G.R. No. 260374

G.R. No. 260374 / 260426, June 28, 2022,
♦ Decision, Zalameda, [J]
♦ Separate Concurring Opinion, Leonen, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
♦ Concurrence Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J]
♦ Separate Concurring Opinion, M. Lopez, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Gaerlan, [J]
♦ Separate Concurring Opinion, J. Lopez, [J]
♦ Separate Concurring Opinion, Dimaampao, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Singh, [J]

FR. CHRISTIAN B. BUENAFE, FIDES M. LIM, MA. EDELIZA P. HERNANDEZ, CELIA LAGMAN SEVILLA, ROLAND C. VIBAL, AND JOSEPHINE LASCANO, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FERDINAND ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, JR., THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SENATE PRESIDENT, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RESPONDENTS.

BONIFACIO PARABUAC ILAGAN, SATURNINO CUNANAN OCAMPO, MARIA CAROLINA PAGADUAN ARAULLO, TRINIDAD GERILLA REPUNO, JOANNA KINTANAR CARIÑO, ELISA TITA PEREZ LUBI, LIZA LARGOZA MAZA, DANILO MALLARI DELA FUENTE, CARMENCITA MENDOZA FLORENTINO, DOROTEO CUBACUB ABAYA, JR., ERLINDA NABLE SENTURIAS, SR. ARABELLA CAMMAGAY BALINGAO, SR. CHERRY M. IBARDOLAZA, CSSJB, SR. SUSAN SANTOS ESMILE, SFIC, HOMAR RUBERT ROCA DISTAJO, POLYNNE ESPINEDA DIRA, JAMES CARWYN CANDILA, AND JONAS ANGELO LOPENA ABADILLA, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FERDINAND ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, JR., THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SENATE PRESIDENT, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RESPONDENTS.

At the center of judicial crosshairs are legal issues that have piqued the nation's attention and anticipation: (1) whether Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. (Marcos, Jr.) is qualified to run for the presidency; and (2) whether his certificate of candidacy (COC) should be canceled or denied due course. The Court writes finis to these questions under a solemn duty to apply what the rule of law indelibly expresses, while giving due regard to the sacred and sovereign will of the Filipino people, from whom all governmental authority emanates.

G.R. No. 260374 (Buenafe Petition) has its provenance in a petition to cancel or deny due course Marcos, Jr.'s COC based on Section 78,1 in relation to Section 74,2 Article IX of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) filed before the Commission on Elections (Comelec). The Buenafe Petition claimed that Marcos, Jr. committed false material representation when he stated in his COC that he is eligible to run for president although he had a prior conviction carrying with it the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding any public office and to participate in any election.

On the other hand, G.R. No. 260426 (Ilagan Petition) is an offshoot of the petition to disqualify Marcos, Jr. wider Section 123 of the OEC. The Ilagan Petition averred that Marcos, Jr. was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

Both petitions anchor their basis for disqualification and cancellation of COC on the same set of criminal cases involving Marcos, Jr. for violation of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 (1977 NIRC), as amended. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City convicted4 him of failure to file income tax returns for the years 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985. The RTC also convicted him of tax evasion for the same taxable years. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals (CA) acquitted5 Marcos, Jr. of tax evasion. The CA affirmed his conviction for failure to file income tax returns, albeit modifying his penalty. Later, the decision of the CA became final and executory.

With these factual milieux, the Comelec denied both the Buenafe and Ilagan Petitions. Unfazed, petitioners brought the present cases to the Court ascribing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Comelec.

After a judicious review, the ponencia sustains the Comelec Ruling and dismisses the consolidated petitions.

The ponencia holds that the failure to file income tax returns may or may not be a crime involving moral turpitude.6 While it acknowledges that tax evasion is a crime involving moral turpitude, the ponencia clarifies that the failure to file income tax return—for which Marcos, Jr. was convicted—does not always amount to tax evasion.7

I concur with the ponencia. However, I humbly proffer my disquisition on the issue.

Concededly, tax evasion is a broad legal concept. Yet, this broad conceptual framework supports the thesis that failure to file income tax returns may or may not amount to tax evasion.

As enunciated in the ponencia, tax evasion connotes fraud through the use of pretenses and forbidden devices to lessen or defeat taxes. Thus, tax evasion integrates three factors: (a) the end to be achieved, i.e., the payment of less than that known by the taxpayer to be legally due, or the non-payment of tax when it is shown that a tax is due; (b) an accompanying state of mind, which is described as being "evil," in "bad faith," "willful," or "deliberate and not accidental"; and (c) a course of action or failure of action that is unlawful.8

Black's law dictionary defines tax evasion as: "The willful attempt to defeat or circumvent the tax law in order to illegally reduce one's tax liability." From this definition, the elements of tax evasion could be dissected as follows: one, the act must be willful or intentional; two, the mode used must be illegal; and three, the end to be achieved is the reduction of one's tax liability.

Under the first element of tax evasion, the ultimate objective is to defeat or reduce illegally the payment of taxes. In order to achieve this ultimate objective, taxpayers resort to all sorts of strategies, means, methods, and schemes—including non-filing of income tax returns.

An income tax return is a sworn statement or declaration in which the taxpayer discloses the nature and extent of his tax liability by formally making a report of his income and allowable deductions for the taxable year.9 In our current tax system, the Philippines adheres to the pay-as-you-file basis, which means that the taxpayers assess themselves, file their returns, and pay the taxes as shown in their returns upon filing thereof.

Necessarily, taxpayers are required to declare their true incomes at any given taxable year. Some taxpayers, however, abuse the system by not filing their income tax returns, at all, of course at the expense of risking themselves to civil and criminal liabilities. This willful exploitation of the pay-as-you-file system could metastasize into a criminal intent to defeat or evade payment of taxes by: (1) willfully mis-declaring or stating inaccurate figures in the income tax return, even under the pain of perjury, i.e., filing a fraudulent return or (2) willfully not filing an income tax return. Both may be used as modes of committing tax evasion.

Hence, it is a mistake to treat non-filing of income tax returns and tax evasion separately, independently, and mutually exclusive from each other. Rather, non-filing of income tax returns and tax evasion are inextricably linked as the former may proximately cause the latter.

The non-filing of income tax returns morphs into tax evasion when the element of willfulness comes into play. This next query leaps to the eye: when is non-filing of income tax return willful?

A willful act may be described as one done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently.10 Thus, to be considered willful, the taxpayers must not only have full knowledge of the consequence of the non-filing of income tax returns, but they also do so with the stubborn purpose to defeat the law and escape the payment of taxes altogether.

Moreover, willfulness may be determined through, among others, the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of taxpayers, their level of discernment, their educational attainment, the frequency of their non-filing of income tax returns, the amount of income concealed, and such other considerations peculiar to each and every case. No factor from the foregoing can singularly establish tax evasion. In the ultimate analysis, willful intent to evade taxes is a question of fact that would depend on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the case.

In the case before Us, I agree that Marcos, Jr.'s non-filing of income tax returns for the years 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985 does not amount to tax evasion. The totality of circumstances at bench fails to establish the element of willfulness. However, I take exception in absolutely adhering to the myopic view espoused in Republic v. Marcos, II11 that non-filing of income tax returns is not a crime involving moral turpitude sans explanation of why or how it was so.

As aptly observed by the ponencia, in the years 1982 through 1985, Marcos, Jr. was the Governor of Ilocos Norte. Thus, he was an employee12 of the provincial government. Essentially, the provincial government was his withholding agent. Section 94 of the 1977 NIRC provides:

Now, is it apposite to say that the provincial government willfully and deliberately failed to withhold the corresponding taxes from Marcos, Jr.'s income? It most certainly is not. The government will never deny itself of its very own lifeblood, unless it is ready to meet its untimely death.

Whence, Marcos, Jr.'s non-filing of income tax returns had no badge of willful and deliberate intent to defeat our tax laws. Corollarily, such failure is not tantamount to evasion of taxes.1a⍵⍴h!1

A final word. The case now before Us is the perfect opportunity for the Court to dispel the cobwebs of doubt surrounding the nature of non-filing of income tax returns and its relation to tax evasion, and to refute any postulations which may arise from the mind of a circumspect citizen that "no evil can ever come from failing to file tax return."