IN the case of People v. GB BEM Cigarette Co. Inc., et al. (Criminal Case O-935, Nov. 20, 2024), the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) conducted a search of the premises of the accused corporation without a warrant, acting on a mission order that was issued based on an unsigned letter or “tip” from another corporation alleging that the accused firm was engaged in the illegal manufacture and sale of cigarette products.
The search led to the seizure of cigarette raw materials, tobacco products and other items within the premises. The accused corporation and its officers were criminally charged with possession of locally manufactured articles subject to excise tax without payment of the tax due.
The corporation and its officers challenged the conduct of the search and the seizure of items for violating Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that searches and seizures of articles can only be conducted on the strength of a warrant issued upon probable cause, determined personally by a judge. Moreover, the search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
The people’s right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose is inviolable. This guarantees that no one may be subjected to any arbitrary and unlawful intrusion by the government. Any evidence obtained in violation of this right is inadmissible in court.
In maintaining that the search and seizure was lawful, the BIR anchored its argument on the plain view doctrine that permits warrantless searches. It contended that the search and seizure of the cigarette raw materials, tobacco products and other items were justified by virtue of the authority granted to it by Sections 6 and 171 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code) to place a business under observation or surveillance and to examine, discover and seize articles subject to tax.
Under the plain view doctrine, unlawful objects falling within the “plain view” of a law enforcement officer who has made an initial lawful intrusion may be seized legally. It must be in the course of such lawful intrusion that the law enforcement officer inadvertently comes across the piece of evidence incriminating the accused in plain view. In other words, for the doctrine to apply, the following elements must be present:
– The law enforcement officer is in a position where they have a clear view of a particular area or has prior justification for an intrusion.
– Said officer inadvertently comes across a piece of incriminating evidence.
– It is immediately apparent to such officer that the item they see may be evidence of a crime or a contraband, or is otherwise subject to seizure.
However, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) held that the requisites of the plain view doctrine were not satisfied and that the seizure was unlawful, for the following reasons:
– First, there was no prior justification of the initial intrusion, because the search was made by virtue of a mission order that was issued pursuant to an unverified tip. Searches and seizures cannot be made based only on an unverified tip. Hence, the CTA held that BIR officers’ initial entry into the premises was unlawful, having been conducted without a search warrant and without probable cause that an offense has been committed in violation of the Tax Code.
– Second, even assuming that the law enforcement officer had prior justification for the intrusion, a warrantless search and seizure of any piece of evidence is permissible only if the search and seizure is limited to those articles that the law enforcement officer sees in plain view.
In this case, during the redirect examination of the BIR’s witness presented before the CTA, it was found that there was an “intensive search” made by the BIR officers during the search. The CTA emphasized that the conduct of an “intensive search” implied that the articles seized were not “immediately apparent” and thus not within “plain view.”
This led the CTA to conclude that the second and third requisites of the plain view doctrine were also not satisfied and that the articles seized were inadmissible in court. Accordingly, the CTA acquitted the accused corporation and its officers for failure by the BIR to establish one of the elements of the crime charged: the possession of the locally manufactured articles.
Thus, while BIR has supervisory and police power under the Tax Code as mentioned above, the same does not give them unbridled discretion to search and seize articles that can be later used as evidence against the taxpayer. This supervisory and police power remains subject to the taxpayer’s right against unreasonable search and seizure. For the BIR to be able to successfully invoke the “plain view” doctrine, the mandatory elements for the doctrine to apply must also be satisfied.
Rio Krisel G. Bautista is a CPA-lawyer and an associate of Mata-Perez, Tamayo & Francisco (MTF Counsel). This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the facts and circumstances warrant. If you have any question or comment regarding this article, you may email the author at [email protected] or visit MTF website at www.mtfcounsel.com.
Be the first to comment