CTA upholds acquittal of Ressa, Rappler in fifth tax case

MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has affirmed the acquittal of Nobel laureate Maria Ressa and her online news organization, Rappler Holdings Corp. (RHC), in their fifth tax evasion case.

In a 17-page decision promulgated on July 16, the appellate tax court denied the petition for review filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in December 2023, which challenged the acquittal of Ressa and RHC by the Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 157.

The state lawyers argued that the Pasig RTC’s presiding judge committed grave abuse of discretion by allegedly “deliberately ignoring the prosecution's overwhelming evidence establishing Private Respondents' willful failure to declare correct and accurate tax returns and pay such tax.”

Aside from overturning the acquittal, the OSG also demanded that Ressa and RHC pay their value-added tax (VAT) for the second quarter of 2015, totaling P294,258.58, along with surcharge and interest fees.

In upholding the acquittal, however, the appellate tax court stated that the petition for certiorari filed by the OSG was not appropriate, as this type of petition “will only issue to correct errors of jurisdiction” and not errors or mistakes in the trial court’s conclusions.

“This Court, however, cannot delve into the propriety of Public Respondent's appreciation of the parties' evidence that led to its findings and conclusion. Assuming that there was a mistake on the part of Public Respondent in assessing the evidence presented by the parties, the same cannot be remedied by certiorari,” the CTA ruling read.

“The averments interposed by Petitioner do not seek to correct errors of jurisdiction but to reverse the alleged mistake in the findings of Public Respondent,” it added.

The CTA further noted that the presiding judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion, as the petitioners of the case were given ample opportunity to present their evidence.

“Moreover, there was no allegation of any violation of the Petitioner's right to due process or mistrial in this case. Records show that Petitioner was given ample opportunity to present its case. It was able to present and formally offer its evidence. Also, a