People of the Philippines vs. Gloria V. Kintanar C.T.A. EB CRIM. NO. 006 (C.T.A. CRIM. CASE NOS.

0033 & 0-034) December 3, 2010

FACTS: Spouses Benjamin Kintanar and Gloria V. Kintanar were distributors or independent contractors
of Forever Living Products Phils. Inc. (FLPPI). It all began when the Investigation Division of the BIR
received confidential information of an alleged tax evasion scheme of the Spouses Kintanar. As a result
thereof, BIR issued a Letter of Authority to examine the books of accounts and other accounting records
for taxable years 1999 to 2002. The LOA was received by Mr. Kintanar on April 3, 2003. Gloria Kintanar
failed to submit the required documents. Thereafter, several notices and a subpoena were sent to her, by
the BIR but the she remained uncompliant.
On August 31, 2004 the husband of Gloria Kintanar filed a protest to the Letter of Demand and
Assessment notices sent by the BIR. Photocopies of the spouses joint income tax returns for the years
2000-2002 were attached to the protest. In response thereto, the BIR required the spouses to submit
additional documents within 60 days. Again, the spouses failed to comply with the said request;
consequently, the assessment and the demand letter became final, executory and demandable.
The prosecution proved that Gloria Kintanar failed to file her ITRs for the years 1999-2001 and found her
liable for deficiency income taxes arising from income earned from FLPPI. Gloria Kintanar testified that
she filed her ITRs for taxable years 2000-2001. She denied having willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
failed to file her ITR on said years as she has no personal knowledge of the actual filing of the said
returns because it was her husband who filed the ITRs. Her husband on the other hand testified that he
filed the ITRs for the years 1997-2004 through their hired accountant who prepared and filed their returns.
Because he relied upon his accountant, he only browsed the returns; therefore, he has no knowledge to
the amount stated thereon and to the address which their accountant filed their returns to.
The Former Second Division found Gloria Kintanar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section
255 of the NIRC of 1997. Hence, Gloria Kintanar filed this instant petition before the CTA En Banc.
ISSUES: Did Petitioner Gloria Kintanar violate Sec. 255 of the NIRC for failure to make or file her returns?
Was her failure to make or file a return willful?
ANSWER/RATIONALE/HELD: Yes, Gloria Kintanar is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for failure to make
or file a return under Section 255 of the NIRC . Yes, the Court found her to have willfully and deliberately
failed to file her returns for the taxable years 2000-2001.
Section 255 contemplates four different situations punishable by law, for failure to:
1. To pay any tax;
2. To make a return;
3. To keep any record; and
4. To supply correct and accurate information.
Petitioner Gloria Kintanar is charged with failure to make or file a return. The elements of which are the
following:
a. the accused is a person required to make or file a return;
b. the accused failed to make or file a return at the time required by law; and
c. That failure to make or file a return was willful.
All of the aforementioned elements are present in this case. As to the 1st element, Gloria Kintanar is duty
bound to make or file a return under Section 51 of the NIRC. Considering that she earned a substantial
income as distributor of FLPPI; she is therefore required to make or file her annual income tax return
pursuant to Sec. 51 of the NIRC. As to 2nd element, she failed to make or file her ITRs for the taxable
years 2000-2001. Gloria Kintanar had no record that she filed the required ITRs within the reglementary
period to any of the Rev. District Offices of the BIR. The only record the BIR has was when she was

registered as a one-time transaction tax payer for capital gains and documentary stamp in Cavite. The
petitioner presented 2 ITRs allegedly filed in the RDO of Novaliches. However, the court did not give
credence to the authenticity of the document as it contained material flaws. The ITRs were in itself
incomplete, filed in an RDO having no jurisdiction over the place of residence of Mrs. Kintanar and even
her husband admitted that he did not even read the contents of the ITR and does not know where these
ITRs were supposedly filed by their accountant.
The 2 certifications submitted by Kintanar were likewise tainted with various defects to wit; a) the
certificates are undated; the certificates were issued by the RDO in Novaliches which has the jurisdiction
over the address reflected on the accuseds ITR. However, the ITRs were stamped received by the RDO
in Cubao; and lastly, the signatory of the certificate was not presented nor was there an attempt to
present him to attest the veracity of the certificates. As regards the 3rd element of "willfulness", it was
sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner deliberately failed to make or file a return.
Willful in the tax crimes statutes means voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty, and bad faith
or bad purpose need not be shown [Mertens' Law of Federal Income Taxation, Chapter 47.05, page 28,
Volume 13, see U.S. v. Green, 757 F2d 116,85-1 USTC 9178 (CA7 1985), in which the Court, Citing U.S.
v. Moore, 627 F2d 830 (CA7 1980) and U.S. v. Verkuilen, 690 F2d 6-18, 82-2 USTC 9618 (CA7 1982),
upheld the conviction of a tax protester for willful failure to file returns.
An act or omission is "willfully" done if done voluntarily and intentionally and with specific intent to do
something the law forbids, or with specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done; that
is, with bad purpose to either disobey or disregard the law. A willful act may be described as one done
intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse (Black's Law Dictionary, 51ed. p.1434).
Under the law, Gloria and her husband are obliged to file their ITRs for taxable years 2000 and 2001.
Thus, Glorias sole reliance on her husband to file their ITRs is not a valid reason to justify her non-filing.
Being an experienced businesswoman and having been an independent distributor of FLPPI since 1996,
she ought to know and understand all the matters concerning her business. This includes knowledge and
awareness of her tax obligation in connection with her business. She should know how much are her tax
dues, the details stated on the ITRs, where the same are filed, and other important facts related to the
filing of her ITRs; after all, these matters concern her finances. There were no affirmative acts on the part
of Gloria Kintanar to make sure that her obligation to file her ITRs had been fully complied with. Such
neglect or omission, as aptly founded by the Former Second Division, is tantamount to "deliberate
ignorance or "conscious avoidance". Likewise, Gloria Kintanar was duly informed that no ITRs were
filed, nor recorded under her name. There were several notices sent to her by the BIR to comply with her
tax obligations, but she opted not to comply. Evidently, such non-compliance with the BIRs notices clearly
shows her intent not to file her ITRs.
Finding no reversible error, the Court En Banc affirms the assailed decision and Resolution of the Former
Second Division of this Court. RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for
Review is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated August 26, 2009 and Resolution dated
November 26, 2009 of the Former Second Division are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.