In general, Willful Blindness Doctrine also known as Ignorance of the Law,

Wilfull Ignorance Doctrine, Contrive Ignorance Doctrine and Nelsonian Knowledge

Doctrine is a term used in law to describe a situition in which a person seeks to
avoid any civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally keeping
himself or herself unaware of facts that would render him or her liable.

In 2012, the Supreme Court introduced one of the new doctrines in the
Philippine Jurisprudence. The Willful Blindness Doctrine was tackled in the
landmark tax evasion case of People versus Kintanar. In that case, Ms. Kintanar
was charged with failure to make or file her income tax returns violating the 1997
National Internal Revenue Code as amended. She claimed that she entrusted
such duty to her husband who, in turn, hired an accountant to perform their tax
responsibilities. She testified that she did not know how much her tax obligation
was nor did she bother to inquire or determine the facts surrounding the filing of
her income tax returns. Her neglect and omission tantamount to deliberate
ignorance and concscious avoidance. Her reliance on her husband without
ensuring full compliance showed clear indication of deliberate lack of concern on
her part to perform her tax obligations and responsibilties.

However, the court in the recent case of People versus Santos, despite the
similarity of the factual circumstances of this case with that of the Kintanar case,
the court did not apply the willful blindness doctrine. The accused in this case
merely claimed that by virtue of her trust, respect and confidence to her
manager, she entrusted her professional , financial and tax obligations and
responsibilities to her manager.

Clearly, the decision in the recent case did not apply the doctrine of willful
blindness, where taxpayer's deliberate refusal or avoidance to verify the contents
of the income tax returns and other documents and failure to inquire into the
authenticity thereof constitute willful blindness on her part, despite the
similarities in the factual situation of the case. This caused confusion especially in
the tax industry.

It is by reason of this willful blindness doctrine where taxpayers can no

longer refute the presumption of deliberate failure to pay and file their tax
obligations and responsibilities by simply relying on the respresentations of their
accountants and representatives. Here, to be liable under this doctrine, it is
enough that the taxpayer knows his obligation to file the required income tax
return and has failed to comply thereto in the manner required by law. The
taxpayer must inquire, check and validate whether or not his or her repesentative
or agent has complied with the requirements set forth by law with respect to his
or her tax obligations and responsibilities. As mere reliance on another in paying,
filing and preparing income tax returns will not justify his or her non-compliance
with the law.

Hence, it is in this light of situation that the undersigned seeks to conduct a

research on proper application of the doctrine of willful blindness in the
Philippines considering the confusion it created when the doctrine was not applied
in a recent case although having almost similar factual circumstances. There
should be well- defined and crystal clear standards that should be laid down to
properly apply and determined if the taxpayer willfully evaded his or her tax
responsibilities and obligations. Otherwise, it will result to an arbitrary application
of this doctrine which will caused further hiatus in tax industry in the Philippines.