People v. Aquino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Felipe Cruz, Jr. and Vicente Aquino y Perez were charged with violating Section 174 of Commonwealth Act 446, the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. The charge alleged that they unlawfully possessed 39 cases and 38 cartons of Union Blue Seal cigarettes, which were subject to specific taxes amounting to no less than P10,444.00, and that these taxes had not been paid in accordance with law. Procedural History: Accused Felipe Cruz, Jr. pleaded not guilty and moved for a reinvestigation, which was granted. Accused Vicente Aquino y Perez, after pleading not guilty, moved to withdraw his plea and substitute it with a plea of guilty. This motion was granted, and upon arraignment, Aquino pleaded guilty. The Appeal: Vicente Aquino y Perez was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay a fine of P5,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Aquino appealed this decision, arguing that the penalty imposed was excessive and contrary to law, contending that only a fine of not more than P5,000.00 should have been imposed upon him since he pleaded guilty.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty of six (6) months imprisonment and a P5,000.00 fine, with subsidiary imprisonment, imposed upon Vicente Aquino y Perez for possession of untaxed articles is excessive and contrary to law, considering his plea of guilt. Whether the penalty imposed is within the range provided by Section 174 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
Ruling
The decision of the lower court imposing a penalty of six (6) months imprisonment and a P5,000.00 fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, upon Vicente Aquino y Perez is affirmed. The penalty is held to be within the legal range prescribed by Section 174 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the penalty imposed upon Vicente Aquino y Perez was not excessive nor contrary to law. While Aquino pleaded guilty, which is a mitigating circumstance, the penalty must still be within the bounds set by Section 174 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. The Court noted that even with the benefit of the plea of guilt, the penalty imposed remained within the statutory limits. The argument that only a fine should have been imposed is without merit because the law provides for both fine and imprisonment, or both, as penalties for the offense. The subsidiary imprisonment provision was also correctly applied, calculated at one day for each P2.50 of the fine, not exceeding one-third of the sentence term. On Issue 2: The Court found that the penalty imposed was within the range provided by Section 174 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. This section prescribes punishment by a fine of not less than three times the amount of the specific tax due but not less than two hundred pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, or by imprisonment of from four months and one day to four years and two months, or both. The penalty of six months imprisonment and a P5,000.00 fine falls within these prescribed limits, considering the minimum imprisonment is four months and one day and the maximum fine is P5,000.00. Therefore, the penalty was legally imposed.
Main Doctrine
The possession of articles subject to specific tax, without the taxes having been paid in accordance with law, constitutes a violation of Section 174 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. The penalty for such violation includes a fine and/or imprisonment, with the fine ranging from three times the tax due (but not less than P200.00 nor more than P5,000.00) and imprisonment from four months and one day to four years and two months. Even with a plea of guilt, the imposed penalty must remain within the statutory limits, and subsidiary imprisonment applies in case of insolvency.