ESTRADA vs DESIERTO et.al., G.R. No.

156160
Girly Mae A. Narciso

FACTS:
On 23 January 2001, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) placed Estrada’s foreign
currency deposit account at Citibank Greenhills Branch under constructive distraint.
Contending that the BIR action was unlawful, Estrada filed a complaint against
respondent BIR officials (Deputy Commissioner Lilian Hefti et. al.) and respondent
Citibank officers before the Office of the Ombudsman for allegedly violating Article 177 of
the Revised Penal Code and other special laws.

ISSUE:
Whether respondent Hefti being the Deputy Commissioner of BIR had indeed usurped
the duty of the BIR Commissioner when she issued the notice of distraint?

RULING:
No. Under Art. 177 of the Revised Penal Code, in order for one to be held liable for
Usurpation of Official Function, there must be a clear showing that the person being
charged had performed an act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the
Philippine government or any agency thereof, under pretense of official position, and
without being lawfully entitled to do so.

While it is true that under Sec. 206 of the NIRC as amended, the Commissioner of the
BIR and not any Officer of the BIR was the one granted with the power to issue a notice
of distraint, it bears to stress, however, that when respondent Hefti exercised such
function of the BIR Commissioner, she was then designated Officer-In-Charge of the BIR
by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, as evidenced by a photocopy of her Memorandum
of Appointment dated January 23, 2001. By virtue of her appointment as Officer-In-
Charge of BIR, it necessary follows that respondent Hefti can now legally exercise the
duties and functions pertaining to the BIR Commissioner, including the issuance of a
constructive distraint.