CTA Case No. EB CRIM-43 (Resolution on MR)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC MOISES BAGAN RODRIGUEZ, CTA EB CRIM. No. 043 Petitioner, (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-282) Present: Del Rosario, P.J, Castaneda, Jr., Uy, -versus- Fabon-Victorino, Mindaro-Grull a, Ringpi s-L iba n, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, and Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, As represented by the Commissioner Of Customs, Respondents. Promul.sated: JAN u8 2020 ~ X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------~~~~ ' RESOLUTION CASTANEDA, JR., J.: This resolves petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated June 18, 2019" filed on July 19,2019. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated June 18, 20 19 states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is DENIED. Accordingly, the June 28, 2017 Decision and September 8, 2017 Resolution of the then CTA Third Division are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. <;t--

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. No. 043 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-282) Page 2 of3 Instead of filing a Comment to said motion, respondents filed a Manifestation on September 25, 2019. This motion was submitted for resolution on October 21, 2019. Hence, this resolution. Petitioner argues, among others, that he is not the owner of the consigned/imported goods but somebody else who just used the name Yanzhen Enterprises. The motion is bereft of merit. In this case, it is an undisputed fact that petitioner is the owner and proprietor ofYanzhen Enterprises. "A sole proprietorship does not possess a juridical personality separate and distinct from the owner of the enterprise."' We reiterate that Yanzhen Enterprises is the consignee of the shipments which were declared as "Pastries" and "Dough," but found to be "onions" upon 100% examination of the shipments in question. "The law created a presumption of ownership in the named consignee even if the consignee did not participate in the preparation of the Bill of Lading."2 "Based on the foregoing, the owner of the property shall be the [ ] consignee."3 It is emphasized that the CTA En Bane affirmed the findings and conclusions reached by the then CTA Third Division, which is the trial court, in this case. Petitioner, as owner/proprietor of Yanzhen Enterprises, is, thus, guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 3601 and 3602 in relation to Sections 2503 and 2530 of the TCCP. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. <;L~z;: c. a.:T~<:>t-.1 :;... itJANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice 1 Mangi/a v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 125027, August 12, 2002. 2 People v. Sayson, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-94, Dec. 12, 2012, affirmed in Sayson v. People, CTA E. B. Crim. Case No. 025, April I, 20 14; Entry of Judgment, Oct. 28, 2014. 3 The removed words are "the property of the", typographical error on page 21 of the Decision subject of this motion.

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. No. 043 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-282) Page 3 of3 WE CONCUR: (No part) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice ER~P.UY Associate Justice N. ~ f'.:a0 :L..N. M~~. C~ MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~�:;:~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice