Fernandez vs People, G.R. No. 249606. July 06, 2022

The existence of the corporate entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally caused the corporation to commit a crime. A corporate officer cannot protect himself behind a corporation where he is the actual, present and efficient actor.


Facts:

That on or about the period 06 May 2006 to 21 July 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with each other, with intent to defraud the government, did then and there knowingly, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously import, misdeclare, misclassify and undervalue shipment said to contain 2,406 bundles of round steel bars, valued at Eighty Nine Million Seven Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand One Hundred Twenty Seven Pesos (PhP89,737,127.00) but actually found as reinforced/deformed steel bars, through the use of falsified/spurious shipping documents to evade payment of correct and appropriate duties and taxes due thereon in the aggregate amount of Fifteen Million Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Eight Pesos (PhP15,870,438.00) to the damage and prejudice of the government.

Issue:
Whether or not the Officer of the corporation is not criminally held liable.

Held:
A corporation possesses a personality separate and distinct from the person of its officers, directors and stockholders. Petitioners, being corporate officers and/or directors, through whose act, default or omission the corporation commits a crime, may themselves be individually held answerable for the crime. As We declared in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Price Richardson Corporation, to be held criminally liable for the acts of a corporation, there must be a showing that its officers, directors, and shareholders actively participated in or had the power to prevent the wrongful act.
This Court upholds the consistent findings of both CTA First Division and En Banc that there is a clear showing of: (1) undeniable commission of the crime; (2) the pecuniary advantage the corporation would gain had the falsified documents been taken at face value; and (3) lack of repudiation by the responsible officers of the unlawful acts already committed, or at the very least, a showing of the effort undertaken to make sure that the documents sent by the foreign shipper to be appended to the IEIRD matched their order, despite the fact that they undoubtedly knew of the importation of steel from China.