PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RIZALDY GOLORAN CHUA (Purok Gumamela, Sta. Cruz, Rosario, Agusan Del Sur) [consol with O-793]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City Second Division PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA CRIM CASE NOS. 0-792 Plaintiff, & 0-793 For: Violation of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended Members: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, Cbai1person MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and FERRER-FLORES, Jl. RIZALDY GOLORAN CHUA, (Purok Gumamela, Sta. Cruz, Rosario, c\gusan Del Sur) Accused. Promulgated: MAR 041014 /,/ x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------------x (o:t� "��. RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J: For resolution is Plaintiffs "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated November 30, 2023)" ("~lotion for Reconsideration") filed on December 15, 2023, with accused's "Comment/Opposition (to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Prosecution dated December 15, 2023)" ("Comment/ Opposition") filed onjanuary23,2024. On November 30, 2023, a Decision was promulgated acquitting the accused, Rizaldy Goloran Chua, of the offenses charged against him. In the interest of justice however, the Court deemed it proper to reopen the case for reception of accused's evidence on the civil aspect of the case. Thus, a hearing was set on March 12, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. to t,>lve opportunity for the defense to present its evidence. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

RESOLUTION CIA CRIM CASE NOS. 0-792. & 0-793 "WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused RIZALDY GOLORAN CHUA is hereby ACQUITTED of the offenses charged against him in Criminal Case Nos. 0-792 and 0-793, for failure of the plaintiff to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As regards his civil liability, the same shall be adjudicated after hearing and reception of evidence. SO ORDERED." In the Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff prays that the above Decision be set aside and the instant motion be given due course. Since the Court has not yet ruled on the civil aspect of the case, Plaintiff's !\lotion for Reconsideration only assails the criminal aspect of the Decision. Citing People oftbe Pbilippims v. Court ofTax Appeals-First Division and juan M.igttel iVL A n r y o 1 Plaintiff argues that the filing of a , motion for reconsideration on the criminal aspect with the CL\ Division that issued the assailed Decision is the proper remedy for the State. ,\ccording to the Plaintiff, accused willfully failed to supply correct and accurate information in his income tax return for taxable vcars 2009 and 2010. Plaintiff claims that the underdeclaration of the accused of his gross sales/receipts for two (2) consecutive years and failure to update his tax registration details to include "gold trading" to his registered activities as additional line of industry show that the omission was willful and deliberate. Plaintiff contends that the only defense that accused raised was good faith, and the same cannot be used as a valid defense in malum pro!Jibitum cases. Additionally, Plaintiff points out that as an experienced businessman, accused is presumed to take ordinary care of his concern. Accused should have exercised ordinar-y care and prudence by confirming or validating with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) whether his sales of gold to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas ("BSP") are not subject to tax. Such neglect or omission partakes the nature of"willful blindness" or "conscious avoidance" to report the income derived from his sales of gold to BSP. On December 19, 2023, a J\Iinute Resolution was issued ordering accused to comment on Plaintiff's motion within ten (1 0) days from notice; after which, the said motion shall be deemed submitted for resolution. On January 23, 2024, the accused ftlcd his Comment/Opposition, asserting that Plaintiff's motion should be denied outright because it is violative of the accused's constitutional right against double jeopardy. \'Vhile the principle of double jeopardy acknowledges two (2) exceptions, none of these are applicable in the case G.R. Nos. 2.39519 and 239552.-53, cited in Plaintiffs "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated November 30, 2.02.3)".

RESOLUTION CTA CRIM CASE NOS. 0-792 & 0-793 at bar. First, the plaintiff has not suffered any deprivation of due process and there was no mistrial in the proceedings. Secondly, the plaintiff did not assert in its motion that there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. ;\lore importantly, accused maintains that the plaintiff has fallen short in establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A scrutiny of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the plaintiff shows that there is a lack of direct correlation between accused's actions and the purported wilful failure to supply accurate information. That the sheer magnitude of the gold transactions, coupled with the apparent omission in the accused's _-\nnual Income Tax Returns, lack the requisite evidentiary strength to conclusively establish accused's alleged wilfulness. _\ccused explains that he acted in good faith, relying on assurances from the BSP regarding the tax treatrnent of the gold transactions. On January 31, 2024, a Minute Resolution was issued noting accused's Comment/Opposition and submitting Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration for resolution. We deny plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration. Section 21, Article III of the Constitution2 guarantees that "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense." Thus, the rule is that a judgment acquitting the accused is final and immediately executory upon its promulgation, and that accordingly, the State may not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy3 The Supreme Court in Antonio Leja11o v. People oftbe Pbilippines4 held: "But, as a rule, a judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the accused under double jeopardy. x x x XXX XXX XXX Ultimately, what the complainant actually c1uestions is the Court's appreciation of the evidence and assessment of the prosecution witnesses' credibility. He ascribes grave error on the Court's finding that Alfaro was not a credible witness and assails the value assigned by the Court to the evidence of the defense. In other words, private complainant wants the Court to review the evidence anew and render another judgment based on such a re-evaluation. This 2 The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Ratified February 02, 1987. 3 Dennis T. Villareal v. Consuelo C. Aliga, G.R. No 16699S, January 13, 2014. 4 G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, January 18, 2011.

RESOLUTION CTA CRIM CASE NOS. 0-792 & 0-793 is not constitutionally allowed as it is merely a repeated attempt to secure \'\'ebb, et al's conviction. The judgment acquitting Webb, et al is final and can no longer be disturbed." This rule, which is known as the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, has been reiterated by the Supreme Court recently in Esiate o[ivi11rray Philip TVilliams v. TVilliam Vidor Perc/' and People ofthe Pbi!ippines v. Sandiganbayan [Fin'! DivisionjG. Although the rule on double Jeopardy admits of two exceptions: (1) where there has been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or (2) where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances/ none of these exceptions are present in the instant case. The plaintiff completed the presentation of all its documentary and testimonial evidence during the trial. It was also able to make a formal offer of evidence. The trial was not a sham. Additionally, accused was able to present evidence on the criminal aspect of the case. For the second ground, plaintiff did not allege grave abuse of discretion in the motion for reconsideration. Conversely, the motion prayed for an ordinary review of the findings of this Court. From all the foregoing, a re-examination of the elements of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, on the alleged failure by the accused to supply correct and accurate information in his tax returns can no longer be made. Plaintiffs arguments on the matter have already been exhaustively considered and passed upon by this Court in the assailed Decision. Our ruling acquitting accused is already final and executory. WHEREFORE, prermses considered, Respondents' ";\lotion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN \ssociate Justice MARIA SAN PEDRO RES "'\ssociate Justice 5 G.R. No. 249681, August 31, 2022. 6 G.R. No. 233262, June 14, 2023 (Notice). People of the Philippines v. Uno Alejandro y Pimentel, G.R. No 223099, January 11, 2018.