People v. Garcia, C.T.A. Crim. Case Nos. O-572, O-573 & O-610, (February 15, 2021)

SECOND DIVISION
[C.T.A. CRIM. CASE NOS. O-572, O-573 & O-610. February 15, 2021.]
For: Violations of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as
amended (Failure to File Return, Supply Correct and Accurate Information,
Pay Tax, Withhold and Remit Tax and Refund Excess Taxes Withheld on
Compensation)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. ALEXANDER R.

GARCIA, accused.
DECISION
CASTAÑEDA, JR., J : p
THE CASE
Accused Alexander R. Garcia is charged before this Court with three (3)
counts of violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC) of 1997, as amended, in these consolidated criminal cases, docketed
as CTA Crim. Case Nos. O-572, O-573 and O-610. The accusatory portions in
the respective Information and Amended Information read as follows:
CTA Criminal Case No. O-572: 1
"INFORMATION
The undersigned Assistant State Prosecutor of the Department
of Justice, hereby accuses ALEXANDER R. GARCIA of the offense of
willful failure to supply correct and accurate information in his income
tax return for taxable year 2011, in violation of Section 255 of the
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended,
committed as follows:
'That on or about April 16, 2012 and thereafter, in
Caloocan City, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, the
owner/operator of Sacred Heart Dental Center, required
by law to file income tax returns and to pay the
corresponding tax, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously fail to supply correct and accurate
information in his income tax returns for the taxable year
2011, by then and there not declaring therein his other
sources of income amounting to FOURTEEN MILLION
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED NINETY FOUR PESOS (P14,188,994.00),
thereby resulting in deficiency in the amount of FOUR
MILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY ONE THOUSAND
TWO HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT PESOS AND 30/100
(P4,231,228.30) tax deficiency, exclusive of surcharges
and interests to the damage and prejudice of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
government. CAIHTE
CONTRARY TO LAW."
"INFORMATION
of Justice, hereby accuses ALEXANDER R. GARCIA of the offense of
willful failure to supply correct and accurate information in his income
tax return for taxable year 2013, in violation of Section 255 of the
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended,
committed as follows:
sources of income amounting to SEVENTEEN MILLION
SIX HUNDRED ELEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED
PESOS (P17,611,300.00), thereby resulting in
deficiency in the amount of FIVE MILLION TWO
HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN PESOS AND 60/100
government.'
CONTRARY TO LAW."
"AMENDED INFORMATION
of Justice, hereby accuses ALEXANDER R. GARCIA in violation of
Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as
amended, committed as follows:
sources of income amounting to TEN MILLION SIX
HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
SIXTY FOUR PESOS (P10,648,564.00), thereby
resulting in deficiency income tax in the amount of
THREE MILLION SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED NINETY PESOS AND 76/100
government.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
Alexander R. Garcia, the accused, is a dentist by profession. 4 He is

operating under the business name "Sacred Heart Dental Center," with
business address at 129 Asuncion St., Morning Breeze Subdivision, Barangay
84, Zone 8, Caloocan City. 5 The same accused is also a registered taxpayer
of Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 27, Caloocan City, with Tax
Identification Number (TIN) 101-409-172. 6
Accused filed his Annual Income Tax Returns (ITRs), with attached
Financial Statements for taxable years 2011, 7 2012, 8 and 2013, 9 on April
16, 2012, April 12, 2013, and April 14, 2014, respectively. HEITAD
The investigation against the accused was prompted by NID Memo

Assignment No. KJH/SCD 2014-05-30-0334 dated May 30, 2014, 10 issued by
the Chief, National Investigation Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR), Mr. Sixto C. Dy, directing Group Supervisor (GS) Rodrigo B. Dulay and
Revenue Officer (RO) Mercedita C. Dizon, to conduct a thorough preliminary
investigation on the alleged schemes of tax evasion being perpetrated by
the accused to ascertain the veracity of the information.
Thereafter, the Letter of Authority (LOA) with Serial Number SN
eLA201100060953 (LOA-211-2014-00000191) dated August 14, 2014 was
issued against the accused by then Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)
Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, 11 authorizing ROs Gerrico Chico, Romy Carandang,
Mercedita Dizon and GS Rodrigo Dulay, to examine the accused's books of
accounts and other accounting records, for all internal revenue taxes,
including documentary stamp tax and other taxes (miscellaneous tax), for
the period from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013, pursuant to the
R.A.T.E. Program.
On August 28, 2014, CIR Henares wrote a letter to the then Secretary
of Justice Leila De Lima, 12 referring the Joint Complaint-Affidavit executed by
the said ROs and GS, 13 for preliminary investigation and the filing of
appropriate information in court, if evidence so warrants.
In the said Joint Complaint-Affidavit, the complainants alleged, among
others, that after evaluating and comparing the gross income or revenues
declared by the accused in his ITRs for the taxable years 2011, 2012 and
2013, with the payments made through credit cards of accused's clients for
the said years and written statements of the accused, they discovered that
the latter deliberately failed to declare his correct tax base by substantially
underdeclaring his income for the said years.
In his Counter-Affidavit, 14 the accused denied the charges against him
and claimed that he religiously paid his income tax and filed his ITRs on
time; that he is a practicing dentist, his only field of expertise; that
accounting and taxation are matters that are very alien to him, and which he
has very little knowledge of, and thus, he leaves those things to the care of
his accountant; that whatever charges he is accused of are mere results of
his inadvertence and lack of knowledge of the law, and not because of fraud
or any malicious intent on his part; that the so-called amounts that were
allegedly underdeclared were exaggerated and bloated; and that the
Certifications issued by the BDO and Citibank were not under oath, thus,
should be considered as mere hearsay.
On the other hand, in their Joint-Reply Affidavit , 15 the complainants
alleged, among others, that the claim of good faith is evidentiary in nature
and is at best discussed in full-blown trial; that accused Garcia cannot just
pass the buck to his accountant as he is liable for "willful blindness"; that the
finding of tax deficiency was based on a comprehensive audit conducted by
the said ROs; that third party information is admissible in evidence; and that
there is probable cause to hold accused Garcia liable of the commission of
the offenses charged.
In his Rejoinder-Affidavit, 16 accused reiterated, among others, that he
trusted Mr. Miranda, an accredited tax practitioner authorized by the BIR,
insofar as his competence, credibility and technical know-how surrounding
his expertise; and that the alleged estimated tax liabilities for deficiency
income tax and value-added tax (VAT), covering taxable years 2011, 2012,
and 2013, inclusive of surcharges and interest, have no basis in fact and in
law.
Subsequently, Assistant State Prosecutor Karla Torres Cabel issued the
Resolution dated October 15, 2015, 17 finding probable cause and
recommending the filing of criminal information against the accused. The
said Resolution was approved by Prosecutor General Claro A. Arellano.
Another Resolution was issued by the said Assistant State Prosecutor on June
22, 2016, 18 likewise duly approved by Prosecutor General Arellano, denying
the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the accused.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT
For an orderly presentation of these consolidated cases, the Court

deems it proper to state the proceedings for each case prior to
consolidation,followed by the proceedings thereafter, since the prosecution
had already rested its case when the instant criminal cases had been
consolidated. Subsequently, the Court shall summarize the evidence
presented and the arguments raised by each party. ETHIDa
CTA Crim. Case No. O-572:

On June 15, 2016, the prosecution filed an Information before this
Court, 19 charging the accused for the offense of willful failure to supply
correct and accurate information in his ITR for taxable year 2011, in violation
of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.
After careful review of the said Information and supporting documents
submitted by Assistant State Prosecutor Cabel, the Court, in its Resolution
dated July 7, 2016, 20 found the existence of probable cause and directed
the issuance of the warrant of arrest against accused. Thus, the Warrant of
Arrest dated July 11, 2016 was issued against accused Garcia. 21
On July 18, 2016, accused voluntarily appeared and submitted his
person to the jurisdiction of the Court, and posted a cash bail bond in the
amount of P20,000.00 for his provisional liberty. 22
When arraigned on November 9, 2016, the accused, duly assisted by
his counsel, pleaded "NOT GUILTY" to the offense charged against him. 23 In
the same hearing, the Court initially set the Preliminary Conference before
Atty. Ma. Victoria P. Dural, the Executive Clerk of Court II for the Second
Division of this Court, on December 19, 2016, while the Pre-Trial Conference
was set on February 6, 2017. Nonetheless, the said Preliminary Conferences
were held on February 20, 2017, 24 and March 20, 2017, 25 while the Pre-
Trial Conferences were held on April 24, 2017, 26 and June 5, 2017. 27
Meanwhile, the prosecution's Pre-Trial Brief was filed on April 19, 2017,
28 while the Accused's Pre-Trial Brief was submitted on April 24, 2017. 29 The
Court then issued the Pre-Trial Order dated June 30, 2017, 30 deeming the
termination of the pre-trial, and stipulating therein the following facts, to wit:
(1) that this Court has jurisdiction over the case filed against the accused;
and (2) that the accused Alexander R. Garcia is the same person named and
charged in the CTA Criminal Case No. O-572.
Trial ensued.
During trial, the prosecution presented their documentary and
testimonial evidence. Initially, the prosecution offered the testimonies of the
following ROs of the BIR, assigned at its National Investigation Division (NID),
namely: (1) Mr. Rodrigo Dulay, 31 (2) Mr. Romy Carandang, 32 and (3) Mr.
Gerrico Chico. 33
On August 16, 2017, the prosecution filed a Motion to Recall Witness
Rodrigo Dulay to testify on the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN), and
Formal Letter of Demand (FLD). 34 Accused filed his Opposition (to
Prosecution's Motion to Recall Witness Rodrigo Dulay) on August 22, 2017. 35
In the meantime, the prosecution filed a Motion for Issuance of
Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum on August 18, 2017, 36 praying
that a Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum be issued against Ms. Lily T.
Roxas and Atty. Maximo H. Simbulan V, or to any of their duly authorized
representatives.
During the hearing held on August 23, 2017, the prosecution continued
the cross-examination of RO Gerrico Chico; presented Ms. Vivian Halili, the
Chief Revenue Officer III and OIC Chief of the Document Processing Division
of the BIR at Revenue Region No. 5, Caloocan City; and recalled to the
witness stand, Mr. Rodrigo Dulay. In the same hearing, the Court granted the
prosecution's Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad
Testificandum. Thus, subpoenas were eventually issued to Ms. Lily T. Roxas
and Atty. Maximo H. Simbulan V, or to any of their duly authorized
representatives. 37 cSEDTC
On September 11, 2017, the accused filed a Very Urgent Motion for
Partial Reconsideration of the Order of 23 August 2017 , praying that the
prosecution's Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad
Testificandum be denied and/or the Subpoena be recalled on the grounds
that the prosecution did not specify what documents are to be produced by
Ms. Roxas and Mr. Simbulan V; and that the information/documents sought
to be produced are related to its bank accounts with BDO Unibank, Inc.
(BDO) and Citibank, N.A. (Citibank), thus, the disclosure of the said
information is prohibited by Republic Act (RA) Nos. 1405 and 8791. 38 On the
other hand, the prosecution filed its Comment (Re: Accused's Very Urgent
Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Order of 23 August 2017) on
September 29, 2017. 39
In the interim, the prosecution filed a Manifestation with Motion for
Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum on September 15,
2017. 40 Accused filed an Opposition (to Prosecution's Motion for Issuance of
Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum to BDO and Citibank
Officers/Documents) on September 25, 2017. 41 Thus, in the Resolution
dated October 5, 2017, 42 the Court: (1) denied the accused's Very Urgent
Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Order of 23 August 2017 ; (2) noted
and granted the prosecution's Manifestation and Motion for Issuance of
Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum , and (3) set the presentation of
Ms. Lily T. Roxas and Atty. Maximo H. Simbulan V, and stated the documents
which they will respectively bring.
At the hearing held on January 17, 2018, the prosecution presented Ms.
Lily T. Roxas (First Vice President or the Department Head of Credit Card
Accounting of BDO), and Atty. Maximo H. Simbulan V (Senior Vice President
and Country Tax Counsel of Citibank). In view of the absence of the accused
and his counsel, their right to cross-examine the said witnesses was deemed
waived, upon motion of the Special Prosecutor. 43
On February 1, 2018, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Evidence.
44 No comment was, however, filed thereon by the accused. 45 In the
Resolution dated March 16, 2018, 46 the Court admitted the prosecution's
Exhibits, except for Exhibit "P-5", for failure to present the original for
comparison.
Subsequently, on March 16, 2018, accused filed an Urgent Omnibus
Motion (1) for Reconsideration of the Order 17 January 2018; or, in the
Alternative, to Re-open Proceedings Only to Allow Accused's Counsel to
Cross-examine Witness Ms. Lily T. Roxas and Atty. Maximo H. Simbulan V.
and, (2) to Temporarily Suspend Other Proceedings Until After the Final
Resolution of Preceding Motion (for Reconsideration, etc.) . 47 The
prosecution later filed its Comment (Re: Accused's Urgent Omnibus Motion).
48
The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated
March 16, 2018) on March 23, 2018. 49 For its part, the prosecution filed its
Comment (Re: Accused's Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated
March 16, 2018) on May 15, 2018. 50 However, the Court denied both the
accused's Urgent Omnibus Motion and Motion for Reconsideration (of the
Resolution dated March 16, 2018) , in its Resolution dated July 11, 2018, 51
for lack of merit.
Meanwhile, the prosecution filed a Motion to Admit Formal Offer of
Evidence on May 15, 2018, 52 praying for the admission of the attached two
(2) documents: Exhibit "P-19" — PAN, and Exhibit "P-20" — Final Assessment
Notice (FAN)/FLD. No comment was, however, filed thereon by the accused.
53 Thus, in the Resolution dated October 2, 2018, 54 the Court: (1) granted
the prosecution's Motion to Admit Formal Offer of Evidence; (2) admitted the
Formal Offer of Evidence; and (3) gave the accused a period of fifteen (15)
days from notice hereof within which to file his comment on the
prosecution's Formal offer of Evidence. However, no comment was filed by
accused on the prosecution's Formal Offer of Evidence. 55 AaCTcI
In the Resolution dated November 22, 2018, 56 the Court admitted

Exhibits "P-19" and "P-20", as part of prosecution's evidence, and set the
initial presentation of evidence for the accused.
Respondent likewise presented his testimonial evidence. He offered
the testimonies of the following individuals, namely: (1) Lourdes G. De Las
Alas, 57 the accused's Secretary; and (2) Atty. Salvador B. Britanico, 58
counsel of the accused.
Due to several postponements of the hearing caused by the accused,
59 the presentation of Mr. Emmanuel Miranda, accused's accountant, was
deemed waived during the hearing held on July 29, 2019. 60

As such, accused filed his Motion for Partial Reconsideration (of the
Order Dated July 29, 2019) on August 9, 2019, 61 praying that the portion of
the Order of July 29, 2019 considering as waived the presentation of Mr.
Miranda as witness for the defense be reconsidered. However, the same
Motion for Partial Reconsideration was denied in open court at the hearing
held on August 14, 2019. 62
On September 9, 2019, the Court granted the consolidation of CTA
Crim. Case No. O-573 and CTA Crim. Case No. O-610, with CTA Crim. Case
No. O-572, the case bearing the lowest docket number. 63
On June 15, 2016, an Information was filed charging the accused of
willful failure to supply correct and accurate information in his ITR for
taxable year 2013, in violation of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as
amended. 64
The instant case was initially raffled to the Third Division of this Court.
In the Resolution dated September 9, 2016, 65 the Court found
probable cause and ordered for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against
the accused. The Warrant of Arrest dated September 13, 2016 was then
issued against the accused. 66
The accused voluntarily appeared before the Court on September 28,
2016, and posted the required cash bond in the amount of P20,000.00. 67
During the arraignment on October 19, 2016, the accused, with the
assistance of his counsel, entered a plea of "Not Guilty" to the crime
charged. Thus, the Court initially set the Preliminary Conference and the Pre-
Trial Conference on December 6, 2016 and January 25, 2017, respectively. 68
Subsequently, Preliminary Conferences were held on December 6, 2016 69
and February 21, 2017, 70 while the Pre-Trial Conference was held on May
10, 2017. 71
On March 31, 2017, the prosecution filed its Pre-Trial Brief, 72 while the
accused's Pre-Trial Brief was submitted on April 5, 2017. 73 Thereafter, the
Pre-Trial Order dated June 21, 2017 was issued, 74 incorporating therein the
stipulations of facts entered into by the parties, to wit:
"A. Facts:
1. Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, otherwise known as 'An Act
Creating the Court of Tax Appeals' grants exclusive original
jurisdiction to the Honorable Court over all criminal offenses
arising from violation of the provisions of the National Internal
Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC of 1997).
2. The accused Alexander R. Garcia is the person charged in the
present case.
3. Accused is registered taxpayer of Revenue District Office (RDO)
No. 27, Caloocan City with Tax Identification Number (TIN) 101-
409-172.
4. Accused's registered address is 129 Asuncion Street, Morning
Breeze Subdivision, Brgy. 84 Zone 8, Caloocan City.EcTCAD
5. Accused is a dentist by profession.

6. Accused is operating under the business name 'Sacred Heart
Dental Center' with business address at 129 Asuncion Street,
Morning Breeze Subdivision, Brgy. 84 Zone 8, Caloocan City.
7. Accused filed his Income Tax Returns (ITR) for taxable year
2013.
8. Accused declared in his 2013 ITR a Total Gross income of One
Million Eighty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P1,089,600.00)
for taxable year 2013.
9. Accused declared in his 2013 ITR a Total Allowable Itemized
deductions of Eight Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Two
Hundred Seventy Pesos (P875,270.00) for taxable year 2013."
Trial then proceeded.
During trial, the prosecution presented its testimonial and
documentary evidence. The prosecution offered the testimonies of the
following ROs, namely: (1) Mr. Rodrigo Dulay, 75 (2) Mr. Romy Carandang, 76
and (3) Mr. Gerrico Chico. 77
On August 18, 2017, the prosecution filed a Motion for Issuance of
Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum , praying that Subpoena Duces
Tecum/Ad Testificandum be issued against Ms. Lily T. Roxas and Atty.
Maximo H. Simbulan V, or to any of their duly authorized representative. 78
The accused filed an Opposition (to Prosecution's Motion for Issuance of
Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum dated August 18, 2017) on
September 11, 2017. 79 Thereafter, in the Resolution dated October 10,
2017, 80 the Court partially granted the prosecution's motion and directed
the issuance of a Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum for the said
witnesses.
The prosecution then presented the following additional witnesses,
namely: (1) Ms. Lily T. Roxas, 81 the First Vice President of the Credit Card
Accounting of the BDO; (2) Mr. Maximo H. Simbulan V, 82 Senior Vice
President and Country Tax Counsel of Citibank Philippines; and (3) Ms. Vivian
E. Halili, 83 Chief Revenue Officer III of the Document Processing Division of
the BIR.
On March 23, 2018, the prosecution filed a Motion to Recall (Gerrico
Chico). 84 No comment was filed thereon by the accused. 85 Said Motion to
Recall was granted by the Court in its Resolution dated April 20, 2018. 86 At
the hearing held on June 6, 2018, 87 RO Chico was recalled to the witness
stand, but his testimony was dispensed with in view of the parties'
stipulation on the existence and authenticity of the documents that he is to
present.
Subsequently, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Evidence on July
16, 2018. 88 The accused filed his Comments/Opposition (Re: Prosecution's
Formal Offer of Evidence) on August 2, 2018. 89 In the Resolution dated
August 31, 2018, 90 the Court admitted the prosecution's exhibits, except for
Exhibits "P-9" and "P-10", for failure to identify the same.
Thereafter, the accused filed an Urgent Motion to Consolidate Cases on
August 27, 2019, 91 praying for the consolidation of CTA Crim. Case Nos. O-
610 and No. O-573. However, during the hearing held on August 28, 2019,
the accused's counsel moved for the consolidation of CTA Crim. Case Nos. O-
573 and O-610, with CTA Crim. Case No. O-572, which was granted by the
Court, subject to the conformity of the Second Division of this Court. 92
On August 31, 2016, an Information was filed against the accused. 93
The case was initially raffled to the First Division of this Court.
After a careful consideration of the allegations in the Information and
the attachments thereto, the Court found the existence of probable cause for
the issuance of a warrant of arrest against accused, in its Resolution dated
October 14, 2016. 94 Thus, the Warrant of Arrest dated October 20, 2016
was issued. 95 HSAcaE
On November 2, 2016, with the assistance of counsel de parte, the

accused voluntarily appeared before this Court and posted a cash bail bond
in the amount of P20,000.00 for his provisional liberty. 96
The prosecution then filed on February 15, 2017, a Motion to Admit
Attached Amended Information, with the attached Amended Information. 97
In the Resolution dated February 22, 2017, 98 the Court granted the said
Motion and admitted the said Amended Information.
During the arraignment on May 10, 2017, the accused, duly assisted by
his counsel de parte, pleaded "NOT GUILTY" to the crime charged and
admitted that he is the same person being referred to in the Amended
Information. The Court initially set the Preliminary Conference and the Pre-
Trial on July 26, 2017 and August 16, 2017, respectively. 99 The Preliminary
Conferences were held on July 26, 2017 100 and September 6, 2017, 101
while the Pre-Trial Conference was held on September 28, 2017. 102
The Accused's Pre-Trial Brief was filed on May 10, 2017, 103 while the
prosecution's Pre-Trial Brief and Amended Pre-Trial Brief were respectively
submitted on August 15, 2017 104 and September 6, 2017. 105 The Court
then issued the Pre-Trial Order dated November 21, 2017, 106 deeming the
termination of the Pre-Trial and incorporating therein the following stipulated
facts:
"A. Facts:
1. Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, otherwise known as 'An Act
Creating the Court of Tax Appeals' grants exclusive original
jurisdiction to the Honorable Court over all criminal offenses
arising from violation of the provisions of the NIRC;
2. The accused is the same person named and charged in the
Information subject of this case;
3. The accused is a registered taxpayer of Revenue District Office
(RDO) No. 27, Caloocan City with Tax Identification Number (TIN)
101-409-172;
4. Alexander Eduardo Reyes Garcia is the same Alexander R.
Garcia, who is accused in this case;
5. Accused is a dentist by profession;
6. Accused is operating under the business name 'Sacred Heart
Dental Center' with business address at 129 Asuncion Street,
Morning Breeze Subdivision, Brgy. 84 Zone 8, Caloocan City;
7. Accused filed his Income Tax Returns (ITR) for taxable year
2012."
As trial ensued, petitioner presented its documentary and testimonial
evidence. Petitioner offered the testimonies of the following ROs, namely: Mr.
Romy P. Carandang, 107 and Mr. Gerrico Chico. 108
On April 11, 2018, the prosecution filed a Manifestation with Motion for
Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum) , 109 praying that
Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum be issued against Ms. Lily T. Roxas
and Atty. Maximo H. Simbulan V, or to any of their duly authorized
representative. The prosecution likewise filed a Manifestation (Re: Plaintiff's
Manifestation with Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad
Testificandum) on April 12, 2018, 110 stating therein the new address of Ms.
Roxas. Thus, in the Resolution dated April 17, 2018, 111 the Court noted and
granted the above stated Manifestations and Motions filed by the
prosecution. HESIcT
During the hearing held on May 2, 2018, the prosecution called to the
witness stand, Atty. Mary Ann B. Del Prado-Arañas, in lieu of the supposed
witness, Ms. Lily T. Roxas. Thereafter, the Court: (1) gave the prosecution a
period of ten (10) days, or until May 12, 2018, within which to file its Formal
Offer of Evidence; (2) gave the accused a period of ten (10) days from
receipt thereof to file his comment thereto; (3) noted the manifestation of
defense counsel that he will not file a Demurrer to Evidence; and (4) set the
presentation of defense evidence on certain dates. 112
On May 15, 2018, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Evidence. 113
The accused filed his Comments/Opposition (Re: Prosecution's Formal Offer
of Evidence) on June 1, 2018. 114 In the Resolution dated July 27, 2018, 115
the Court admitted the prosecution's Exhibits.
During the hearing held on August 1, 2018, the accused offered the
testimony of his Secretary, Ms. Lourdes De Las Alas. 116
In the Order dated September 26, 2018, 117 the instant case was
transferred to Third Division of this Court.
On August 27, 2019, the accused filed an Urgent Motion to Consolidate
Cases, 118 which was granted by the Court at the hearing held on August 28,
2019, subject to the conformity of the Second Division of this Court. 119
After consolidation of the three (3) cases:
After the consolidation of the instant cases on September 9, 2019, 120
the defense continued the presentation of its testimonial evidence.
During the hearing held on September 11, 2019, 121 the defense
presented Dr. Alexander R. Garcia, 122 the accused himself, on the witness
stand. In the same hearing, the accused's counsel moved for continuance on
October 9, 2019 for the presentation of its last witness, Emmanuel Miranda.
The Special Prosecutor objected to the said motion on the ground that the
testimony of the said witness was already declared waived by the Court in
its Order dated July 29, 2019. However, in the interest of justice, accused's
motion for the continuance was granted and, thus, set the presentation of
Mr. Miranda on October 9, 2019.
On October 8, 2019, accused filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Alternative
Motions to Suspend Proceeding until BIR Deputy Commissioner Misajon
and/or BIR Commissioner Cesar R. Dulay would have Acted on the Proposed
Amicable Settlement; or, Alternatively, to Reset the Hearing of October 9,
2019 to October 30 and/or November 6, 2019 . 123
During the hearing held on October 9, 2019, the Court: (1) denied for
lack of merit the said Urgent Ex-Parte Alternative Motions of the accused; (2)
ruled that the presentation of further evidence for the testimony of Mr.
Emmanuel T. Miranda is deemed waived; (3) granted the accused a period of
five (5) days from the said hearing within which to file his Formal Offer of
Evidence; (4) granted the prosecution a period of five (5) days within which
to file its Comment thereto; (5) granted the parties a period of thirty (30)
days from the receipt of the Court's Resolution on accused's Formal Offer of
Evidence to submit their respective memorandum; and (6) noted Atty.
Britanico's Manifestation that he intends to take action against this Order of
the Court. 124
On October 16, 2019, the accused filed an Alternative Motions for

Reconsideration of the Order of October 9, 2019 or to Dismiss the Case with
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Temporarily Suspend Other Proceedings . 125 In
addition, on October 22, 2019, the accused filed an Urgent Motion to Admit
the Amended Alternative Motions for Reconsideration of the Order of
October 9, 2019 or Motion to Dismiss with Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to
Suspend Other Proceedings, with attached Amended Alternative Motions for
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Temporarily Suspend Other Proceedings. 126 caITAC
At the hearing held on October 24, 2019, the Court granted both
parties a period of ten (10) days within which to file their respective
memorandum on the aforementioned motions filed by the accused. 127 In
compliance, the Memorandum for the Plaintiff (Re: (1) Accused's Amended
Alternative Motions for Reconsideration of the Order of October 9, 2019 or to
Dismiss the Case with Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Temporarily Suspend Other
Proceedings (2) Urgent Motion to Admit the Amended Alternative Motions for
Reconsideration of the Order of October 9, 2019 or Motion to Dismiss with
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Suspend Other Proceedings) was filed on
November 4, 2019; 128 while the Accused's Memorandum was posted on
November 11, 2019. 129
In the Resolution dated December 6, 2019, 130 the Court: (a) denied,
for lack of merit, the accused's (1) Alternative Motions for Reconsideration of
the Order of October 9, 2019 or to Dismiss the Case with Urgent Ex-Parte
Motion to Temporarily Suspend Other Proceedings filed on October 14, 2019 ;
and (2) Urgent Motion to Admit the Amended Alternative Motions for
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Suspend Other Proceedings submitted on October
22, 2019; (b) gave the accused a period of five (5) days from notice within
which to file his Formal Offer of Evidence; (c) gave the prosecution an equal
period of five (5) days from notice to file its comment on accused's Formal
Offer of Evidence; and (d) granted both parties a period of thirty (30) days
upon receipt of the Court's action on the incident to file their respective
memorandum.
On January 14, 2020, accused filed a Manifestation with Ex-Parte
Motion to Suspend Proceedings, 131 praying, among others, to temporarily
hold in abeyance any further proceedings in these cases at least until after
the expiration of the sixty (60)-day period to file a Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65, or until the said Petition has been finally resolved by the
Supreme Court. The prosecution posted its Comment/Opposition (to
Accused's Manifestation with Ex-Parte Motion to Suspend Proceedings dated
January 11, 2020) on February 3, 2020. 132 TAIaHE
In the Resolution dated February 14, 2020, 133 the Court: (1) noted the
accused's Manifestation; (2) denied the accused's Ex-Parte Motion to
Suspend Proceedings, for lack of merit; and (3) gave the accused a period of
five (5) days from receipt thereof within which to file his Formal Offer of
Evidence.
Nonetheless, records show that no Formal Offer of Evidence was filed
by the accused in the instant consolidated cases. 134 Thus, in the Resolution
dated June 22, 2020, 135 the Court gave parties a period of thirty (30) days to
file their respective memorandum, after which, the case shall be submitted
for decision.
On July 30, 2020, the Memorandum (For the Plaintiff) was filed, 136
while no memorandum was submitted by the accused. 137
Thereafter, on August 12, 2020, the accused filed a Motion to Suspend
Further Proceedings (Re: Resolution of June 22, 2020) with Alternative
Motions to Hear it on Monday, 17 August 2020 or to Give the Prosecution
Time to File its Comments Thereto and the Accused to File His Reply within
Seven (7) Days from Receipt of the Comments. 138
In the Resolution dated September 16, 2020, 139 the Court ordered the
prosecution to file its comment on the said Motion and noted the accused's
filing of Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The prosecution
then posted its Compliance with Comment (Re: Accused's Motion to Suspend
Further Proceedings) on October 5, 2020. 140 However, the Court denied the
aforementioned Motion to Suspend Further Proceedings and submitted the
instant cases for decision, in its Resolution dated November 16, 2020. 141
Undeterred, the accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration (of the
Resolution dated November 16, 2020) on December 10, 2020, praying for
the reconsideration of the Resolution dated November 16, 2020; and to
suspend, meanwhile, further proceedings in these cases until after the
Supreme Court would have resolved with finality the Petition for certiorari
filed on August 9, 2020.
The said Motion for Reconsideration was denied for lack of merit by the
Court, in its Resolution promulgated on January 7, 2021, submitting anew
the case for decision.
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION
To establish the culpability of the accused, the prosecution presented

seven (7) witnesses, namely: (1) Mr. Rodrigo Dulay; (2) Mr. Romy P.
Carandang; (3) Mr. Gerrico A. Chico; (4) Ms. Vivian E. Halili; (5) Ms. Lily
Roxas; (6) Mr. Maximo H. Simbulan V; and (7) Atty. Mary Ann B. Del Prado-
Arañas.
Below is a summary of the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses
during their direct examination, cross-examination and/or responses to
clarificatory questions posed by the Court, viz.:
1. Testimony of Rodrigo Dulay: 142
Mr. Rodrigo Dulay, RO IV assigned at the NID of the BIR, testified that
part of his duties and functions are as follows: (1) to conduct audit and
investigation of books of accounts and other accounting records of the
taxpayers for internal revenue tax purposes; (2) to submit the corresponding
report on the result of the audit and investigation; (3) to recommend
criminal prosecution for violations of the provisions of the NIRC; and (4) to
perform other functions that may be assigned to him by his superior in
accordance with the law.
RO Dulay mentioned that the instant criminal case was filed against
the accused pursuant to the two (2) Resolutions issued by the DOJ. 143
RO Dulay further testified that he is the GS of the NID that investigated
the tax liabilities of the accused. His group, composed of himself, Jericho
Chico, Romy Carandang and Mercedita Dizon, was tasked to conduct a
preliminary investigation against the accused pursuant to the NID Memo
Assignment No. KJH/SCD2014-05-30-0334 dated May 30, 2014. 144 As such,
they profiled the accused by accessing the BIR Integrated Tax System, from
which the following information were obtained, to wit: the accused is
registered in Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 27, Caloocan City, with
assigned Tax Identification Number, pursuant to the BIR Registration Print-
out; 145 and that the accused is engaged in the practice of dentistry under
the business name Sacred Heart Dental Clinic based on the Certification 146
issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. cDHAES
When RO Dulay was recalled to the witness stand on August 23, 2017
hearing, he declared that his group had executed a Joint Complaint Affidavit
147 and Joint Reply Affidavit 148 before the DOJ. He also identified the PAN
dated September 8, 2016 149 and FAN/FLD dated July 5, 2017 150 issued
against the accused. He further testified that his group member personally
served the PAN and FAN/FLD to the accused's registered business address
and the same were both received by the accused's Administrative Officer,
Ms. Lourdes De La Alas, on March 1, 2017 and August 14, 2017, respectively.
He also testified that there was no reply filed thereon by the accused.
2. Testimony of Romy P. Carandang: 151
RO Romy P. Carandang declared that his current position is RO II at

RDO 53B, Muntinlupa City. 152 He also testified that he was previously
assigned at NID, National Office from July 2009 up to August 9, 2017.
RO Carandang further declared that he was part of the group that
conducted a preliminary investigation against the accused. He discussed the
procedures undertaken by them in accomplishing the said task. According to
him, his group "profiled" the accused to know the basic information about
him. Thereafter, they sent Access Letter dated July 15, 2014 153 addressed to
RDO No. 27-Caloocan City and Access Letter dated January 16, 2017 154
addressed to the Chief Document Processing Division of Revenue Region No.
5, Caloocan City. In response, the said offices furnished them with copies of
accused's ITRs and Financial Statements for taxable years 2011, 2012 and
2013. They then compared the accused's ITRs with the data or document
from the BIR Information Systems Development and Operation Service, and
found out that he has a substantial underdeclaration of income for the said
taxable years. Consequently, his group recommended the issuance of a LOA.
Thus, an LOA dated August 14, 2014 155 was issued and the same was
received by accused's consultant, whose last name he cannot read.
Upon clarificatory question of the Court, RO Carandang testified that
he cannot confirm the actual source of income that was not declared in the
accused's ITR. 156
When RO Carandang was asked if had seen the attachments of the
ITRs such as specific receipts or items stated in the ITRs, he answered that
he had not seen the documents pertaining to the ITRs, but he saw the
financial statements attached with the ITRs. 157
3. Testimony of Gerrico A. Chico: 158
RO Gerrico Chico declared that he is presently holding the position of

RO II assigned at VAT Audit Section, Assessment Division of Revenue Region
No. 8, Makati City. But prior to such appointment, he was previously
assigned at the NID, National Office. 159 He stated that his group was
prompted to conduct a preliminary investigation against the accused for the
period from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013, pursuant to the NID
Memo Assignment 160 and LOA. 161
When his group profiled the accused, they learned that the latter is a
registered taxpayer of RDO No. 27. 162 They also found out that he is a
Dentist by profession and is currently operating under the trade name
Sacred Heart Dental Center based on his DTI Registration. 163 Thereafter, his
group sent separate Access Letters both dated July 14, 2014 to BDO 164 and
Citibank 165 for them certify and confirm the payments that they made to
the accused as shown in the BIR Information System Development and
Operation Service of ISDOS.
Thereafter, when they compared the accused's ITRs for taxable years
2011, 2012 and 2013 with the three (3) Certifications issued by the BDO, all
dated July 17, 2014, and Citibank's Certification dated July 18, 2014, they
discovered that he deliberately failed to supply correct and accurate
information in the said ITRs.
In view thereof, his group recommended the filing of criminal charges
against the accused in their Joint Complaint Affidavit dated August 28, 2014
166 filed with the DOJ, pursuant to the authorization given by then CIR Kim S.
Jacinto-Henares in her letter dated August 28, 2014 167 addressed to the
Secretary of Justice. His group likewise filed their Joint Reply Affidavit with
the DOJ. 168 Subsequently, the DOJ issued two (2) Resolutions recommending
the filing of the criminal Information against the accused. 169
ASEcHI
Upon clarificatory question of the Court, RO Chico admitted that that

there is still no final determination of the accused's tax liability when the
Information was filed before the Court. 170
When RO Chico was asked by the Court if he have copies of the
creditable withholding tax returns, he responded, "No, we relied on the
certifications issued." 171 He further stated that they did not check those
returns as they merely relied on the summary of all the income payments
pertaining to the accused as stated in the Information Systems Development
and Operations Service data. RO Chico likewise testified that, in computing
the accused's tax deficiencies for taxable years 2011, 2012 and 2013, his
group recognized the allowable deduction and personal exemption declared
in his ITRs.
RO Chico added that he personally served the PAN 172 and FAN/FLD 173
at accused's registered business address. 174 He also stated that he is not
aware if the accused filed any protest to the said assessment notices as he
was already transferred to BIR VAT Audit Section in Makati. When he was,
again, asked if he had any knowledge as to how the said banks arrived with
the figures reflected in the Certifications, he answered, "x x x no I don't
have." 175
RO Chico also admitted that he has no personal knowledge if there was
an application filed by the BIR to examine the bank records of the accused or
to obtain information covered by the Bank Secrecy Law. 176
4. Testimony of Vivian E. Halili: 177
Ms. Vivian E. Halili, the OIC Chief of the Document Processing Division
of the BIR at Revenue Region No. V, Caloocan City, declared that part of her
duties and functions are: (1) to safe keep all original returns and
attachments filed under the jurisdiction of Revenue Region V; (2) to ensure
effective storage and retrieval of tax returns; and (3) to ensure the
availability of tax returns upon request of Revenue District Offices or
National Office of the BIR. She identified the certified true copy of the
accused's ITR for taxable year 2011, 178 which she issued pursuant to the
Access Letter dated January 16, 2017. 179
However, for CTA Crim. Case Nos. O-573 180 and O-610, Ms. Halili's
testimony was dispensed with, as the parties specifically stipulated the
existence and due execution of the following documents: ITRs for taxable
years 2012 181 and 2013; 182 and Access Letter dated January 16, 2017. 183
5. Testimony of Ms. Lily Roxas: 184
Ms. Lily Roxas, the First Vice President of Credit Card Accounting of
BDO testified that she is in-charge of bookkeeping and reconciliation of the
credit card transactions of the bank, as well as the withholding of taxes from
the total sales of the accredited merchants of the bank. She further testified
that she issued three (3) Certifications in these cases, all dated July 17,
2014, 185 pursuant to the BIR's letter dated July 14, 2014, 186 requesting the
BDO to issue a certification as to the amount of income payments on taxes
withheld on a quarterly basis that were made for the account of the accused.
Attached to the said letter of the BIR are the following: 2011, 2012, and 2013
Alpha Lists sourced from BIR Form No. 1604E. She also mentioned that the
accused is one of their accredited merchants or one who avails the products
or services of BDO. She explained that the BDO authorized their accredited
merchants to accept credit card payments in their business establishments.
As such, the BDO has records of all sales of their accredited merchants and
the bank is required to withhold taxes on these sales. She also mentioned
that the BDO submits monthly report through BIR Form No. 1601E and
annual report using BIR Form No. 1604E summarizing therein the following:
sales of each merchant, the tax base and the amount withheld for each
merchant.
When Ms. Roxas was asked if she was able to examine accused's
deposits, savings, checking or any of the latter's bank accounts, she
answered in the negative as she has no access to the accounts of their
clients.
6. Testimony of Mr. Maximo H. Simbulan V: 187 ITAaHc
Mr. Maximo H. Simbulan V, the Senior Vice President Country Tax

Counsel of Citibank Philippines Branch, testified that he is primarily
responsible for all tax compliance and other tax related requirements of
Citibank. He stated that sometime in July 2014, his office received a letter
request 188 from the BIR requesting for the issuance of a certification on
certain income payments that the bank made to the accused who is one of
their accredited merchants under the trade name Sacred Heart Dental
Center for taxable years 2011, 2012 and 2013. Attached to the said letter
request are relevant portions of the Alpha List that the Citibank filed with the
BIR for the relevant taxable years. He explained that the said Alpha List
contains a summary listing of all income payments that the Citibank made
for a given period — detailing names of the income payees or recipients, the
TIN of those payees, the amount of income payments that the Citibank
made, and the corresponding creditable withholding taxes that the bank
imposed on those payments for the relevant period. Thus, pursuant to the
BIR's letter request, he issued a Certification 189 containing the income
payments and the corresponding taxes withheld from the accused. And in
the course of issuing the said Certification, he testified that he did not
examine the accused's deposit, savings, checking or any of the latter's bank
accounts since he has no access to the deposit accounts of their clients and
the same were, accordingly, not necessary for purposes of preparing the
said Certification.
When he was asked by this Court as to nature of the income payments
involved in these cases, he answered, credit card sales — the gross payment
that the bank made to the said merchant. As such, their bank imposed a tax
of 1.1% on the said sales. 190
7. Testimony of Atty. Mary Ann B. Del Prado-Arañas: 191
Atty. Mary Ann B. Del Prado-Arañas testified that she is the in-house
counsel of Banco de Oro, Inc. and that Ms. Lily Roxas authorized her to
testify on her behalf in identifying the Certification dated July 17, 2014 that
the latter issued with the BIR.
Moreover, in a bid to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the prosecution presented the following documentary
evidence which have been admitted by the three Divisions of the Court, 192
to wit:
1. Resolution dated October 15, 2015 of the DOJ; 193
2. Resolution dated June 22, 2016 of the DOJ; 194
3. Referral Letter dated August 28, 2014 signed by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue; 195
4. Joint Complaint-Affidavit dated August 28, 2014 with

attachments; 196
5. Computation of Deficiency Income Tax for taxable year 2013; 197
6. Joint Reply-Affidavit dated April 24, 2015; 198
7. Certification dated August 12, 2014 issued by the Department of
Trade and Industry through Gregory L. Domingo; 199
8. Certified Integrated Tax System (ITS) Print-out of Mr. Alexander
Eduardo Reyes Garcia's BIR Registration; 200
9. Certification dated July 17, 2014 issued by the Banco De Oro
through Rogel A. Raya and Lily T. Roxas confirming the
withholding tax for the year 2013; 201
12. Certification dated July 18, 2014 issued by the Citibank N.A.
through Atty. Maximo H. Simbulan V certifying its quarterly
payments to Mr. Alexander Eduardo Reyes Garcia; 204
13. Letter of Authority dated August 14, 2014; 205
14. Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year 2011 with attached
Financial Statements; 206 CHTAIc
Financial Statements; 207
Financial Statements; 208
17. NID Memo Assignment No. KJH/SCD 2014-05-30-0334 dated
May 30, 2014; 209
18. Access Letter dated July 15, 2014, addressed to Rebe D.
Detablan, Revenue District Officer of RDO No. 27-Caloocan City;
210
19. Access Letter dated July 14, 2014, addressed to the President of
BDO Unibank, Inc.; 211
20. Access Letter dated July 14, 2014, addressed to the President of
Citibank, N.A.; 212
21. Access Letter dated January 16, 2017 addressed to Vivian E.
Halili, Chief, Document Processing Division, Revenue Region No.
5-Caloocan City; 213
22. PAN dated September 8, 2016; 214 and
23. FLD dated July 5, 2017. 215
EVIDENCE FOR THE ACCUSED
To counter the foregoing evidence of the prosecution, three (3)

witnesses were presented by the defense, namely: (1) Ms. Lourdes G. De Las
Alas; (2) Atty. Salvador B. Britanico; and (3) Dr. Alexander R. Garcia, the
accused himself.
Their testimonies during their direct examination, cross-examination
and responses to clarificatory questions are summarized as follows:
1. Testimony of Lourdes G. De Las Alas: 216
Ms. Lourdes G. De Las Alas, accused's Secretary, testified by way of

Judicial Affidavit that she has been the Secretary of the accused for more
than ten (10) years. According to her, it is the staff of the Sacred Heart
Dental Clinic who has physical custody of the records of the operation of the
dental clinic. She also mentioned that it was Mr. Emmanuel Miranda, the
accused's accountant, who prepared the subject ITRs. She continued that, in
preparing the said returns, she was instructed by the accused to collate the
necessary papers for the same and hand them over to Mr. Emmanuel
Miranda's Assistant, Ms. Claire Miranda, who would drop by to their clinic to
get the said documents. She further attested that the accused did not
examine anymore the records which she forwarded to Ms. Claire Miranda as
he trusted his own staff on the said matter.
On cross-examination, Ms. De Las Alas was not able to show any
documentary evidence proving the following: (1) that she is the Secretary of
the accused; (2) that Mr. Emmanuel Miranda is the accused's Accountant; (3)
that Ms. Claire Miranda is the Assistant of Mr. Miranda; (4) that the subject
ITRs were indeed prepared by Mr. Miranda; and (5) that the accused has a
heart problem and underwent angioplasty. She further testified that the
accused had five (5) staff during the subject taxable years and that they all
tried to help lighten his job by doing things by themselves. On re-direct
examination, she testified that Ms. Claire Miranda visited their clinic once a
month, and that the latter is the niece of Mr. Emmanuel Miranda. 217
2. Testimony of Atty. Salvador B. Britanico: 218
Atty. Salvador B. Britanico, counsel of the accused, testified by way of

Judicial Affidavit, that he initially entered as collaborating counsel of Atty.
Rafael J. Bautista in the instant cases. However, the latter opted to withdrew
and, thus, he was left as the sole counsel of the accused. Based on the
interview conducted by him with the accused, he learned from the latter it is
the accused's accountant, Mr. Miranda, who had been preparing his Income
Tax Returns. He also mentioned that the pertinent papers used by his
accountant in computing the tax due for the government had been furnished
by the accused's Secretary, Ms. De Las Alas. Thereafter, said documents
were forwarded by Ms. De Las Alas to the Secretary of Mr. Miranda, Ms.
Claire Miranda. He also claimed that the accused told him that he had no
participation in the preparation of his Income Tax Returns other than affixing
his signature therein on the ground that the accused trusted his Secretary
De Las Alas and his Accountant Miranda that they would be preparing
correctly his Income Tax Returns. EATCcI
Atty. Britanico further testified that when he informed the accused of

the possible technical reason for the dismissal of the instant cases,
particularly, the filing of the Joint Complaint-Affidavit with the DOJ and the
filing of Informations before the Court, prior to the issuance of the FAN/FLD,
accused told him that he would rather settle and pay his tax liabilities after
the same has been correctly determined. Thus, he advised the accused to
pursue the latter's plan of requesting his accountant to re-compute his
income tax liabilities, which the accused did. Thus, Atty. Britanico submitted
a letter-proposal for settlement dated July 19, 2019 on the basis of Mr.
Miranda's revised computation.
Atty. Britanico likewise confirmed that all his answers in his Judicial
Affidavit were based on what the accused has told him. 219
3. Testimony of Dr. Alexander R. Garcia: 220
Dr. Alexander R. Garcia, the accused himself, testified by way of

Judicial Affidavit, that he is a Dentist by profession, and that he owns Sacred
Heart Dental Center with business address at 129 Asuncion St., Morning
Breeze Subdivision, Caloocan City. He claimed that he yearly filed his ITRs
and paid the corresponding taxes thereon. He said that it is his staff who
personally managed and kept the records of the operation of his dental
clinic. He further testified that it is his secretary who collates the necessary
papers for the preparation of his ITRs and, thereafter, turn over the same to
the secretary of his accountant, Ms. Claire Miranda. He likewise claimed that
he did not check the documents that had been forwarded to Ms. Miranda as
he trusted his Staff on the said matter. He also stated that he is not familiar
in the preparation of his financial statements as he has no background in
accounting. Thus, he entrusted the preparation of the same to his
accountant, Mr. Emmanuel Miranda. Accused continued that, although his
counsel told him that there is a legal reason for the dismissal of the crime
charged against him, he is more willing to settle and pay his tax liabilities
after the same has been correctly determined. Thus, he asked his
accountant to re-compute his income tax liabilities. After which, he
submitted the revised computation prepared by his accountant to his
counsel, Atty. Britanico who, in turn, forwarded the letter proposal for
settlement, with the revised computation, to BIR Deputy Commissioner
Alfredo V. Misajon.
Accused confirmed that his Secretary and Accountant had been
working with him for more than ten (10) years. He also confirmed that he
had over-all supervision of his staff. When the accused was asked if the
subject ITRs failed to reflect the correct amount of income and taxes, he
answered, "Yes, I am willing to pay the deficiency." He also confirmed the
receipt of the subject FAN. 221
Notably, no Formal Offer of Evidence was filed by the accused in the
instant consolidated cases. 222
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Prosecution's arguments:
The prosecution mainly argues in its Memorandum that the accused
who is a dentist by profession and who owns Sacred Heart Dental Center is
required to declare all his income for each taxable year. As such, he is
expected to supply correct and accurate information in his ITR as required
under Section 74 (A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. However, based on
the data gathered, the declared income of the accused in the subject ITRs
amounted only to P891,0100.00 n for taxable year 2011, P999,300.00 for
taxable year 2012, and P1,089,600.00 for taxable year 2013, which were
way lower than the amounts of gross payments/income received by the
accused as reflected in the Certifications issued by the BDO and Citibank,
particularly, in the amounts of P14,188,994.00, P10,648,564.00, and
P17,611,300.00, for taxable years 2011, 2012, and 2013, respectively.
The prosecution likewise argues that the accused cannot be permitted
to invoke an excuse that it was his accountant who prepared the ITRs, thus,
negating the element of willfulness on his part, as the amounts in these
cases involved millions of pesos.
Moreover, the prosecution insists that failure on the part of the accused
to declare in the subject ITRs the entire amount of gross income that he
actually received for taxable years 2011, 2012 and 2013, is tantamount to a
willful failure to supply correct and accurate information provided under
Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.
The prosecution further claims that the violation committed by the
accused under the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which is a special law, cannot
be overcome by a show of good faith.
Lastly, the prosecution claims that there was no violation of the Bank
Secrecy Law in the instant consolidated cases as there was no information
relating to accused's bank deposit that have been divulged in the
Certifications issued by the said banks. DHITCc
Accused's counter-arguments:
In the Memorandum filed in support of his Alternative Motions for
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Temporarily Suspend Other Proceedings and
Urgent Motion to Admit the Amended Alternative Motions for
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Suspend Other Proceedings , the accused denies
the charges filed against him as he did not wilfully and intentionally act to
defraud the government of the taxes due to it. He claims that the alleged
deficiencies, if any, in his tax payments were occasioned by the
unintentional lapses by his Secretary in gathering the pertinent papers
which have been used by his Accountant in computing his tax due in the
subject ITRs and, in turn, relied on by accused.
The accused further claims that the instant cases should be dismissed
as the same were filed prior to the issuance of the PAN and FAN/FLD, which
for him is a transgression of his right to substantial and procedural right due
process.
Finally, accused argues that the BIR violated RA No. 1405 by illegally
obtaining an information related to his bank deposits in filing the instant
criminal cases.
THE COURT'S RULING
The accused was not deprived

of his constitutional right to
due process.
To recall, the accused claims that the instant cases should be
dismissed as the same were filed prior to the issuance of the PAN and
FAN/FLD, which, accordingly, is a transgression of his right to due process. CAacTH
The Court does not agree.

In enforcing the collection of unpaid taxes, Section 205, in relation to
Section 222 (a), both of the NIRC of 1997, provides for two (2) remedies. One
is through summary administrative remedies (i.e., distraint and/or levy) and
the other is through judicial remedies (i.e., filing of criminal or civil action
against the erring taxpayer). Said Sections respectively read as follows:
Section 205, NIRC of 1997:
"SEC. 205. Remedies for the Collection of Delinquent Taxes .
— The civil remedies for the collection of internal revenue
taxes, fees or charges, and any increment thereto resulting
from delinquency shall be:
(a) By distraint of goods, chattels or effects, and other
personal property of whatever character, including stocks and other
securities, debts, credits, bank accounts, and interest in and rights to
personal property, and by levy upon real property and interest in or
rights to real property; and
(b) By civil or criminal action.
Either of these remedies or both simultaneously may be
pursued in the discretion of the authorities charged with the
collection of such taxes: x x x." (Emphases added)
Section 222, NIRC of 1997:
"SEC. 222. Exceptions as to Period of Limitation of
Assessment and Collection of Taxes. —
(a) In the case of a false and fraudulent return with intent to
evade tax or of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a
proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be filed
without assessment, at any time within ten (10) years after the
discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission: Provided, That in a fraud
assessment which has become final and executory, the fact of fraud
shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the civil or criminal action for
the collection thereof." (Emphasis added)
I n Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
Corporation, 223 the Supreme Court had the occasion to explain in detail the
difference between the above-stated remedies in this wise:
"The Tax Code provides two types of remedies to enforce the
collection of unpaid taxes, to wit: (a) summary administrative
remedies, such as the distraint and/or levy of taxpayer's property;
and/or (b) judicial remedies, such as the filing of a criminal or civil
action against the erring taxpayer.
Verily, pursuant to the lifeblood doctrine, the Court has allowed
tax authorities ample discretion to avail themselves of the most
expeditious way to collect the taxes, including summary
processes, with as little interference as possible. However, the
Court, at the same time, has not hesitated to strike down these
processes in cases wherein tax authorities disregarded due process.
The BIR's power to collect taxes must yield to the
fundamental rule that no person shall be deprived of his/her
property without due process of law. The rule is that taxes
must be collected reasonably and in accordance with the
prescribed procedure.
In the normal course of tax administration and
enforcement, the BIR must first make an assessment then
enforce the collection of the amounts so assessed. 'An
assessment is not an action or proceeding for the collection of taxes.
x x x It is a step preliminary , but essential to warrant distraint, if
still feasible, and, also, to establish a cause for judicial action.' The
BIR may summarily enforce collection only when it has
accorded the taxpayer administrative due process, which
vitally includes the issuance of a valid assessment. A valid
assessment sufficiently informs the taxpayer in writing of the legal
and factual bases of the said assessment, thereby allowing the
taxpayer to effectively protest the assessment and adduce
supporting evidence in its behalf. IAETDc
xxx xxx xxx

Unlike summary administrative remedies, the
government's power to enforce the collection through judicial
action is not conditioned upon a previous valid assessment.
Sections 318 224 and 319(a) 225 of the 1977 NIRC expressly allowed
the institution of court proceedings for collection of taxes without
assessment within five years from the filing of the tax return and 10
years from the discovery of falsity, fraud, or omission, respectively.
A judicial action for the collection of a tax is begun: (a)
by the filing of a complaint with the court of competent
jurisdiction, or (b) where the assessment is appealed to the
Court of Tax Appeals, by filing an answer to the taxpayer's
petition for review wherein payment of the tax is prayed for."
It is clear from the foregoing that if the BIR opted to enforce collection
through summary administrative remedies, it must first comply with the due
process requirements laid down in Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC in issuing
assessment notices. Noncompliance therewith is tantamount to the denial of
taxpayer's right to due process and, thus, effectively voiding the
assessment/s issued against the latter. But if the BIR decided to enforce
the collection of unpaid tax through judicial action, particularly
through the filing of a criminal charge before the DOJ, an
assessment is not necessary. 226
Moreover, there is no requirement for the precise computation and
assessment of the tax before there can be a criminal prosecution under the
NIRC of 1997, as held by the Court in Ungab vs. Cusi, Jr., et al., 227 to wit:
"x x x. What is involved here is not the collection of taxes
where the assessment of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may
be reviewed by the Court of Tax Appeals, but a criminal prosecution
for violations of the National Internal Revenue Code which is within
the cognizance of courts of first instance. While there can be no
civil action to enforce collection before the assessment
procedures provided in the Code have been followed, there is
no requirement for the precise computation and assessment
of the tax before there can be a criminal prosecution under
the Code." (Emphasis added)
Thus, the filing of complaint before the DOJ prior to the issuance of the
LOA, PAN and FAN/FLD, did not violate the accused's right to due process.
After all, the accused has still the opportunity to be heard and deny the
charges filed against him through the filing of counter-affidavit and evidence
before the prosecutor who will later on decide if there exists a probable
cause for purpose of filing an Information before the appropriate court.
Elements of the crime
charged.
Having settled the foregoing matter, the Court shall now determine
whether the accused failed to supply correct and accurate information in his
ITRs for taxable years 2010, 2011 and 2012, pursuant to Section 255 of the
NIRC of 1997, which reads as follows:
"SEC. 255. Failure to File Return, Supply Correct and
Accurate Information, Pay Tax, Withhold and Remit Tax and Refund
Excess Taxes Withheld on Compensation . — Any person required
under this Code or by rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder to pay any tax, make a return, keep any record, or
supply correct and accurate information, who willfully fails to
pay such tax, make such return, keep such record, or supply such
correct and accurate information, or withhold or remit taxes
withheld, or refund excess taxes withheld on compensation, at the
time or times required by law or rules and regulations shall, in
addition to other penalties provided by law, upon conviction thereof,
be punished by a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000)
and suffer imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more
than ten (10) years.
xxx xxx xxx." (Emphases Supplied)
Based on the foregoing provision, for one to be convicted for the
offense of willful failure to supply correct and accurate information, it
necessitates the concurrence of the following elements, to wit: DcHSEa
1. The accused is a person required under the NIRC or rules and

regulations to supply correct and accurate information;
2. The accused failed to supply correct and accurate information at
the time or times required by law or rules and regulations; and
3. Such failure to supply correct and accurate information is willful.
The accused is required under
the NIRC of 1997, as
amended, to supply correct
and accurate information in
his annual ITRs; and has
failed to do so, at the time
required by law.
Under Sections 24 and 51 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, a resident
citizen who is engaged in the practice of a profession within the Philippines
is obligated to file an income tax return on his income from all sources,
regardless of the amount of his gross income. The pertinent portions of the
said provisions read as follows:
"SEC. 24. Income Tax Rates. —
(A) Rates of Income Tax on Individual Citizen and Individual
Resident Alien of the Philippines. —
(1) An income tax is hereby imposed:
(a) On the taxable income defined in Section 31 of this
Code, other than income subject to tax under Subsections (B), (C)
and (D) of this Section, derived for each taxable year from all sources
within and without the Philippines by every individual citizen of the
Philippines residing therein."
"SEC. 51. Individual Return. —
(A) Requirements. —
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this Subsection,
the following individuals are required to file an income tax return:
(a) Every Filipino citizen residing in the Philippines;
xxx xxx xxx
(4) The income tax return shall be filed in duplicate by the
following persons:
(a) A resident citizen — on his income from all sources;
xxx xxx xxx
(C) When to File. —
(1) The return of any individual specified above shall be
filed on or before the fifteenth (15th) day of April of each year
covering income for the preceding taxable year.
xxx xxx xxx."
As a corollary thereto, Section 32 of the NIRC of 1997 defines gross
income as "all income derived from whatever source, including but not
limited to x x x (2) gross income derived from the conduct of trade or
business or the exercise of a profession, x x x ." Moreover, and relative to the
above-quoted Section 24 (1) (a), Section 31 of the NIRC of 1997 reads:
"SEC. 31. Taxable Income Defined . — The term 'taxable
income' means the pertinent items of gross income specified in this
Code, less the deductions and/or personal and additional exemptions,
if any, authorized for such types of income by this Code or other
special laws."
Based on the foregoing provisions, it is clear that a taxpayer is duty
bound to declare his or her income from all sources, including, but not
limited to, the conduct of business or the exercise of profession, via the filing
of an income tax return on or before the 15th day of April each year covering
the said income for the preceding taxable year. SCaITA
In this case, it is undisputed that the accused is a dentist by profession,

and is operating under the business name "Sacred Heart Dental Center,"
with address at 129 Asuncion Street, Morning Breeze Subdivision, Brgy. 84
Zone 8, Caloocan City. 228 Thus, with these circumstances and pursuant to
the above-quoted provisions of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the accused
is duty bound to declare his income from all sources, including, but
not limited to the income derived from his dental clinic. As such, the
accused is a person required under the NIRC to supply a correct and
accurate information about all his income earned in every taxable year.
Correspondingly, the first element for the commission of the subject offense
was established in this case.
Moreover, records show that the concerned ROs resorted to third-party
information when they conducted their preliminary investigation against the
accused. This was done by sending Access Letters to BDO 229 and Citibank,
N.A., 230 for them to issue a certification as to the amount of income
payments that they made and taxes withheld by them on a quarterly basis
on the account of the accused for the concerned taxable years. 231
In response, BDO's First Vice President of Credit Card Accounting, Ms.
Lily Roxas, issued three (3) Certifications for taxable years 2011, 2012, and
2013, 232 while Citibank, N.A.'s Senior Vice President Country Tax Counsel
Maximo H. Simbulan V sent a reply letter, 233 for the same three (3) taxable
years (collectively referred to hereafter as "Certifications").
The issuers of the said Certifications were even presented by the
prosecution to identify the same and to testify on the matters stated therein.
Ms. Roxas declared that the accused is one of the accredited merchants of
BDO and, thus, authorized to accept credit card payments in his business.
234 She also amply explained her basis in issuing the subject certifications in
this wise:
"JUSTICE LIBAN
Okay, what is the basis of that certification?
xxx xxx xxx
MS. ROXAS
Your Honors, we have a system in our bank which records all the
credit card transactions of each merchant. So every month, we
are required to submit to BIR the, for each transaction, we
withhold .5% from each sale. So the total sales for the month, we
report it to BIR based on 1601e the total taxes that withheld,
that the bank withheld from the total sales of all our merchants
and then we submit an alpha list of all these merchants to BIR.
JUSTICE LIBAN
Is that a monthly thing? x x x
MS. ROXAS
Yes, your Honor, a monthly one and then we are required to
submit an annual list also, summarizing all the transactions for
the year of each merchant.
JUSTICE LIBAN
That is only for the credit card used, for the credit cards?
MS. ROXAS
That form only includes all the taxes that the bank withheld, not
only for credit card transactions, even for suppliers, we withhold
taxes. If we pay, suppliers, we withhold final taxes. All the taxes
that the bank withheld. x x x." 235 aTHCSE
On the other hand, Atty. Simbulan identified the nature of income

payments payment that the accused received from the Citibank, N.A., viz.:
"JUSTICE CASTAÑEDA:
What is the nature of the income payments?
ATTY. SIMBULAN:
It's payment to a merchant in a gross payment about a credit card
company to its merchants. So imposed a tax of 1.1%
JUSTICE CASTAÑEDA:
What is the nature of the income payments? What kind of income
is that?
ATTY. SIMBULAN:
Credit Card sales, Your Honors. It's a gross payment that we made
to said merchant as credit card company." 236
Thus, after comparing the Service Income/Receipts declared per ITR/FS
vis-à-vis the income payments reflected in the said Certifications, the
determined underdeclaration of income for the subject taxable years were
summarized by the prosecution, as shown below:
2011 2012 2013

Service Income/Receipts per
ITR/FS P891,000.00 P999,300.00 P1,089,600.00

Income Payments per Third
Party Information
BDO Unibank, Inc. 3,296,284.00 3,133,446.00 1,844,560.00
Citibank, N.A. 10,892,710.00 7,515,118.00 15,766,740.00
Total 14,188,994.00 10,648,564.00 17,611,300.00
Discrepancy P13,297,994.00 P9,649,246.00 P16,521,700.00
Percentage of
Underdeclaration 1492% 966% 1516% 237
By just looking at the foregoing table, the huge disparity between the
Service Income/Receipts per ITR/FS declared in his ITRs vis-à-vis the income
payments reflected in the said Certifications was glaring enough. Thus, there
is a manifest showing that accused had underdeclared his income for the
subject taxable years.
Moreover, no less than the accused himself categorically admitted that
he failed to reflect the correct and accurate amount of income taxes in the
subject returns. Relevant portions of his testimony are herein quoted for
ready reference, to wit:
"PROS. TORTOLES:
Do you admit, Mr. Garcia that the income tax returns which
you identified awhile ago failed to reflect the correct
amount of income and taxes that is why you are willing to
pay whatever deficiency will be?
WITNESS:
Yes, I am willing to pay the deficiency .
PROS. TORTOLES:
And you admit that income tax returns contain in correct
amount of taxes?
ATTY. BRITANICO:
That's admitted, You Honors. Actually, precisely, he states that he
has this proposal . . . (interrupted)
JUSTICE CASTAÑEDA:
Let the witness answer.
PROS. TORTOLES:
Do you confirm? cAaDHT
WITNESS:
Yes." 238 (Emphases added)
Such admission of the accused in open court is a judicial admission,239
and thus, binding upon the accused, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 129 of the
Revised Rules of Court which states:
"Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or
written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only
by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made."
In fine, with the foregoing evidence presented by the prosecution and
admission made by the accused himself, it cannot be denied that he, indeed,
failed to supply correct and accurate information in the subject ITRs.
Considering that the accused failed to declare the income payments
reflected in the above-stated Certifications issued by the representatives of
BDO and Citibank, N.A., when he filed his ITRs for taxable years 2011, 2012,
and 2013, on April 16, 2012, 240 April 12, 2013, 241 and April 14, 2014, 242
respectively, in accordance with Section 51 (C) (1) of the NIRC of 1997, the
second element of the crime has been sufficiently proven in these
consolidated cases.
The accused's failure to
supply correct and accurate
information was willful.
Having satisfied the first two elements, it is now crucial for the Court to
ascertain whether the accused willfully and intentionally failed to supply
correct and accurate information in his ITRs for taxable years 2011, 2012
and 2013.
The term "willful" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary 243 as one "done
voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the
law forbids, or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires
to be done; that is to say, with bad purpose to either to disobey or to
disregard the law." Inasmuch as the third element involves a "state of mind"
of the erring taxpayer, the same need not be established by direct evidence,
but may be inferred from the circumstances attendant in each case.
Citing the case of Antonio Planteras, Jr. vs. People , 244 the Supreme
Court in the case of People vs. Sanota y Sarmiento, et al., 245 had the
occasion to expound how the finding of guilt in criminal cases may be
established by circumstantial evidence in this wise:
"A number of circumstantial evidence may be so credible to
establish a fact from which it may be inferred, beyond reasonable
doubt, that the elements of a crime exist and that the accused is its
perpetrator. There is no requirement in our jurisdiction that only
direct evidence may convict. After all, evidence is always a matter of
reasonable inference from any fact that may be proven by the
prosecution provided the inference is logical and beyond reasonable
doubt.
Rule 113, Section 4 of the Rules on Evidence provides three (3)
requisites that should be established to sustain a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence: HCaDIS
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when

sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived
are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The commission of a crime, the identity of the perpetrator, and
the finding of guilt may all be established by circumstantial evidence.
The circumstances must be considered as a whole and should create
an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that the accused
authored the crime.
The determination of whether circumstantial evidence is
sufficient to support a finding of guilt is a qualitative test not a
quantitative one. The proven circumstances must be 'consistent with
each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty,
and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is
innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of
guilt."
Based on the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements, the element of
willful failure to supply correct and accurate information must be fully
established as a positive act or state of mind; it cannot be presumed nor
attributed to mere inadvertent or negligent acts. 246
The following circumstances fortify the prosecution's finding that the
accused willfully failed to supply correct and accurate information in the
subject ITRs.
For one, the accused did not only fail to dispute the existence of the
aforementioned income payments made by the said banks, he even went
further and confirmed its veracity when he expressly admitted in his Very
Urgent Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Order of 23 August 2017 , 247
filed before the Second Division of this Court, that he is, indeed, authorized
by the said banks to accept payments for the services that he rendered or
for the materials/supplies that he provided to his patients through credit
card, in this wise:
(a) The Accused during the period material to the case maintained
bank accounts with the Banco de Oro (BDO) and in Citibank
(CTB), namely:
(1) BDO Account No. 600105377; and
(2) Citibank Account No. 1400610750.
(b) He was accredited/authorized by both Banks to accept
payments through Credit Cards they issued to their
Clients for the services/materials provided to the patients
by Sacred Heart Dental Clinic of which the Accused in the
Owner.
For purposes of processing the Credit Cards, Sacred Heart
was issued similar ID Merchant No. 777-8999000114 by
both Banks.
(c) The payments to Sacred Heart by the Patients, though
their respective Credit Cards were deposited to the Bank
Account of Sacred Heart to the Issuers Bank, respectively.
(d) The Banks charged fees from the deposits of Sacred Heart
Dental Clinic, the Merchant/Service Provider." (Emphases ours)
Such statements, again, constitute judicial admissions and, thus,
binding upon the accused.
Nevertheless, accused insists that the said Certifications pertain to his
bank accounts which cannot be disclosed under Republic Act (RA) No. 1405,
as amended, (Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits) and RA No. 8791 (General
Banking Laws).
The Court is not convinced.
Suffice to it state that the foregoing issue has already been resolved by
the Second and Third Divisions of this Court in their respective Resolutions
dated July 11, 2018 248 and October 10, 2017. 249 Pertinent portions of the
said Resolutions respectively read as follows:
July 11, 2018 Resolution of the Second Division:
"Basic is the rule that withholding taxes is the liability of the
payor or the withholding agent. Consequently, BDO and Citibank
complied to BIR's request by issuing the corresponding certificates
based on its record of income payments made to the accused and not
based on his deposit.
Section 2 of the Republic Act No. 1405 mandates that 'all
deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institution in the
Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government
of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities,
are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential in nature and
may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person,
government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission
of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a
competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public
officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the
subject matter of the litigation.'
Thus, in the instant case, the Court finds no violation of Bank
Secrecy Law on the part of the prosecution when it offered
certifications from BDO and Citibank, as said documents merely
reflect the income payments made to accused and the corresponding
withholding taxes. Clearly, contrary to the allegations of the accused,
the amounts indicated in the certifications do not pertain to his bank
deposits."
October 10, 2017 Resolution of the Third Division:
"x x x. For one, the accounts of the Accused with BDO Unibank
and Citibank do not pertain to a bank deposit. A bank deposit is
defined as a contractual relationship ensuing from the delivery, by
one known as the depositor of money, funds or even things into the
possession of the bank, which receives the same upon agreement to
pay, repay or return, upon the order or demand of the depositor, the
money, funds, or equivalent amount. On the contrary, the contract
between the merchants/service establishment (in this case, the
Accused under the trade name of Scared Heart Dental Center) is a
financing activity, specifically that of discounting of receivables.
Moreover, the Certifications issued by BDO Unibank and
Citibank pertain to their withholding tax liability under Section
2.57.2(L) of BIR Revenue Regulations No. 2-98, which may be found
in the banks' Monthly Alphalist of Payees for taxable years 2011,
2012 and 2013. Undeniably, the information requested pertains to
the subject matter of the litigation — the correct taxes of the
Accused."
For another, the Court cannot simply close its eyes to the fact that the
receipt of the aforementioned income payments may be inferred from the
same statement made by the accused in his separate Comments/Opposition
(Re: Prosecution's Formal Offer of Evidence filed before the Third 250 and
First 251 Divisions of this Court, thus: ScHADI
"First: The alleged 'actual amount of gross income/sales

received by the accused, from the credit card transactions' of BDO
and CITIBANK are incorrect in that the alleged 'gross income/sales' of
the Accused included substantial amounts which were NOT, in fact,
incomes of the Accused, but funds held by him in trust to be paid to
the Hotels for the accommodations/transportations of his tourist-
patients."
It can thus be inferred from the foregoing that the accused was, in
effect, admitting the receipt of the said income payments (gross
income/sales) from the said banks and, at the same time, claiming that the
same included substantial amounts which were merely held by him in trust
for the benefit of his so-called "tourist patients."
It must, however, be noted that not a single document or affidavit of a
witness who had personal knowledge of such fact was presented by the
defense to support the foregoing statement. And even if this Court were to
accept such claim, the said income statements should nonetheless have
been reported or included in his financial statements for the subject taxable
years when the same were received by accused.
Moreover, in attempting to justify the underdeclaration, the accused
stated in his Memorandum that the alleged deficiencies in his tax payments,
were occasioned by the unintentional lapses by his office secretary in
gathering the pertinent papers which were made the bases of his accountant
in computing the tax due in his ITRS for taxable years 2011, 2012 and 2013
and, in turn, relied on by him. 252
However, nowhere from the quoted testimony below of Ms. De Las Alas
or of the accused himself was there even a hint that there was a lapse on
the part of Ms. De Las Alas in forwarding the necessary documents for the
preparation of the accused's ITRs. Their respective testimonies are
hereunder quoted for ready reference, to wit: DACcIH
Ms. De Las Alas' testimony:

"Q.2.8:
How were the records or documents necessary for the preparation
of the ITR for 2011 given to the Office of Accountant Miranda?
A-2.8:
His assistant Ms. Clare comes to the office to get the records, Sir. I
gave them to her.
Q-2.9:
Why were you the one who gave the records to Ms. Claire?
A-2.9:
I was instructed, Sir, by Dr. Garcia to collate the necessary papers
and to deliver them to Ms. Claire Miranda when she comes.
Q-2.10:
Where did you get the records you collated?
A-2.10:
From my own file and that of the Staff of the Clinic, Sir.
Q-2.11:
Did Dr. Garcia examine the records before you gave them to Ms.
Clare Miranda?
A-2.11:
No, Sir.
Q-2.12:
Do you know why he did not examine anymore the records?
A-2.12:
He trusted me, the Staff in the Dental Clinic and Accountant
Miranda, Sir. Besides, at that time and until now, Dr. Garcia has
been having heart problem such that he underwent Angioplasty.
We, therefore, tried to help lighten his job by doing things by
ourselves as much as possible." 253
The accused's testimony:
"Q-2.14:
How were the records or documents necessary for the preparation
of the ITR for 2011 given to Accountant Miranda?
A-2.14:
Accountant Miranda's assistant Ms. Claire Miranda will come to the
office to get the records, Sir. Then, Ms. Lourdes de las Alas and
the staff of the clinic turn-over the records of operation to Ms.
Claire.
Q-2.15:
Was there any occasion that you personally gave the records of
your dental operations to Ms. Claire Miranda?
A-2.15:
Not once, Sir. I relied on my administrative staff and secretary to
do the work. My standing instruction is for Ms. De las Alas and
my staff to collate the necessary papers and to deliver them to
Ms. Claire Miranda when she comes.
Q-2.16:
Did you examine the records before Ms. De las Alas will give them
to Ms. Claire Miranda?
A-2.16:
No, Sir.
Q-2.17:
Why did you not examine anymore the records?
A-2.17:
I trusted and I relied on Ms. De las Alas and the Staff in the Dental
Clinic and Accountant Miranda, Sir. Besides, at that time and until
now, I have been having a heart problem such that I underwent
Angioplasty. Ms. De las Alas and my staff in the Dental Clinic
tried to help lighten my job by doing things by themselves as
much as possible. Also, Sir, I am not familiar in the preparation of
financial statements and I have no background in accounting. HSCATc
Q-2.18:
Did you inquire from Ms. De las Alas whether she delivered the
documents to the Assistant of Accountant Miranda?
A-2.18:
Yes, Sir. I did." 254
The excuse proffered by the accused is unworthy of belief as the same
is in stark contrast with his previous statement in his Counter Affidavit filed
before the DOJ, whereby he mentioned that he specifically hired an
accountant to handle the accounting and tax matters as he had little
knowledge of the same. As such, he insists that whatever charges he may
be accused of, are results of his inadvertence and lack of knowledge of the
law, and not because of fraud or any malicious intent on his part. 255
The same argument was raised by the accused in his Rejoinder-
Affidavit submitted with the DOJ where he emphasized that he relied on his
accountant's expertise and representations. Thus, whatever charges he may
be accused of, is just a mere result of maximum trust, with no intent to
defraud nor any malicious intent nor bad faith on his part to evade, if any his
tax obligations. 256
To Our mind, such sudden change of position or theory is nothing but a
lame excuse and a mere after-thought conceived after the accused failed to
present his accountant, as his right to present the latter was waived twice by
the Court due to several non-appearances and constant requests for
postponements of the defense. 257
Furthermore, granting that he did rely on his secretary, still, he himself
had to sign the ITR just the same before filing, and in the normal course of
things, he should have read the contents thereof including its attachments
before affixing his signature on the same. Such being the case, the mere
fact that the accused signed the following documents certainly proves that
he has read the same and has taken full responsibility for all information and
representations contained therein, viz.:

1. The subject ITRs for taxable years 2011, 258 2012 259 and 2013,
260 were declared under the penalty of perjury; and
2. The Statements of Management's Responsibility attached to the

Financial Statements of the accused for taxable years 2011, 261
2012 262 and 2013 263 showed that he assumed full responsibility
of the contents of the report. Pertinent portions of the 2011
Statements of Management's Responsibility, which are the stated
verbatim for 2012 and 2013, are herein quoted for ready
reference, to wit:
"STATEMENT OF MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY
FOR ANNUAL TAX RETURN"
The Management of SACRED HEART DENTAL
CENTER is responsible for all information and
representation contained in the Annual Income Tax
Return for the year ended December 31, 2011.
Management is likewise responsible for all
information and representations contained in the
financial statements accompanying the Annual
Income Tax Return covering the same period .
Furthermore, the Management is responsible for all
information and representation contained in all the other
tax returns filed for the reporting period, including, but
not limited to the value added tax and/or percentage tax
returns, withholding tax returns, documentary stamp tax
returns, and any and all other tax returns.
In this regard, the Management affirms that the attached
audited financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2011 and the accompanying Annual Tax
Return are in accordance with the books and records of
SACRED HEART DENTAL CENTER, complete and correct in
all material respects." (Emphases supplied)IDTSEH
As such, the Court cannot accept this blanket denial of responsibility on

the part of the accused. Certainly, inadvertence on the part of the secretary
and accountant could have been corrected had he checked the documents
collated by his secretary before handing over the same to the assistant of his
accountant; and had he verified the details allegedly supplied by his
accountant in the subject returns and financial statements before signing the
same. Such failure on the part of the accused indicates his evident lack of
concern and intentional disregard of his tax responsibilities to the
government as he avoided every opportunity to learn or acquire the
knowledge relating to his legal duty to file a correct income tax returns. The
"deliberate ignorance" or "conscious avoidance" on his part in ensuring the
accuracy of the information provided in the subject income tax returns and
Financial Statements would justly characterize the same as willful, within the
contemplation of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997.
In addition, it is noteworthy that the repeated and deliberate significant
underdeclarations of income for three (3) consecutive years is a clear
indication of the propensity of the accused not to supply correct and
accurate information on his income tax returns to the damage and prejudice
of the Government.
Having painstakingly considered all testimonial and documentary
evidence presented by both parties, this Court finds that the prosecution was
able to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged in the subject consolidated criminal cases, for violation of
Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997.
The accused's income tax
liability.
Section 205 of the NIRC of 1997 provides, in part, as follows:
"SEC. 205. Remedies for the Collection of Delinquent Taxes .
—xxx
xxx xxx xxx
The judgment in the criminal case shall not only impose
the penalty but shall also order payment of the taxes subject
of the criminal case as finally decided by the Commissioner."
(Emphasis added)
Based on the foregoing provision, in case of a finding of guilt on the
part of the accused, this Court is mandated not only to impose the penalty
for the offense, but also must order the payment of taxes subject of the
criminal case, as finally decided by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
In this case, as finally decided by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, the accused's income tax liabilities, including increments thereto,
in the aggregate amount of P29,706,593.06, are shown in the Formal
Letter of Demand dated July 5, 2017 and Audit Result/Assessment Notices
attached thereto, to wit:
2011 2012 2013 Total

Basic Income P5,275,947.60 P3,076,190.76 P4,239,880.30 P12,592,018.66
Tax
Surcharge 2,637,973.80 1,538,095.38 2,119,940.15 6,296,009.33
Interest 3,564,516.93 2,693,563.20 4,560,484.94 10,818,565.07
Total P11,478,438.33 P7,307,849.34 P10,920,305.39 P29,706,593.06
During the proceedings of these consolidated cases, it is noteworthy

that the accused has expressed his willingness to pay his deficiency income
tax liabilities, as he confirms that the subject income tax returns contain
incorrect amount of taxes. 264 Thus, We see no hindrance in imposing the
said aggregate amount of P29,706,593.06 against the accused, as
computed above.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds
the accused, Alexander R. Garcia, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
on three (3) counts of violation of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, for
taxable years 2011, 2012, and 2013. For each of the consolidated criminal
cases, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of one (1) year,
as minimum, to two (2) years as maximum term of imprisonment, and is
ORDERED TO PAY a fine in the amount of P10,000.00, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case he has no property with which to meet such fine,
pursuant to Section 280 of the NIRC of 1997. SICDAa
Moreover, the accused ORDERED TO PAY the Bureau of Internal

Revenue the aggregate amount of P29,706,593.06, representing his
deficiency income tax liabilities, including increments thereto, for taxable
years 2011, 2012, and 2013.
SO ORDERED.
(SGD.) JUANITO C. CASTAÑEDA, JR.

Associate Justice
Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, J., concur.
Footnotes
1. Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 6 to 7.
2. Docket — Vol. I, (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 6 to 7.

3. Docket — Vol. I, (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 428 to 429.
4. Par. 5, Pre-Trial Order dated June 21, 2017, Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case
No. O-573), p. 532; Par. 5, Pre-Trial Order dated November 21, 2017,
Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), p. 653.
7. Exhibit "P-13", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 693 to 705.
8. Exhibit "P-12", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 465 to 478; Par.
7, Pre-Trial Order dated November 21, 2017, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim.
Case No. O-610), p. 653.
9. Exhibit "P-15", Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 852 to 872;
Par. 7, Pre-Trial Order dated June 21, 2017, Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim.
Case No. O-573), p. 532.
10. Exhibit "P-14", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 706; Exhibit "P-
16", Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), p. 873; Exhibit "P-10",
Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), p. 463.

12. Exhibit "P-3", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 611 to 613;
Exhibit "P-3", Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 770 to 772;
Exhibit "P-3", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 481 to 483.
15. Exhibit "P-5", Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 69 to 81.
17. Exhibit "P-1", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 8 to 12; Exhibit
"P-1", Docket — Vol. 1 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 373 to 377; Exhibit
"P-1", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 14 to 18.
21. Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 370.
22. Resolution dated July 18, 2016, Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p.
372.
23. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, November 9, 2016, Docket
— Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 402 to 404; Certificate of
Arraignment dated November 8, 2016, Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case
No. O-572), p. 400.
24. Minutes of the Preliminary Conference held on February 20, 2017, Docket —
Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 410 to 414.
25. Minutes of the Preliminary Conference held on March 20, 2017, Docket — Vol.
I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 426 to 428.
26. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, April 24, 2017, Docket —
27. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, June 5, 2017, Docket — Vol. I
(CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 445 to 447.
31. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, July 17, 2017, Docket — Vol.

33. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, August 9, 2017, Docket —
Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 465 to 466; Minutes of the hearing
held on, and Order dated, August 14, 2017, Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim.
Case No. O-572), pp. 468 to 470.
43. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, January 17, 2018, Docket —
Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 592 to 593.
44. Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 594 to 607.
45. Records Verification Report dated February 26, 2018 issued by the Judicial
Records Division of this Court, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-
572), p. 717.
53. Records Verification Report dated August 7, 2018 issued by the Judicial
572), p. 797.
55. Records Verification Report dated October 30, 2018 issued by the Judicial
572), p. 805.
56. Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 807.

57. Judicial Affidavit of Lourdes De Las Alas, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No.
O-572), pp. 817 to 822; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated,
January 30, 2019, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 830 to
831.
58. Judicial Affidavit of Salvador B. Britanico, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No.
O-572), pp. 859 to 863; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated,
August 14, 2019, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 872 to
873.
59. Accused's Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Reset the Hearing of 23 January 2019
filed on January 22, 2019, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572),
pp. 808 to 811; Accused's Manifestation filed on January 30, 2019, Docket
— Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 823 to 825; Accused's Ex-Parte
Motion to Reset the Hearing of 13 March 2019 , filed on March 12, 2019,
Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 832 to 834; and,
Accused's Urgent Motion to Reset the Hearing of 6 May 2019 filed on May
3, 2019, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 842 to 844.
II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 854 to 855.
63. Resolution dated September 9, 2019, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-
572), pp. 882 to 883.
64. Docket — Vol. 1 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 6 to 7.
65. Resolution dated September 9, 2016, Docket — Vol. 1 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-
573), pp. 390 to 391.
67. Resolution dated September 28, 2016, Docket — Vol. 1 (CTA Crim. Case No.
O-573), p. 395.
68. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, October 19, 2016, Docket —
Vol. 1 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 405, and 408 to 409, respectively.
69. Minutes of Preliminary Conference held on December 6, 2016, Docket — Vol.
1 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 415 to 417.
70. Minutes of Preliminary Conference held on February 21, 2017, Docket — Vol.
71. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, May 10, 2017, Docket — Vol.
1 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 481 and 498 to 499, respectively.
75. Minutes of the hearing held on June 7, 2017, Docket — Vol. 1 (CTA Crim. Case
No. O-573), p. 502; Order dated June 7, 2017, Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim.
Case No. O-573), p. 503.
Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 558, and 594 to 595, respectively;
Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, June 6, 2018, Docket —
Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 746 to 748.
81. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, December 6, 2017, Docket
— Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 650 to 651; Minutes of the
hearing held on, and Order dated, January 17, 2018, Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA
Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 696 to 697.
82. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, January 17, 2018, Docket —
83. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, March 21, 2018, Docket —
85. Records Verification Report dated April 16, 2018, issued by the Judicial
Records Division of this Court, Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-
573), p. 736.
87. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, June 6, 2018, Docket — Vol.
Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 1000, and 1006 to 1007,
respectively.
93. Docket —Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 6 to 7.
94. Docket —Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 394 to 396.
95. Docket —Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), p. 397.

96. Resolution dated November 2, 2016, Docket —Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-
610), pp. 411 to 412.
99. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, May 10, 2017, Docket — Vol.
100. Minutes of the Preliminary Conference held on July 26, 2017, Docket — Vol. I
(CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 449 to 451.
101. Minutes of the Preliminary Conference held on September 6, 2017, Docket —

102. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, September 28, 2017,
Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 613 to 618.
107. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, November 22, 2017,
108. Order dated January 31, 2018, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610),
pp. 686 to 687.
112. Order dated May 2, 2018, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp.
722 to 723.
116. Exhibit "A-4", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 779 to 784;
Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, August 1, 2018, Docket
— Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 775 to 777.
119. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated August 28, 2019, Docket —
120. Resolution dated September 9, 2019, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No.
O-572), pp. 882 to 883.
121. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, September 11, 2019,
122. Exhibit "A-4", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 884 to 889.
124. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, October 9, 2019, Docket —
127. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, October 24, 2019, Docket
— Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 946 to 947.
134. Records Verification Report dated June 2, 2020 issued by the Judicial
Records Division of this Court, Docket — Vol. III (CTA Crim. Case No. O-
572), p. 1018.
135. Docket — Vol. III (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 1020.
136. Docket — Vol. III (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 1021 to 1043.
137. Records Verification Report dated August 11, 2020 issued by the Judicial
572), p. 1045.
139. Docket — Vol. III (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 1060.
142. Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) taken at the hearing held on July 17,
2017 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 5 to 14 vis-à-vis TSN taken at the
hearing held on June 7, 2017, pp. 9 to 21, Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim.
Case No. O-573), pp. 507 to 524.
143. Exhibit "P-1", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 8 to 12;
Exhibit "P-2", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 608 to 610.
144. Exhibit "P-14", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 706; Exhibit
"P-16", Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), p. 873.
7", Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), p. 845.
146. Exhibit "P-6", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 685.
151. TSN taken at the hearing held on July 17, 2017 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572),
pp. 14 to 31 vis-à-vis TSN taken at the hearing held on July 12, 2017, pp. 5
to 16, Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 545 to 556 vis-à-
vis TSN taken at the hearing held on November 22, 2017 (CTA Crim. Case
No. O-610), pp. 4 to 23.
152. TSN taken at the hearing held on November 22, 2017 (CTA Crim. Case No.
O-610), p. 7.
154. Exhibit "P-17", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), p. 602.
156. TSN taken at the hearing held on November 22, 2017 (CTA Crim. Case No.
O-610), p. 23.
157. TSN taken at the hearing held on July 17, 2017 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572),
pp. 24 to 25.
158. TSN taken at the hearing held on August 14, 2017 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-
572), pp. 12 to 27 vis-à-vis TSN taken at the hearing held on August 23,
hearing held on August 9, 2017, pp. 3 to 31, Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim.
Case No. O-573), pp. 561 to 589 vis-à-vis TSN taken at the hearing held on
January 31, 2018 (CTA Case No. O-610), pp. 7 to 61; Minutes of the
hearing held on, and Order dated, August 9, 2017, Docket — Vol. I (CTA
159. TSN taken at the hearing held on January 31, 2018 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-
610), pp. 10 to 11.
166. "P-4", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 614 to 626; Exhibit
"P-4", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 484 to 496.
Exhibit "P-3", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 481 to 483.
168. "P-5", Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 69 to 81.
169. Exhibits "P-1" and "P-2", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 14
to 18 and 455 to 457, respectively.
610), p. 61.
572), p. 20.
Exhibit "P-22", Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 884 to
890; Exhibit "P-15", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 582
to 588.
to 601.
572), pp. 32 to 35.
610), pp. 40 to 41.
572), p. 6.
572), pp. 13 and 18 vis-à-vis TSN taken at the hearing held on March 21,
2018, pp. 4 to 7, Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 726 to
729.
180. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, March 21, 2018, Docket —
181. Exhibit "P-12", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 465 to 478.
"P-20", Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), p. 883; Exhibit "P-
17", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), p. 602.
184. TSN taken at the hearing held on December 6, 2017, pp. 3 to 18, Docket —
Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 655 to 692 vis-à-vis TSN taken at
the hearing held on January 17, 2018, pp. 3 to 8, Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA
185.
Certification dated July 17, Exhibit "P-8", Docket — Vol. II

2014 issued by the Banco De (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572) p.
Oro through Rogel A. Raya 687; Exhibit "P-8", Docket —
and Lily T. Roxas confirming Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-
the withholding tax for the 573), p. 846.
year 2013.
Certification dated July 17, Exhibit "P-9", Docket — Vol. II
2014 issued by the Banco De (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572),
Oro through Rogel A. Raya p. 688; Exhibit "P-8", Docket
and Lily T. Roxas confirming — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No.
the withholding tax for the O-573), p. 847; Exhibit "P-8",
year 2012 Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim.
Case No. O-610), p. 460
Certification dated July 17, Exhibit "P-10", Docket — Vol.
2014 issued by the Banco De II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572),
Oro through Rogel A. Raya p. 689; Exhibit "P-10", Docket
and Lily T. Roxas confirming — Vol. 1 (CTA Crim. Case No.
the withholding tax for the O-573), p. 848.
year 2011
878; Exhibit "P-13", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), p. 580.
187. TSN taken at the hearing held on January 8, 2018, pp. 9 to 21, Docket — Vol.
hearing held on January 17, 2018, (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 13 to
20.
572), p. 20.
191. TSN taken at the hearing held on May 2, 2018 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610),
pp. 4 to 16.
192. Resolution dated March 16, 2018, issued by the Second Division of the
Court, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 719 to 720;
Resolution dated August 31, 2018, issued by the Third Division of this
Court, Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 912 to 913;
Resolution dated July 27, 2018, issued by the First Division of this Court,
193. Exhibit "P-1", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 8 to 12;
Exhibit "P-3", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 481 to 483;
197. Exhibit "P-4-a," Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 620 to 621;
Exhibit "P-4-a", Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 778 to
779; Exhibit "P-4-a", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 489
to 490.
8", Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), p. 846.
203. Exhibit "P-10", CTA Crim. Case No. O-572, Docket — Vol. II, p. 689.
850; Exhibit "P-9", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 461 to
462.
210. Exhibit "P-17", Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), p. 874; Exhibit
"P-15", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 707; Exhibit "P-
to 588.
to 601.
Judicial Affidavit of Lourdes De Las Alas, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case
No. O-572), pp. 817 to 822; TSN taken at the hearing held on August 1,
610), pp. 16 to 25.
218. Judicial Affidavit of Salvador B. Britanico, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case
No. O-572), pp. 859 to 863; TSN taken at the hearing held on August 14,
572), p. 10.
TSN taken at the hearing held on September 11, 2019 (CTA Crim. Case
No. O-572), pp. 6 to 10.
221. TSN taken at the hearing held on September 11, 2019 (CTA Crim. Case No.
O-572), pp. 6 to 7.
222. Records Verification Report dated June 2, 2020 issued by the Judicial
572), p. 1018.
223. G.R. No. 197945 and G.R. Nos. 204119-20, July 9, 2018.
224. Now Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997.
225. Now Section 222 (a) of the NIRC of 1997.
226. Adamson, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 120935 and 124557, May 21,
2009.
227. G.R. Nos. L-41919-24, May 30, 1980.
Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), p. 458; Exhibit "P-7", Docket
— Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 686; Exhibit "P-7", Docket — Vol.
2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), p. 845; Exhibit "P-7", Docket — Vol. I (CTA
Crim. Case No. O-610), p. 459. Refer also to Par. 5, Pre-Trial Order dated
June 21, 2017, Docket — Vol. 1 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), p. 532; Par. 5,
Pre-Trial Order dated November 21, 2017, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim.
Case No. O-610), p. 653.
231. Par. 6, Exhibit "P-4", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 616.
232.
CERTIFICATION TAXABLE EXHIBIT REFERENCE

YEAR
BDO Certification 2013 Exhibit "P-8", Docket — Vol. II
dated July 17, (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p.
2014 687; Exhibit "P-8", Docket —
Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-
573), p. 846.
573), p. 847; Exhibit "P-8",
Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case
No. O-610), p. 460.
573), p. 848.
850; Exhibit "P-9", Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), pp. 461 to
462.
572), p. 10.
235. TSN dated December 6, 2017, pp. 35 to 36, Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case
No. O-573), pp. 687 to 688.
236. TSN dated January 17, 2018 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 20.
237. Par. 8, Exhibit "P-4", Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 617.
238. TSN dated September 11, 2019 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 9 to 10.
239. People vs. Lacson , G.R. No. 149453, October 7, 2003.
243. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 1434, cited in People of the Philippines vs.
Kintanar, CTA EB Crim. Case No. 006 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-033 and O-
034), December 3, 2010.
244. G.R. No. 238889, October 3, 2018.
245. G.R. No. 233659, December 10, 2019.
246. People vs. Judy Anne Santos y Lumagui, CTA Crim. Case No. O-012, January
16, 2013.
250. Docket — Vol. 2 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), p. 905.

252. Par. 2.4, Statement of the Case, Accused's Memorandum, Docket — Vol. II
(CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 963.
253. Q-2.8 & A-2.8 to Q-2.13 & A-2.13, Judicial Affidavit of Lourdes De Las Alas,
254. Q-2.14 & A-2.14 to Q-2.18 & A-2.18, Judicial Affidavit of Alexander R. Garcia,
Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 886 to 887.
255. Par. 8, Counter-Affidavit, Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 92.
256. Pars. 10 and 21, Accused's Rejoinder-Affidavit, Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim.
Case No. O-572), pp. 19 and 25.
257. Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, July 29, 2019, Docket —
Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), pp. 854 to 855; Minutes of the hearing
held on, and Order dated, October 9, 2019, Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim.
Case No. O-572), pp. 902 to 904.
262. Docket — Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), p. 472.

264. TSN at the hearing held on September 11, 2019 (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572),
at pp. 9 to 10.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.

People v. Garcia, C.T.A. Crim. Case Nos. O-572, O-573 & O-610, (February 15, 2021)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Garcia, C.T.A. Crim. Case Nos. O-572, O-573 & O-610, (February 15, 2021)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. ALEXANDER R.

THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

Alexander R. Garcia, the accused, is a dentist by profession. 4 He is

The investigation against the accused was prompted by NID Memo

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT

For an orderly presentation of these consolidated cases, the Court

CTA Crim. Case No. O-572:

In the Resolution dated November 22, 2018, 56 the Court admitted

deemed waived during the hearing held on July 29, 2019. 60

5. Accused is a dentist by profession.

On November 2, 2016, with the assistance of counsel de parte, the

On October 16, 2019, the accused ﬁled an Alternative Motions for

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

To establish the culpability of the accused, the prosecution presented

RO Romy P. Carandang declared that his current position is RO II at

RO Gerrico Chico declared that he is presently holding the position of

Upon clariﬁcatory question of the Court, RO Chico admitted that that

Mr. Maximo H. Simbulan V, the Senior Vice President Country Tax

4. Joint Complaint-Aﬃdavit dated August 28, 2014 with

EVIDENCE FOR THE ACCUSED

To counter the foregoing evidence of the prosecution, three (3)

Ms. Lourdes G. De Las Alas, accused's Secretary, testiﬁed by way of

Atty. Salvador B. Britanico, counsel of the accused, testiﬁed by way of

Atty. Britanico further testiﬁed that when he informed the accused of

Dr. Alexander R. Garcia, the accused himself, testiﬁed by way of

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

THE COURT'S RULING

The accused was not deprived

The Court does not agree.

xxx xxx xxx

1. The accused is a person required under the NIRC or rules and

In this case, it is undisputed that the accused is a dentist by profession,

On the other hand, Atty. Simbulan identiﬁed the nature of income

2011 2012 2013

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when

"First: The alleged 'actual amount of gross income/sales

Ms. De Las Alas' testimony:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

2. The Statements of Management's Responsibility attached to the

As such, the Court cannot accept this blanket denial of responsibility on

2011 2012 2013 Total

During the proceedings of these consolidated cases, it is noteworthy

Moreover, the accused ORDERED TO PAY the Bureau of Internal

(SGD.) JUANITO C. CASTAÑEDA, JR.

2. Docket — Vol. I, (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), pp. 6 to 7.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

56. Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-572), p. 807.

95. Docket —Vol. I (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), p. 397.

101. Minutes of the Preliminary Conference held on September 6, 2017, Docket —

Certification dated July 17, Exhibit "P-8", Docket — Vol. II

CERTIFICATION TAXABLE EXHIBIT REFERENCE

251. Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-610), p. 754.

263. Docket — Vol. II (CTA Crim. Case No. O-573), p. 865.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like