G.R. Nos. 174599-609 February 12, 2010
FACTS:
Diamond Knitting Corporation (DKC) terminated its operations in 1993 but was still issued tax credit certificates (TCCs) from 1994 to 1997. DKC then sold a number of these TCCs to Pilipinas Shell who then used it to pay off its excise tax obligations to the BIR. Upon investigation, a presidential task force found irregularities and filed a complaint for plunder against petitioner Cruz who is the General Manager of Pilipinas Shell’s Treasury and Taxation Department, and certain government officials before the Ombudsman (OMB).
In 2002, the OMB dropped the plunder case but charged the petitioner for multiple violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the Sandiganbayan. After the reinvestigation however, OMB resolved to drop the charges against the petitioners for lack of evidence. The Office of the State Prosecutor (OSP) filed a motion before the Sandiganbayan to drop Cruz from the informations, however, this motion was not acted on. Instead, Sandiganbayan granted OSP's subsequent motion to defer action on the withdrawal of charges against the petitioner.
Meanwhile, on December 21, 2007, the Supreme Court rendered judgment in Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue finding that Pilipinas Shell was a transferee in good faith and for value and may thus not be unjustly prejudiced by the transferor’s fraud committed in procuring the transfer of those TCCs.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the ruling in the Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue bar the prosecution of Cruz in the criminal cases
RULING:
Yes. Conclusiveness of judgment ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot be raised anew in any future case involving the same parties although for a different cause of action. Where the rule applies, there must be identity of issues but not necessarily identity in causes of action.
The parties in the tax case and in the criminal cases are substantially the same. The ultimate complainant in the criminal case—the party that suffered the injury—was the government, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The latter also represented the government in the tax case against Pilipinas Shell. Petitioner Cruz, on the other hand, represented Pilipinas Shell in all the transactions in question. The parties in the tax case and in the criminal cases represent substantially identical interests. The principle of res judicata through conclusiveness of judgment applies to bar the criminal actions against Cruz.