in the constituency where he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That a candidate without any political party and without support from any political party may be allowed to spend Five Pesos (P5.00) for every such voter; and
(b) For political parties. - Five pesos (P5.00) for every voter currently registered in the constituency or constituencies where it has official candidates.

Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding any contribution in cash or in kind to any candidate or political party or coalition of parties for campaign purposes, duly reported to the Commission shall not be subject to the payment of any gift tax.

Section 14. Statement of Contributions and Expenditures: Effect of Failure to File Statement. - Every candidate and treasurer of the political party shall, within thirty (30) days after the day of the election, file in duplicate with the offices of the Commission the full, true and itemized statement of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the election.

No person elected to any public offices shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has filed the statement of contributions and expenditures herein required.

The same prohibition shall apply if the political party which nominated the winning candidate fails to file the statement required herein within the period prescribed by this Act.

Except candidates for elective barangay office, failure to file the statements or reports in connection with electoral contributions and expenditures are required herein shall constitute an administrative offense for which the offenders shall be liable to pay an administrative fine ranging from One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00), in the discretion of the Commission.

The fine shall be paid within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of such failure; otherwise, it shall be enforceable by a writ of execution issued by the Commission against the properties of the offender.
It shall be the duty of every city or municipal election registrar to advise in writing, by personal delivery or registered mail, within five (5) days from the date of election all candidates residing in his jurisdiction to comply with their obligation to file their statements of contributions and expenditures.

For the commission of a second or subsequent offense under this section, the administrative fine shall be from Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) to Sixty thousand pesos (P60,000.00), in the discretion of the Commission. In addition, the offender shall be subject to perpetual disqualification to hold public office.

2.       Transfer for less than adequate and full consideration (Sec 100)
Under this Section, the property was transferred by the donor for less than adequate consideration for money or money’s worth. However, the Code considers this transfer as a donation since what motivated the donor in transferring the property is his generosity. It is as if the property was donated but in order to avoid donor’s tax, the donor opted to transfer the property for inadequate consideration.

By way of exception, Sec 100 provides that for the property mentioned in Sec 24 (D)(1), this is not applicable. Sec 24(D)(1) refers to real property located in the Philippines which is capital asset. Hence, under Sec 100, if the property transferred for inadequate consideration was a real property located in the Philippines which is capital asset, donor’s tax will not be applicable. In that case, the applicable tax is Final Income Tax of 6% of the FMV or gross selling price whichever is higher.

Further Sec 100 will not apply if the transfer is a bona fide donation. In that case, if there was a consideration given by the donee to the donor, even if such consideration is inadequate, Sec 100 will not apply and the donation shall be subject to donor’s tax.

3.       Manner of Computing the Donor’s Tax (Sec 12 RR No. 2-03)
-       The computation of the donor’s tax is on a cumulative basis over a period of one calendar year.  Thus when the donor makes two or more donation within the same calendar year, it is required that said donation be included in the return for the last donation. There is no double taxation. Under this method, the tax paid on the first donation will be considered as tax credit. Relevant in a donation made not by a strangers in the computation of tax percentage to be imposed under Sec 99(A).

D.      Filing and Payment of Returns (Sec 103/ Sec 13 RR No. 2-03)

1. Requirements
–  Any person making a donation (whether direct or indirect), unless the donation is specifically exempt under the Code or other special laws, is required, for every donation, to accomplish under oath a donor’s tax return in duplicate. The return shall set forth:
(i)  Each gift made during the calendar year which is to be included in computing net gifts;
(ii) The deductions claimed and allowable;
(iii) Any previous net gifts made during the same calendar year;
(iv) The name of the donee;
(v)  Relationship of the donor to the donee; and
(vi) Such further information as the Commissioner may require.

2. Time and Place of Filing
-       The Code provides that the return shall be filed within 30 days after the date the gift was made and the tax due thereon shall be paid at the time of filing. The “pay as you file” system is applicable.
-       Unlike in the estate tax, there is no extension allowed by the Code for the donor tax. At the time of filing of the return, the donor tax due should be paid.
-       The return shall be filed and the tax shall be paid at any authorized agent bank, the RDO, RCO, or duly authorized treasure of the city or municipality where the donor was domiciled at the time of the transfer, or if there be no legal residence in the Philippines, with the office of the Commissioner. In case of the gifts made by a non-resident, the return may be filed with the Philippine Embassy or Consulate in the country where he is domiciled at the time of the transfer, or directly with the office of the Commissioner.

3. Notice of Donation - Exemption from Donor’s Tax (Sec 13 RR No. 2-03)
-                In order to be exempt from donor’s tax and to claim full deduction of the donation given to qualified donee institutions duly accredited by the Philippine Council for NGO Certification, Inc. (PCNC), the donor engaged in business shall give a notice of donation on every donation worth at least Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) to the Revenue District Office (RDO) which has jurisdiction over his place of business within thirty (30) days after receipt of the qualified donee institution’s duly issued Certificate of Donation, which shall be attached to the said Notice of Donation, stating that not more than thirty percent (30%) of the said donation/gifts for the taxable year shall be used by such accredited non-stock, non-profit corporation/NGO institution (qualified-donee institution) for administration purposes pursuant to the provisions of Section 101(A)(3) and (B)(2) of the Code.

4. Rule on waiver of hereditary share – correlate with Estate Tax
-                Renunciation by the surviving spouse of his/her share in the conjugal partnership or absolute community after the dissolution of the marriage in favor of the heirs of the deceased spouse of any other person/s is subject to donor tax.
-                General renunciation by an heir, including the surviving spouse, of his/her share in the hereditary estate left by the decedent is not subject to donor’s tax, unless specifically done in favor of an identified heir/s to the exclusion or disadvantage of the other co-heirs in the hereditary estate