PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FRANCISCO BILLONES, ANGEL T. DERAY, JR., MARY LUCILLE BILLONES, SUSANA DELA CRUZ GO, ANACLETO SANCHEZ, ROBERT C. AMPOSTA, OSCAR TORRES, MARIA CATAPANG JUMENTO, ROSALIO TEVES, LEONARD DELA PAS, HANNAH AILEEN LIM FERNANDEZ, ANTONIO M. TALAUE. LEANDRO ANTONIO P. TALAUE, ANALYN G. FERNANDEZ and MEYNARDO B. BANAYO. (Consolidate with Case No. O-129)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-128 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 3601, in relation to Sec. 101 (k) of the TCCl' -versus- and Sugar Order no. 8, Series of 1994-1995 of the Sugar Regulatory Administration and ,Joint Memorandum Order No. 4-2002. FRANCISCO BILLONES, ANGEL T. DERAY, JR., MARY LUCILLE BILLONES, SUSANA DELA CRUZ GO, ANACLETO SANCHEZ, ROBERT C. AMPOSTA, OSCAR TORRES, MARIA CATAPANO JUMENTO, ROSALIO TEVES, LEONARD DELA PAS, HANNAH AILEEN LIM FERNANDEZ, ANTONIO M. TALAUE, LEANDRO ANTONIO P. TALAUE, ANALYN G. FERNANDEZ, and MEYNARDO B. BANAYO, Accused. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-129 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, For: Violation of Section 3602, in relation to Sections 2503 and 2530 Plaintiff, of TCCP and Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code -versus- FRANCISCO BILLONES, ANGEL T. DERAY, JR., MARY LUCILLE BILLONES, SUSANA DELA CRUZ GO, ANACLETO SANCHEZ, ROBERT C. AMPOSTA, OSCAR TORRES, MARIA CATAPANO JUMENTO,

RESOLUTION Page 2 of 6 CTA Crim Case Nos. 0 128 and 0 129 People us. Francisco Rillones, et al., ROSALIO TEVES, Members: LEONARD DELA PAS, CASTANEDA, JR., Chairperson HANNAH AILEEN LIM CASANOVA, and FERNANDEZ, COTANGCO-MANALASTAS,JJ. ANTONIO M. TALAUE, LEANDRO ANTONIO P. TALAUE, ANALYN G. FERNANDEZ, and Promulgated: FEB zOZOlS I . MEYNARDO B. BANAYO, Accused. / x~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;;;2~~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ x RESOLUTION For resolution arc the following pending incidents: I. Motion to Release Bail Bondl filed by accused Francisco Billones (accused Billones), by counsel, on December 16, 2014; and II. Motion for Reconsideration and Opposition to Accused's Motion to Release Bail Bond2 filed by the plaintiff through registered mail on December 29, 2014 and received by t.his Court. on January 7, 2015, wit.h accused Billones' Comment/ Opposition (To The Prosecutor's Motion for Reconsideration and Opposition to Accused's Motion to Release Bail Bondp filed on January 14, 2015. For t.he orderly disposition of t.he issues herein, The Court. shall first. resolve plaint.ifrs Motion for Reconsideration of the Amended Decision4 of this Court enunciated on December 5, 2014. Motion [or Reconsideration of t.he Amended Decision of t.his Court. dated December 5, 2014 In its Motion for Reconsideration, 5 the plaintiff prays of t.his Court. t.o reverse t.he Amended Decision6 of t.his Court. ' Rollo, pp. 2369 2371. ' Rollo, pp. 2376 2378. ' Rollo, pp. 2380 2388. 4 Rollo, pp. 2352 2368. s Supra, Note 2.

RESOLUTION Page 3 of6 CTJ\ Crim Case Nos. 0 128 and 0 129 People us. Francisco Rillones, et al., enunciated on December 5, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that since this Court already ruled in the original Decision? that accused Billones failed to present sufficient evidence that would show his non-participation in the acts complained of, this Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering the assailed Amended Decision.8 Further, plaintiff avers that: while the prosecution only presented the Articles of Incorporation and General Information Sheet of Rubills International, Inc. (Rubills), accused has not presented any iota of evidence that he was no longer the president of Rubills in 2008; accused Billones' being president of Rubills created a legal presumption that he is liable for any violation committed by the corporation, thus, it was incumbent upon him to present evidence to rebut the same, which he failed to do. Accused Billones, by counsel, filed his Comment/ Opposition (To The Prosecutor's Motion for Reconsideration and Opposition to Accused's Motion to Release Bail Bond) on January 14, 2015. Accused Billones opposes the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that the subject motion was filed in violation of accused's right against double jeopardy. Also, accused reiterates the argument that the Department of Justice (DOJ) itself held in its Resolution dated December 10, 2009 that the evidence to the contrary provided by the accused cast doubt whether the names appearing in the SEC papers are actually the persons who at the moment had consented to the unlawful acts of the corporations. Plaintifrs Motion for Reconsideration of the Amended Decision9 dated December 5, 2014 must fail. In this jurisdiction, "[w]c adhere to the finality-of- acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappcalable."IO A judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the accused under double jeopardy. The Constitution provides in Section 21, Article Ill, that: 6 Supra, Note 4. 7 Rollo, pp. 2236 2262. " Supra, Note 4. 9 Supra. Jo People us. J-Ion. Hnrique C. J1.sis, et al., G.R No. 173089, August 25,2010.

RESOLUTION Page 1 of 6 CTA Crim Case Nos. 0 128 and 0 129 People us. Francisco Rillones, et al., "Section 2 l. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. x x x" As held by the Supreme Court in Lejano vs. People 11 ,"to reconsider a jud~:,rrncnt of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being punished for t.he crime of which he has already been absolved. There is reason for this provision of t.he Const.it.ut.ion. In criminal cases, t.he full power of t.he St.at.e is ranged against the accused. If there is no limit to attempts t.o prosecute t.he accused for t.he same offense aft.er he has been acquitted, the infinite power and capacity of the State for a sustained and repeated lit.igat.ion would eventually overwhelm the accused in terms of resources, stamina, and t.he will t.o fight.."t2 Like any ot.her rule, however, t.he finality of acquittal rule is not one without exception as "when the trial court. act.ed wit.h grave abuse of discretion amounting t.o lack or excess of jurisdiction"13 or when there is a denial of due proccssH This court is of the view, however, that none of the above exceptions are a1.1.endan1. in t.his instance. A perusal of t.he challenged Amended Decision15 shows 1.ha1. t.his Court. has exhaustively reviewed and appreciated all t.he pieces of evidence on record, both documentary and testimonial; applied t.he laws and jurisprudential precepts; and tediously delineated point-by-point the factual and legal bases that caused t.his Court. t.o acquit. accused Billones. For emphasis, the Court reiterates the following points discussed in the assailed Amended Decision: [ 1] The 2002 GIS docs not dispel the probability that accused Billoncs may no longer be the president. of Rubills in April 2008. To assume t.hat. accused Billoncs may still be the president of Rubills in 2008 absent any evidence t.o support. t.he same is in checkered contrast. with the unbending principle in this jurisdiction that conjectures, suspicions and accusations will never be sufficient to convict an accused; [2] other than the Articles of Incorporation and GIS, t.he prosecution failed t.o present. any evidence, testimonial or otherwise, that establishes the conduct. of t.he accused, overt. or otherwise, before, during and even after the commission of the crime charged which may II G.R. No. 176389 & 176861, January 18,2011. 12 Supra. 13 People us. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.K No. 140633, February 4, 2002. ' 4 People us. Louel Uy, G.R No. 158157, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRJ\ 668, 680 681. 1s Supra, Note 4.

RESOLUTION Page 5 of 6 CTA Crim Case Nos. 0 128 and 0 129 People us. Francisco Dillones, et al., signify that there was a conscious, common criminal design among the accused herein; and [3] there is nothing from the evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that accused Billoncs committed the fraudulent acts prohibited by Sections 3601 and 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code. As mentioned, the prosecution merely relied on the Articles of Incorporation and GIS to establish the culpability of accused Billones. 'If inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence docs not fulfill the test of moral certainty and will not justify a conviction.'l6 Further, a full~blown trial was conducted in this case, both parties were given the opportunity to present their case, thus, it cannot be said that the prosecution was denied due process. Motion to Release Bail Bond In the instant Motion to Release Bail Bond1 7 accused Billones submits that since this Court has already issued an Amended Decision acquitting him of the above-captioned criminal charges, the release of his bail bond in the total amount of Two Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos (Php240,000.00) is now in order. In its Opposition to Accused's Motion to Release Bail, 18 plaintiff manifests that it will exhaust all legal remedies to have the assailed Amended Decision reversed. It is on this ground that the plaintiff opposes the motion of accused to release bail bond. Section 22, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides: "Section 22. Cancellation of bail. - Upon application of the bondsmen, with due notice to the prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death. 16 Julius Jlmanquiton vs. People, G.R. No. August 14, 2009, citing People v. Lagmay, 365 Phil. 606, 633 (1999). 11 Supra, Note 1. 1s Supra, Note 2.

RESOLUTION Page 6 of 6 CTA Crim Case Nos. 0 128 and 0 129 People us. Francisco Billones, et al., The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case, or execution of the judgment of conviction. In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bond." From this provision, it is clear that the cancellation of bail is automatic upon acquittal of the accused. Considering that accused Billoncs was acquitted on reasonable doubt by this Court in the Amended Decision19 promulgated on December 5, 2014, the subject Motion to Release Bail Bond20 is GRANTED. Correspondingly, the cash bond posted by accused Francisco Billoncs with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Second Division of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), in the amount of P240,000.00 under Official Receipt Number 3999911, is hereby CANCELLED. The Office of the Clerk of Court of the Second Division of the CTA is authorized to cause the release of the same to accused Billones upon presentment of the original receipts and a special power of attorney to receive the amount representing the cash bailbond. SO ORDERED. fl. c .a..r~t <l. JU.Al'ifTO C. CASTANE:rn\, JR. Associate Justice CAESAR~OVA /. ~ ~J--rti- AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Associate Justice 10 Supra, Note 4. 'o Supra, Note 2.