CTA Case No. EB CRIM-22 (Resolution on MR)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY EN BANC ROGELIO A. TAN, C.T.A. EB CRIM. NO. 022 Petitioner, (C.T.A. Crim. Case Nos. 0-064 -versus- and 0-065) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , C.T.A. EB CRIM. NOS. 023 Respondent. (C.T.A. Crim. Case Nos. 0-064 x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x and 0-065) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, PJ CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, UY, CASANOVA, FASON-VICTORINO, MIN DARO-G RU LLA, COTANGCO-MANALASTAS,and RINGPIS-LIBAN, JJ. Promulgated: ROGE LIO A TAN, � Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION Fabon-Victorino, .J.: For consideration are the following: J

. RESOLUTION C. T.A. EB Nos. 022 and 023 1. Accused' Motion for Reconsideration 1 filed on December 22, 2014, to which the Prosecution filed its Commenf on March 19, 2015; and 2. Prosecution's Motion for Reconsideration3 filed on January 8, 2015, to which accused registered an opposition on March 27, 2015. Both accused and the prosecution assail the CTA En Bane Decision 4 promulgated on November 18, 2014, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, both Petitions for Review, docketed as C.T.A. EB Crim. Nos. 022 and 023, are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated June 27, 2012 and the Resolution dated November 7, 2012 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. In impugning the ruling of the Court En Bane, accused invokes the doctrine laid down in Pleyto vs. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) 5 saying "[t]hat a judge should detach himself from cases where his decision is appealed to a higher court for review", and that the participation of the members6 of the Court in Division whose decision was the subject of the appeal, rendered the assailed Decision infirm. Accused also finds his conviction erroneous as sustained by the Court En Bane insisting that the evidence presented during the trial of the cases failed to prove his participation in commission of the offense charged. j On the other hand, the prosecution, in praying for a partial reversal of the assailed Decision, maintains that the 1 En Bane docket, pp. 325-338. 2 !d., pp. 351-357. 3 Id., pp. 339-345. 4 Id., pp.283-306. 5 538 SCRA 534, 549. 6 Associate Justices Lovell R. Bautista and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas.

. RESOLUTION C. T.A. EB Nos. 022 and 023 Page 3 of4 "estimates and computation" of the Revenue Officers were made under the authority of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) as evidenced by the Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 2000 000861777 dated February 28, 2006. The fact that the said "estimates and computation" were endorsed8 by no less than Commissioner Jose Mario C. Bunag himself to the Secretary of Justice indubitably shows his approval and final determination of the civil liability of accused. A long and hard look at the record of the cases and meticulous evaluation of the arguments proffered by the parties in their respective motions for reconsideration reveal that all the arguments raised by the parties in their respective motions have already been thoroughly addressed and passed upon by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision of November 18, 2014 except for accused' contention that the assailed Decision is infirm due to the participation of the members of the Third Division whose Decision is now the subject of appeal. To discuss them anew is to waste the time and dwindling resources of the Court. Anent accused's contention that the participation of the members of the Third Division in the determination of the instant cases rendered the assailed Decision infirm, suffice it to say that accused' reliance in the doctrine enunciated in Pleyto vs. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG)9 is misplaced. For one, the factual milieu of Pleyto case is not on all fours with the present cases. In the Pleyto case, it was the Office of the Ombudsman that rendered the judgment appealed from, who actively sought intervention in the appellate court. This is certainly not obtaining in these appealed cases. For the other, the present actions are with the Court En Bane whose members are obliged to participate in the determination and disposition of the appealed cases unless expressly prohibited or legally excluded. WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by accused Rogelio A. Tan on December 22, 2014, as well as / the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 7 Exhibit "G" 8 Exhibit "Y" 9 538 SCRA 534, 549.

� RESOLUTION C. T.A. EB Nos. 022 and 023 Page 4 of4 18 November 2014) filed by the Prosecution on January 8, 2015 are hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. We Concur: Presiding Justice ~~;4C.~~~ ~ Associate Justice JOANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice (On Leave) CAESA~SANOVA Associate Justice ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice ~N.M~-~~ \On Lp~ve_) CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Associate Justice ~� ~-{;' "-' (I join PJ's dissenting opinion) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice