6-People v. Kintanar, G.R. No. 196340, August 26, 2009

28th December 2013 Willful Blindness Doctrine - People v.
Gloria Kintanar (CTA

EB Crim. No. 006, Dec. 3, 2010)
The Supreme Court recently introduced the "Doctrine of Willful Blindness" in a landmark tax evasion case decided in
year 2012. Under this doctrine, the taxpayer’s deliberate refusal or avoidance to verify the contents of his or her ITR and
other documents constitutes "willful blindness" on his or her part. It is by reason of this doctrine that taxpayers cannot
simply invoke reliance on mere representations of their accountants or authorized representatives in order to avoid
liability for failure to pay the correct taxes.
As they say, "ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith." In order to be liable, it is enough that the
taxpayer knows his or her obligation to file the required return and he has failed to comply thereto in the manner required
by law.
Evidently, it is imperative for individual taxpayers like professionals to be knowledgeable with their tax obligations, to be
compliant with tax rules and regulations, and to be responsible for all information reported in his or her ITR.
And as previously mentioned, the "Doctrine of Willful Blindness" is already part of our jurisprudence, and it can be used
as a precedent for future tax evasion cases.
----------------
Willful blindness doctrine by: Maridelle M. Ramos (Punongbayan & Araullo)
MERE RELIANCE on another person in preparing, filing and paying income taxes is not a justification for failure to file
the right information on income taxes.
In People v. Gloria Kintanar (CTA EB Crim. No. 006, Dec. 3, 2010), Ms. Kintanar was charged with failure to make or file
her income tax returns (ITR), violating Section 255 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended.
She claimed that she did not actively participate in the filing of her joint ITR with her husband since she entrusted such
duty to the latter who, in turn, hired an accountant to perform their tax responsibilities. She testified that she did not know
how much her tax obligation was; nor did she bother to inquire or determine the facts surrounding the filing of her ITRs.
Despite several notices and subpoena received by the accused, only an unsupported protest letter made by her husband
was filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc found her neglect or
omission tantamount to “deliberate ignorance” or “conscious avoidance”. As an experienced businesswoman, her
reliance on her husband to file the required ITR without ensuring its full compliance showed clear indication of deliberate
lack of concern on her part to perform her tax obligations. This ruling was sustained by the Supreme Court (SC) in 2012.
Based on the foregoing, the willful blindness doctrine was applied by the CTA, as sustained by SC on cases where there
is a natural presumption that the taxpayer knows his/her tax obligations under the law considering the factual
circumstances of the case, such as being a businesswoman or official of a company. This case set a precedent that mere
reliance on a representative or agent (i.e., accountant or husband) is not a valid ground to justify any noncompliance in
tax obligations. The taxpayer must inquire, check and validate whether or not his/her representative or agent has
complied with the taxpayer’s tax responsibilities.
However, in the recent case of People v. Judy Ann Santos (CTA Crim. Case no. 012, Jan. 16, 2013), the CTA Division
seemed to have a change of heart and acquitted Ms. Santos despite having almost the same circumstances as that of
the case of Ms. Kintanar. In this case, Ms. Santos was accused of failure to supply correct and accurate information in
her ITR. She claimed that by virtue of trust, respect and confidence, she has entrusted her professional, financial and tax
responsibilities to her manager since she was 12 years old. She participated and maintained her intention to settle the
case, and thus provided all the documents needed as well as payment of her taxes. The element of willfulness was not
established and the CTA found her to be merely negligent. The CTA also noted the intention of Ms. Santos to settle the
case, which negates any motive to commit fraud. This was affirmed by the SC in its resolution issued April 2013.
THE DIFFERENCES
“Willful blindness” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “deliberate avoidance of knowledge of a crime, especially by
failing to make a reasonable inquiry about suspected wrongdoing, despite being aware that it is highly probable.” A
“willful act” is described as one done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse.
“Willful” in tax crimes means voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty, and bad faith or bad purpose need not
be shown. It is a state of mind that may be inferred from the circumstances of the case; thus, proof of willfulness may be,
and usually is, shown by circumstantial evidence alone. Therefore, to convict the accused for willful failure to file ITR or
submit accurate information, it must be shown that the accused was (1) aware of his/her obligation to file annual ITR or
submit accurate information, but that (2) he/she, or his/her supposed agent, nevertheless voluntarily, knowingly and
intentionally failed to file the required ret urns or submit accurate information. Bad faith or intent to defraud need not be
shown.
As can be observed in the first case, the accused knew that she had to timely file and supply correct and accurate
information of the joint ITR with the BIR in relation to the profession or the position she holds. The knowledge was
presumed based on the fact that Ms. Kintanar is an “experienced” businesswoman, having been an independent
distributor of a product for several years. However, despite this knowledge, the CTA found that she voluntarily, knowingly
and intentionally failed to fulfill her tax responsibilities by not participating in the filing of the ITR and ensuring that
everything was filed correctly and accurately. As compared with the Santos case, which the SC affirmed, the element of
“voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally” was taken differently by the CTA in consideration of the facts of the case. Ms.
Santos fully entrusted her tax obligations and finances to her manager since she was a child. It can be said that she is
not an “experienced” manager of her finances and taxes since she never handled such task, as compared with the
situation of Ms. Kintanar, who is considered an experienced businesswoman who manages her business as well as her
financial and tax responsibilities -- which is expected of somebody in her position (i.e., president and/or businessperson).
The concept of willful blindness doctrine is new in Philippine jurisprudence. The application of this doctrine by the CTA in
the said cases was guided by the appreciation of the facts and the pieces of evidence produced by the prosecution and
accused to prove the non-existence of willfulness. However, defined and clear standards in its application must be done
as guidance for future application. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary application and to encourage proper use of the
doctrine by both parties in the case.
Posted 28th December 2013 by Rem Ramirez, REBL No. 20231
0 Add a comment

6-People v. Kintanar, G.R. No. 196340, August 26, 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6-People v. Kintanar, G.R. No. 196340, August 26, 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6-People v. Kintanar, G.R. No. 196340, August 26, 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

28th December 2013 Willful Blindness Doctrine - People v.

Gloria Kintanar (CTA

Willful blindness doctrine by: Maridelle M. Ramos (Punongbayan & Araullo)

Posted 28th December 2013 by Rem Ramirez, REBL No. 20231

You might also like