MANILA – The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has affirmed the acquittal of journalist Maria Ressa and Rappler Holdings Corporation (RHC) in their fifth tax evasion case stemming from their supposed failure to declare tax in 2015.
In a 17-page decision released publicly on Monday, the CTA Second Division dismissed a petition seeking to overturn the acquittal of the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 157 for lack of merit.
“In fine, absent any showing that there was mistrial that amounts to a denial of Petitioner’s rights to due process or that Public Respondent committed an error of jurisdiction in the appreciation of the evidence presented by the parties, certiorari will certainly not lie,” the CTA said.
In November 2018, the government accused Ressa of failing to declare “correct and accurate” information in quarterly sales receipts from RHC’s issuance and sale of Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDR) worth P2.45 million to NBM Rappler.
The failure to correctly declare their 2015 tax has allegedly resulted in a value-added tax (VAT) deficiency of P294,258.58, excluding surcharge and interest, to the damage of the government.
In September last year, the Pasig RTC acquitted Ressa and RHC of violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code) “on the ground that they did not commit the offense charged in the information.”
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was then prompted to file an appeal before the CTA, asking the court to declare null and void the Pasig court’s resolution and declare Ressa and RHC guilty beyond reasonable doubt while also ordering them to pay P294,258.58.
The OSG argued in their appeal that the Pasig court committed grave abuse of discretion when it “deliberately ignored the prosecution’s overwhelming evidence” that the RHC and Ressa willfully failed to declare tax and when it supposedly misinterpreted the law and ruled that no civil liability may be given to them.
However, the CTA stated in their decision that was promulgated earlier this month that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion as records showed that there was no violation of the petitioner’s rights and it was given ample opportunity to present its case.
“It was able to present and formally offer its evidence. Also, a plain reading of the assailed Decision shows that Public Respondent considered Petitioner’s evidence, both testimonial and documentary,” the CTA said.
“In fact, Petitioner’s multiple witnesses were examined before the witness stand,” it added. “We find that there is no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.”/PN
