CTA Case No. EB CRIM-80 (Resolution on MR)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City EN BANC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA EB CRIM. NO. o8o Petitioner, (CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-599, 0-601, 0-603 and 0-6o4) - versus - Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J,_, UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, and CUI-DAVID, fl. REBECCA S. TIOTANGCO, Promulgated: Respondent. OCT 19 2~-a.�J..r~~ . )( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ )( RESOLUTION BACORRO-VILLENA, L.: For the Court En Bane's resolution is petitioner People of the Philippines' (petitioner's) "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated February 3, 2022)m (MR) filed on 04 March 2o222, with respondent Rebecca S. Tiotangco's (respondent's) "Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated February 3, 2022)"3 (Comment) filed on 25 April2022.~ Rollo, pp. 123- 134. Received by the Court on 15 March 2022. Rollo, pp. 146- 14 7. Received by the Court on 05 May 2022.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No. Jl.ll.ll (CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-599,0-601,0-603 and 0-604) People of the Philippines v. Rebecca S. Tiotangco Page 2 ofS x-----------------------------------------------------------x The said MR assails the Court En Bane's Decision dated 03 February 2022 (assailed Decision). The dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, with the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review filed by petitioner People of the Philippines on 14 July 2020 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the First Division's Decision and Resolution dated 13 November 2019 and 15 June 2020, respectively, in CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-599, 0-601, 0-603 and 0- 604, all entitled People of the Philippines v. Rebecca S. Tiotangco, Entrepreneur of Anilos Trading and Construction, are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. In the said MR, petitioner contends that the seeming difference in the computation as reflected in the Joint Complaint-Affidavit dated n September 20145 (Joint Complaint-Mfidavit) and that which is reflected in the Formal Letter of Demand6 (FLO) are mere typographical errors. According to petitioner, the noted difference in the 2008 undeclared sales of P86g,621.64 merely represents the payment made to Anilos Trading and Construction (Anilos) for its sales for the first (1st) quarter of 2oo8 as reflected in its Quarterly Value-Added Tax (VAT) Return. Thus, the said amount should be disregarded in the computation of the undeclared income. However, in the computation reflected in the Joint Complaint-Affidavit, such amount was deducted inadvertently from the total amount of undeclared sales for the second (2nd), third (3'd) and fourth (4th) quarters of 2008. On the other hand, the noted difference in 2010 undeclared sales in the amount of P2,837.418.ss represents the difference between the computation per tax audit of PI,229A35-90 and the sales for the 3'd quarter of 2010, amounting to P4,o66,854-45 (as reflected in Anilos' Quarterly VAT Return hence there should be no undeclared sales for the said quarter). However, in the computation reflected in the Joint , Complaint-Affidavit, the difference between sales per audit and salp-' Exhibit "P-1", Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 508-518. 6 Note that petitioner denominated the same in its pleadings as Final Assessment Notice (FAN).

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No.l!.ll.!! (CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-599, Q-601, 0-603 and 0-604) People of the Philippines v. Rebecca S. Tiotangco X---------------------------------------------------------- -X per return amounting to P2,837,418.ss was likewise inadvertently deducted from the total amount of undeclared sales in the 1'\ 2nd and 41h quarters of 2010. For petitioner, the definiteness of the civil liability of respondent should not be affected by the erroneous computation reflected in the Joint Complaint-Affidavit considering that the same has already been corrected in the FLO. Petitioner also faults the Court En Bane in holding that it failed to make an offer of proof or a tender of excluded evidence. Petitioner maintains that it manifested its intention to recall witness Jose Maria Reyes (Reyes) for the purpose of identifying the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) and Final Assessment Notice (FAN) but the First Division denied its motion to recall as well as its MR on the said denial. Petitioner insists that while procedural rules are not to be disregarded, it is equally true that the courts are not enslaved by technicalities. Petitioner thus invokes the rule that the State cannot be estopped by the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents. On the other hand, respondent maintains that the issues raised in the MR are mere rehash of the issues raised in the Petition for Review which were already exhaustively passed upon, duly considered and resolved in the assailed Decision. We resolve. After due consideration of the arguments raised by the parties, the Court En Bane is constrained to deny petitioner's MR. The crux of petitioner's MR is that the differences in the computation in the Joint Complaint-Affidavit and the FLO resulted from mere inadvertence. However, as ruled in the assailed Decision, the lack of precise computation from petitioner ties the hands of the Court En Bane and prevents it from decreeing the resulting civilliabilitie1

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No.ll.IIJl (CTA Crim. Case Nos. Q-599, Q-601, 0-603 arid 0-604) People of the Philippines v. Rebecca S. Tiotangco Page 4 ofS x----- ----------------------------------------------------- -x Simply stated, the Court En Bane's decree of civil liability cannot be made to rest upon an imprecise computation of tax due, which is still to be adjusted by reason of the BIR's inadvertence in calculating the same. Notably, this supposed inadvertence in the computation was not brought to the First Division's attention at the earliest opportunity. We thus echo our findings in the assailed Decision7, viz: Such differences in the amounts of the supposed undeclared sales only bolster petitioner's admission in the Joint Complaint- Affidavit that the computations appearing thereon are mere estimates; hence, uncertain. As the alleged civil liabilities of respondent cannot be determined with accuracy, the Court En Bane could not proceed to impose any civil liability. While it is true that the First Division had found respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the prior consolidated criminal cases against her (and that she had foregone appeal on her criminal conviction when she applied for probation) where the quantum of proof required to prove the same is higher than that for the civil aspect, that is, a mere preponderance of evidence; still, the absence of a precise computation ties the hands of the Court En Bane and prevents it from decreeing the resulting civil liabilities. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to depart from its conclusions in the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, petitioner People of the Philippines' Motion for Reconsideration filed on 04 March 2022 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. JEAN MAKI -VILLENA Rollo, p. 116; Citation omitted and italics in the original text.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No.lll!J! (CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-599,0-601, 0-603 and 0-604) People of the Philippines v. Rebecca S. Tiotangco Page 5 ofS x--- ------------------------------------------------------- -x WE CONCUR: . O''-St- f""~�L'~'_~+~~.J.~..,'"f"dj-f- AN G. DEL l('QSARI Presiding Justice ERL~.UY Associate Justice ~~ --;;t____ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~ /.,4......-.-..L_ _ __ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN cr PJ's-~ Associate Justice M~ ARIA~ N Ivf VF. �. RE~S~ ~;Arl~ \RDO Associate Justice ~ilw~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice