CTA Case No. O-29 (Resolution)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION ****** PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, C.T.A. CRIM. CASE No. 0-029 For: Violation of Sections 98 and 103 in relation to Sections 254 and 255 of the NIRC of1997 -versus- Members: Acosta, P.J. Bautista, and Casanova, JJ. GLORIA B. MENDOZA, and other John Does, (with last known Address at No. 63 Baler Street, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City), Accused. Promulg ted� MAY 20C8 / 1 0 / .' 05 ,.,,..., ~----------------X X-------------------------------------------------------------- RESOLUTIO -;L-- For Resolution is the "Motion for Partial Reconsideration" of the Resolution dated February 8, 2008, filed by the plaintiff on February 28, 2008. In the Motion, the plaintiff, citing Rule 9, Section 11 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, contends that the Court erred in failing to rule on the civil

RESOLUT ION C. T.A. CR IM. CAS E NO. 0 -029 Page 2 of3 aspect of the case. Th e plaintiff claims that it w as able to p rove the exact civil liability of the accused, since it was able to present before the Court the Computation Sheet, duly attested to by the responsible Revenue Officers (Exhibits " N ", "N-1", and " N-2" ). On April 4, 2008, the accu sed filed by registered m ail her Comment to the Motion . According to the accused, althou gh the Court m ay not have expressly declared in the assailed Resolution the statem ent: " the fact fr om w hich the civil liability may arise d id n ot exist," n onetheless, the same can be ascertained from the w ordings of the Resolution itself. The Court agrees w ith the accused . It is an elem entary rule of criminal jurisprudence that a judgment of acquittal d oes not operate to extinguish the civil liability, unless there is clear showing tha t the ac t from w hich civil liability m ight arise did not exist.l In the Resolution d ated February 8, 2008, the Court elucidated that: "As the Court sees it, the Register of Deeds would not have effected the registration of the real properties if the donor's tax returns have not been filed and the corresponding taxes due thereon have not been paid. In addition , the fac t that the Deed s of Don a tion were anno tated at the back of the Certifica tes of Titles only sh ows that the Register of Deeds made sure that all the requirements were complete before he effected the transfer of the properties. To the mind of this Court, the failure of the plaintiff to show any irregularity in the TCTs only supports the presumption that the Register of Deeds performed his duties regularly . If ind eed th e h�ansfer was don e without p aym ent of the prop er d on or's tax, w h y d id th e plaintiff fa il to include the Regis ter of Deed s as con spira tor. Th e alleged illegal transaction could n ot h appen without his participation or cooperation . Th e plaintiff even fa iled to present him as w itness. He is the best person w h o could clarify the m atters for in h is possession are all the relevant d ocuments. In fine, the 1Padilla v. Court of Appea ls, G .R. No . L-39999 , 129 SCRA 558, May 3 1, 1984 .

RE SOL UTION C.T.A. CRIM . CASE NO. 0 -029 presumption in favor of the Register of Deeds must prevail in the absence of proof to the contrary." Clearly, it can be gleaned from the foregoing that the act from which the civil liability might arise did not exist, as there is no evidence to show that the accused failed to pay the corresponding donor's taxes. It bears stressing that the accused in this case is charged with violation of Sections 98 and 103, in relation to Sections 254 and 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code ("NIRC"). As such, the accused cannot be made civilly liable for the alleged unpaid donor's taxes, unless there is evidence showing that the accused indeed failed to pay the same. Here, the acquittal of the accused extinguished both her criminal and civil liability. For this reason, no civil liability arising from the alleged crime may be awarded. WHEREFORE, the "Motion for Partial Reconsideration" of the plaintiff is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. t~~. ~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Justice ~ CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice