The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has acquitted five executives of a cigarette manufacturing company which was raided in 2020 in Angeles City in Pampanga where P14.08 million worth of tobacco products were seized.
Acquitted were GB Bem Cigarette Co., Inc. president Gregory G. Lim, treasurer Benson G. Chua, directors Elsie A. Oafallas and Gendy A. Bambao, and corporate secretary Cristina G. Dayos.
They were charged with possession of locally manufactured tobacco products subject to excise tax but were found allegedly unpaid in violation of Section 263, in relation to Sections 253(d) and 256 of the National Internal Revenue Code.
The decision promulgated last Nov. 20 was written by Associate Justice Lenee S. Cui-David of the CTA's first division.
The charges arose from the Feb. 5, 2020 raid by the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) Strike Team at the warehouse of GB Bem inside the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) in Angeles City.
In acquitting those charged, the CTA said: “In this case, the BIR Strike Team's entry into GB BEM's premises without probable cause that an offense under the NIRC has been committed and without a valid search warrant makes the entry illegal and the subsequent search and seizure invalid."
“Applying the exclusionary rule or the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree, all evidence, including secondary or derivative evidence, drawn from the illegal entry are inadmissible as evidence,” it said.
The CTA reminded that the BIR is “not exempt from the fundamental requirement of obtaining a search warrant from the court before making searches and seizures.”
It warned that “no less than the Constitution provides the consequence thereof.”
“Evidence obtained and confiscated from such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and must be excluded as the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree,” it stressed.
It disagreed with the argument of the BIR that it does not need the search warrant and the plain view doctrine can be applied in the case.
“The seizure of GB BEM's cigarette raw materials, tobacco products, machines, equipment, and various items cannot be considered as the result of a ‘search in plain view,’” the court said as it explained that all the essential requirements for "search in plain view were not present."
Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of those charged beyond reasonable doubt, it said.
“There being no competent evidence to prove any civil liability on their part, they are also exonerated from the same,” it added.