Cta 2D Co 00522 D 2018mar12 VTC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522

Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 254 of
-versus- the NIRC of 1997, as amended
(Tax Evasion)
KINGSAM EXPRESS
INCORPORATION and
SAMUEL S. SANTOS,
Accused.
X----------------------------------------X
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No . 0-523
-versus- the NIRC of 1997, as amended
(Failure to Supply Correct and
Accurate Information)
KINGSAM EXPRESS
INCORPORATION and
SAMUEL S. SANTOS,
x------------- ---------------------------X
Accused
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-525
the NIRC of 1997, as amended
-versus-
(Tax Evasion
KINGSAM EXPRESS
INCORPORATION and
SAMUELS. SANTOS,
Accused
x----------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No . 0-554
the NIRC of 1997, as amended
(Failure to Supply Correct and
Accurate Information)
-versus-
Mem bers:
CASTANEDA, JR. , Chairperson

CASANOVA, and
MANAHAN, JJ.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0 -522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 2 of 36
KINGSAM EXPRESS
INCORPORATION and Promulgated:
SAMUEL S. SANTOS,
018 C{:?-;1
Accused.
){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ){
DECISION
MANAHAN,J.:
These are consolidated cases 1 for alleged violations of the

National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended,
for ta){ evasion and failure to supply correct and accurate
information for ta){able years 2008 and 2009 through the filing
of the Income Ta){ Return on 2009 and 2010, respectively.
Antecedents
Indicted are Kingsam E){press Incorporation and Samuel

S. Santos under CTA Criminal Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525,
and 0-554 for violation of Sections 254 (ta){ evasion) and 255
(failure to supply correct and accurate information) of the 1997
NIRC, as amended, in their income ta){ returns for ta){able years
2008 and 2009, allegedly committed as follows:
CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522
"That on or about 15th day of April 2009, in

Valenzuela City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, accused Kingsam Express
Incorporation and Samuel Santos, being the President
and responsible officer of the said corporation, with
Taxpayer Identification No. 239-173-420, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attempt to
evade or defeat the payment of its correct tax, as said
accused substantially under declare the corporation's
income for taxable year 2008, in order to conceal its true
and correct taxable income, thus, resulting to a
deficiency income tax in the estimated amount of Nine
Million Eight Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand Pesos
(Php9,828,000.00) inclusive of increments, as of the time~
I Docket, CTA Crim . Case No. 0-522 , Vol. II, Resolution dated April 1, 2016, pp. 600-
601 ; and Resolution dated September 19 , 2016 , pp. 686-687 .
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 3 of 36
of the filing of the complaint, to the damage and prejudice

of the government.
CONTRARY TO LAW."

of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
Kingsam Express Incorporation and Samuel S. Santos,
being the President and responsible officer of the said
corporation, with Taxpayer Identification No. 239-173-
420, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously fail to supply correct and accurate
information in its income tax return for taxable year 2009
by making it appear that the corporation's
income/revenue for taxable year 2009 was in the amount
of Php1,623,734.60 only, when, in truth and in fact,
Kingsam Express, Inc. had other income during same
taxable year but failed to declare them in the ITR as
shown by its acquisition of bus units in the total amount
of Php36,000,000.00, and failing to declare or rep'ort the
same during said taxable year, thus concealing the
corporation's true and correct income for taxable year
2008, to the damage and prejudice of the government in
the estimated amount of Twenty Three Million Seven
Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos (Php23,760,000.00)
inclusive of increments, representing accused's income
tax deficiency as of the time of the filing of the complaint.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
"That on or about 15th day of April 20 10, in

feloniously attempt to evade or defeat the payment of its
correct tax, as said accused substantially under declare
the corporation's income for taxable year 2009, in order
to conceal its true and correct taxable income, thus,
resulting to a deficiency income tax in the estimated ~
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 4 of 36
amount of Twenty Three Million Seven Hundred Sixty

Thousand Pesos (Php23,760,000.00), inclusive of
increments, as of the time of the filing of the complaint,
to the damage and prejudice of the government.
CONTRARY TO LAW."

of Php 13,650,000.00, and failing to declare or report the
2008, to the damage and prejudice of the government in
the amount of Four Million Ninety Five Thousand Pesos
(Ph4,095,000.00) exclusive of surcharge and interest,
representing accused's income tax deficiency as of the
time of the filing of the complaint.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
The prosecution moved to amend the abovementioned

information on November 23, 2015,2 October 23, 2015,3 and
November 13, 2015, 4 for CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523 and 0-
525, respectively, due to several observationss by this Court on the~
2 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. II, Motion to Amend Information and Admit
Amended Information with Compliance, pp. 493-495.
3 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-523, Motion to Amend Information and Admit Amended
Information, pp. 274-275.

4 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-523, Motion to Amend Information and Admit Amended
Information, pp. 285-286.

5 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. II, Resolution dated October 21, 2015, pp. 487-
489; CTA Crim. Case No. 0-523, Resolution dated October 14, 2015, pp. 270-273;
Resolution dated November 5, 2015, pp. 283-284.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 5 of 36
abovementioned information. Hence, the following are the amended

informations, to wit:

resulting to a deficiency income tax in the estimated
amount of Four Million Ninety Five Thousand Pesos
(Php4,095,000.00) exclusive of surcharge and interest,
as of the time of the filing of the complaint, to the damage
and prejudice of the government.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
"That on or about 15th day of April 20 10, in

of Php36,000,000.00, and failing to declare or report the
2009, to the damage and prejudice of the government in~
6 Docket CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. II, Amended Information, pp. 496-498.
7 Docket CTA Crim. Case No. 0-523, Amended Information, pp. 276-278.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 6 of 36
the estimated amount of Ten Million Eight Hundred

Thousand Pesos (Phpl0,800,000.00) exclusive of
surcharge and interest, representing accused's income
tax deficiency as of the time of the filing of the complaint.
CONTRARY TO LAW."

resulting to a deficiency income tax in the estimated
amount of Ten Million Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Ph p 10, 800,000.00), exclusive of surcharge and interest,
as of the time of the filing of the complaint, to the damage
and prejudice of the government.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
Finding probable cause against the accused, this Court

issued Warrants of Arrest on November 27, 2015, 9 and January
14, 2016,10 for CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, and 0-523 & 0-525,
respectively.
Accused Santos was arrested 11 on February 2, 2016 for

CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, and 0-523 & 0-525 but was able
to post a cash bail bond and this Court ordered his release and
set the arraignment of the accused.12
On April 1, 2016, CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, and

0-525 were consolidated in this Court. 13 Accused was arraigned~
s Id., at 287-289.
9 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. II, Warrant of Arrest, p. 518.
10 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-523, Warrant of Arrest, p. 300.
11 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. II, Certificate of Detention, p. 559.
12 Id., Resolution dated February 2, 2016, p. 547; Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-523,
Resolution dated February 2, 2016, pp. 309-310.
13 Supra., Note 1.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 7 of 36
on July 4, 2016 for the above-mentioned cases where the

accused entered a plea of "NOT GUILTY." 14 The Preliminary
Conference for said cases was conducted on August 8, 2016. 15
On May 4, 20 16, an Information was filed against the

accused under CTA Crim. Case No. 0-554 for violation of Section
255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as
amended. 16 Finding probable cause against the accused, this
Court issued Warrants of Arrest on June 8, 2016.17
Accused Santos was arrested 18 on July 19, 2016 for CTA

Crim. Case No. 0-554 but was able to post a cash bail bond. 19
The arraignment of the accused for the said offense was held on
August 24, 2016 where the accused entered a plea of 'NOT
GUILTY."2o
On September 19, 2016, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-554 was

consolidated with CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, and 0-
525. On October 12, 2016, the pre-trial of said consolidated
cases was conducted21 and a Pre-Trial Order was issued on
October 19, 2016.22
Trial ensued and the prosecution presented only one

witness, Medardo Tipon. On January 30, 2017, the Prosecution
submitted its Formal Offer of Prosecution's Evidence 23 which
was resolved in the Court's Resolution2 4 dated March 28, 2017.
On April 3, 20 17, accused moved for leave of court25 to file

demurrer to evidence26 which was admitted by this Court on May
4, 2017.27 However, said demurrer of evidence was denied for
lack of merit.2s ~
14 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. II, Order dated July 4, 2016, pp. 649-650.
15 Id., Minutes of Preliminary Conference, pp. 655-662.
16 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-554, Information, p. 6.
17 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-554, Warrant of Arrest, p. 264.
18 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-554, Certificate of Detention, p. 285.
19 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-554, Resolution dated July 19, 2016, pp. 294-295.
2o Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-554, Certificate of Arraignment, p. 303.
21 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. II, Order dated October 12, 2016, p. 693.
22 Id. at 694-703.
23 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, pp. 909-915.
24 Jd. at 1151-1152.
25 Id. at 1155-1158.
26 Id. at 1159-1192.
27 Id., Resolution dated May 4, 2017, pp. 1196-1198.
28 Id., Resolution dated June 20, 2017, pp. 1207-1216.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 8 of 36
Thereafter, accused proceeded with the presentation of

their evidence. The following were called to the witness stand:
Samuel S. Santos, and Benigno M. Cubacub, Jr.
On August 22, 20 17, accused filed their Formal Offer of

Evidence29 which this Court3o partially admitted and several
exhibits were denied admission.
On October 27, 2017, the prosecution filed its

Memorandum.3 1 On the other hand, the accused filed their
Memorandum,32 through registered mail on November 21, 2017
which was received by this Court on December 13, 2017.
Thus, on December 11, 2017, the instant case was deemed

submitted for decision. 33
lssues3 4
The parties stipulated the following issue:
Whether or not accused is guilty of violating Sections 254

(tax evasion) and 255 (failure to supply correct and accurate
information) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of
1997, as amended.
Ruling of the Court
In order to resolve these consolidated cases, it is best to

show first the facts and circumstances as established during
the trial based on the documentary evidence and the
testimonies of the witnesses on what really transpired. The
prosecution's theory of its case is that the combined acquisition
cost of the subject buses is the undeclared income of the
accused corporation while the defense argues that the allegation
of the former is not true since the acquisitions were made
through financing or loans. ~
29 Id. at 1339-1376.
3o Id., Resolution dated September 20,2017, pp. 1472-1473.
31 Id. at 1474-1483.
32 Id. at 1487-1515.
33 Id., Resolution dated December 11, 2017, p. 1485; Resolution dated December 15,
2017, p. 1517.
34 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. II, Pre-Trial Order dated October 19, 2016,
p. 695.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 9 of 36
The evidence revealed that the accused acquired seven (7)

KING LONG Model XMQ6119 buses in 2008. 35 Also, eighteen
(18) HYUNDAI buses were acquired by the accused in 2009
through loans as admitted by accused SamuelS. Santos in his
Judicial Affidavit, 36 to wit:
Q27. Do you have any proof to show that the money that
was used to purchase those eighteen (18) buses partly
came from loans released by various banks?
A27. Yes, ma'am. I have here with me several documents,
that can prove that I have secured several loans from
different banks in order for me and Kingsam to purchase
the buses in 2009.
XXX XXX
Q34. How about the reason why the acquisition by

Kingsam Express Incorporation of eighteen ( 18) buses
for the year 2009, was not reflected as assets in the
Financial Statements of Kingsam Express Incorporation
submitted for the year 2009?
A34. We started purchasing thoses (sic) buses for the
year 2009 only in August 2009, ma'am, and started
paying monthly amortization in September 2009. The
payment for those buses in 2009 partly came from my
wife's funds as her investment in Kingsam and party (sic)
from the proceeds of the loans which we secured from
various banks. During that time, we have not used those
buses since we do not have the Certificate of Public
Convenience yet issued by the LTFRB. That is why, I
think we cannot consider it as an asset yet because we
have not derived any benefit from it. Again, it is
Kingsam's accountants and auditor who prepared our
financial statements and income tax returns, who should
know better because I mainly relied on their expertise.
Q35. How about the reason why those eighteen ( 18)
buses were not declared as liabilities.
A35. For the same reason as earlier explained, ma'am. I
left the discretion to the accountants and auditor that we
hired since they are experts in the field of accountancy.
(Emphasis supplied)
However, the prosecution was able to provide evidence

only for the acquisition of seven (7) KING LONG Model~
35 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. Ill, Exhibits A-33 to A-33-D, pp. 1407-1412;
Exhibit A-34, p. 1413; and Exhibit A-35, p. 1414.
36 Docket, CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, Vol. III, pp. 1217-1233.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 10 of 36
XMQ6119 buses in 20083 7 and seventeen (17) HYUNDAI buses

in 2009.3 8 These buses are shown below:
Engine No. Plate No.

2008 Acquisition
FE6TC-003944H TXR929
FE6TC-003881H TXY126
FE6TC-003885H TXX923
2009 Acquisition
D6AVW014916 TXX963
D6AVX025069 TXX964
D6AVY035057 TXY171
D6AVY032181 TXY145
D6AVY035190 TXY931
D6AVX025666 TXX945
D6AVY032698 TXX803
D6AVX025836 TXX866
D6AVX025644 TXX854
D6AVY032081 TXX793
D6AVT000396 TXX974
D6AVY034852 TXX984
D6AVY032803 TXX823
D6AVX024440 TXX844
D6AVV015807 TXX845
D6AVY034702 TXX856
D6AVY034718 TXX813
The prosecution proved that the acquisitions in 2008 of

the seven Kinglong buses were made through two (2) Deeds of
Sale39 between accused Kingsam Express Incorporation
(Kingsam for brevity), as represented by accused Samuel S.
Santos as its President, and Philippine International Bus, Inc.
(PIBI) with acquisition cost of Php5,850,000.00 for the first
three (3) Kinglong buses and Php7 ,800,000.00 for the
additional four (4) Kinglong buses. 0111/
37 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibits P-7 -1 to P-7 -2, P-8-1 to P-8-3,
and P-9-1 to P-9-4, pp. 1072-1082.
38 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibits P-10-1 to P-10-17, pp. 1085-
1101.
3 9 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibits P-7-1 and P-7-2, pp. 1072-1073
and 1077-1078, respectively.

DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 11 of 36
The defense presented evidence showing that acquisition

of these buses was made through financing or loans. The first 3
buses (KING LONG Model XMQ6119 with Plate Nos. TXR929,
TXR919, and TXR939) were financed by a loan through a
Promissory Note (PN) with Chattel Mortgage 40 issued by the
Philippine Business Bank under the following terms: 4 1
Purchase Price p 16,800,000.00

Less: Down payment 5,040,000.00
Amount to be Financed p 11,760,000.00
Interest 4,225,368.00
Other Charges 479,592.00
Amount Payable p 16,464,960.00
As shown above, the total cost of said buses is not

Php5,850,000.00 but Php 16,800,000.00 or a unit cost of
Php5,600,000.00. The payment for the amortization of said
buses was sourced also from a loan taken from AMA Rural Bank
ofMandaluyong, lnc. 4 2 amounting to Php11,200,000.00, to wit:
Plate No. PN No. Date Started Amount Financed

TXR929 /TXX923 AU-11-04816 11-Mar-11 5,600,000.00
TXR919 /TXR939 AU-11-04817 14-Mar-11 5,600,000.00
Total 11,200,000.00
As to the other 4 buses (KING LONG Model XMQ6119 with

Plate Nos. TXX126, TXX923, TXX975, and TXX933), the defense
presented a Contract to Sell43 dated March 8, 2008 between
accused Kingsam, as represented by accused SamuelS. Santos
as its President, and PIBI which reveals the following terms and
conditions of said acquisition, to wit:
Contract Price/Unit p 4,000,000.00

Total Amount p 16,000,000.00
Terms:
Downpayment upon signing of contract
(which was on April 30, 2008) P 400,000.00
Upon delivery of units 2,080,000.00
Balance payable thru bank financing 7,280,000.00
Balance from AMA Bank 6,240,000.00 ~
40 Id., Exhibits A-33 to A-33-D, pp. 1407-1412.

41 Jd., Exhibit A-33-B, p. 1409.
42Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibits A-38 to A-38-A, pp. 1424-1425.
43Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibit A-34, p. 1413; Exhibit A-35, p.
1414.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 12 of 36
Total Amount p 16,000,000.00
Based on the evidence adduced by the defense, the

following check payments were directly paid to PIBI, to wit: 44
Date BPI Check No. Amount

3/15/2011 119331 576,333.33
4/15/2011 119332 576,333.33
5/15/2011 119333 576,333.33
6/15/2011 119334 576,333.33
7/15/2011 119335 576,333.33
8/15/2011 119336 576,333.33
9/15/2011 119337 576,333.33
10/15/2011 119338 576,333.33
11/15/2011 119339 576,333.33
12/15/2011 119340 576,333.33
1/15/2012 119341 576,333.33
2/15/2012 119342 576,333.33
3/15L2012 119343 576,333.33
4/15/2012 119344 576,333.33
5/15/2012 119345 576,333.33
6/15/2012 119346 576,333.33
The check numbers were within the series of checks

marked as Exhibit A-52 which indicate the names of Samuel S.
Santos and Maritess F. Santos, the latter being admitted by
accused Santos to be his wife in his statement above.
Loans were also taken by the accused from AMA Rural

Bank of Mandaluyong, Inc. 4s and RCBC Leasing & Finance
Corporation46 for the said buses, to wit:
AMA Rural Bank of Mandaluvone:.' I

Plate No. PNNo. Date Started Amount Financed
TXR929 /TXX923 AU-11-04816 11-Mar-11 5,600,000.00
TXY126 AU-11-05617 25-Sep-11 2,250,000.00
TXX975 AU-11-04807 8-Mar-11 3,000,000.00
TXX933 AU-10-04632 30-Jan-11 3,000,000.00
RCBCL &F. c f
Plate No. PN No. Date Booked Ori inal Amount
TXY126 OLR5841 08/0§il_Q 3,240.000.00 JQ'1J'L...
44 Id., Exhibits A-35-A to A-35-B, pp. 1415-1416.

45 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibits A-38 to A-38-A, pp. 1424-1425.
46 Id., Exhibits A-39 to A-39-A, pp. 1426-1427.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 13 of 36
As to the acquisition made in 2009, the prosecution

presented a Deed of Absolute Sale47 dated October 12, 2009
entered by Accused Samuel S. Santos as the vendor and
Accused Kingsam represented by a certain Leandro S. Santos
as the vendee for twelve (12) Hyundai buses amounting to
Php24,000,000.00. It appears from such document that the
unit cost of each of said Hyundai buses amounts to
Php2,000,000.00.
The evidence also reveals that fourteen ( 14) of said 17

buses were financed by loans taken from AMA Rural Bank of
Mandaluyong, Inc., RCBC Leasing & Finance Corporation, and
Insular Bank, 48 to wit:
AMA Rural Bank of Mandaluvon2:. I -'L'
Plate No. PNNo. Date Started Amount Financed

TXX964 /TXX974 AU-12-05963 8-Aug-12 5,012,000.00
TXX984 /TXR222
TXR111
TXY931 AU-10-03044 16-Feb-10 2,940,000.00
TXX803 AU-09-02939 18-Jan-10 2,940,000.00
TXX866 AU-09-02880 20-Dec-09 2,940,000.00
TXX854 AU-09-02941 18-Jan-10 2,940,000.00
TXX793 AU-09-02940 18-Jan-10 2,940,000.00
RCBCL &F' c f
Plate No. PN No. Date Booked Original Amount
TXX964 /TXX974 OLR5632 08/20/09 6,720.000.00
TXX984
TXX844 /TXX845 OLR5661 10/12/09 6, 720.000.00
TXX823
Insular Bank
Plate No. PNNo. Date Booked Amount Financed
TXY126 IRB-1231-2009 12/4/2009 5,QOO.Q_OO.Q_O
The defense also presented documents 4 9 that a loan was

taken from ORIX METRO Leasing and Finance Corporation
allegedly for two (2) 2009 Hyundai Aero bus. However, Exhibit
A-34-A was not admitted,so hence, there was no evidence that~
47 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibit P-7-3, p. 1083.
48 Id., Exhibit A-42, pp. 1430-1431.
4 9 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibit A-43, p. 1432; Exhibit A-43-B,
p.1435; Exhibit A-43-C, p. 1436; and A-43-D, p. 1437.

so Id., Resolution dated September 20, 2017
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 14 of 36
will show what particular Hyundai bus among those buses

acquired in 2009 was covered by such loan.
Out of the twenty-four (24) buses acquired by accused

Kingsam in 2008 and 2009, only twenty (21) bus units were
proven to have been acquired through loans or financing. On
the other hand, the three (3) Hyundai buses (with Plate Nos.
TXX963, TXX945, and TXX813) that were acquired in 2009
have no evidence that they were taken through loans or
financing.
Having established the factual milieu, the Court is now

ready to rule on the following criminal cases:
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522 & 0-554
In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The

Estate of Benigno S. Toda Jr.,s1 the Supreme Court gave three
factors that will constitute tax evasion, to wit:
Tax evasion connotes the integration of three factors:

(1) the end to be achieved, i.e., the payment of less than that
known by the taxpayer to be legally due, or the non-payment
of tax when it is shown that a tax is due; (2) an accompanying
state of mind which is described as being "evil," in "bad
faith," "willfull,"or "deliberate and not accidental"; and (3) a
course of action or failure of action which is unlawful.
(Emphasis supplied)
Now the question is, are these factors present in the

instant case? We believe so.
In order to determine the accused's unlawful intention, it

is important to determine first its courses of action or acts that
constitute badges of fraud.
First, the copies of three (3) Deeds of Sale submitted

to the Land Transportation Office (LTO) were falsified
documents and accused SamuelS. Santos had knowledge of
such fact.
As shown above, the records of the case reveal that the

unit cost of the buses in the two (2) Deeds of Sale for the 7 ~
s1 G.R. No. 147188, September 14, 2004.

DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 15 of 36
Kinglong buses acquired in 2008 is different in the Promissory

Note (for the 3 Kinglong buses) and the Contract to Sell (for the
additional 4 Kinglong buses) that were adduced as evidence by
the accused.
Copies of the 2 Deeds of Sale show that the 3 Kinglong

buses amount to Php5,850,000.00 while the four additional
buses amount to Php7,800,000.00, hence, having a unit cost of
Php1,950,000.00 for each Kinglong bus.
However, in the PN and Contract to Sell, as shown above,

the unit cost amounts to Php5,600,000.00 for each of the 3
Kinglong buses and Php4,000,000.00 for each of the 4
additional buses.
Such deeds of sale, which were notarized, are public

documents,s2 hence, the substantial under-declaration of the
contractual amount constitutes falsification of public
documents which may be prosecuted in other jurisdiction.
There is no evidence per records of this case that the actual
transactions were disclosed in the said office.
Such deliberate misstatement of the contractual amount

and non-disclosure of the actual transaction to LTO was known
to accused Santos. He even admitted and even justified such
act in his judicial affidavit, to wit: 53
Q19. Mr. Witness, it appears that the four (4) buses

which you just mentioned and subject of a Contract to
Sell, is also the same four (4) buses that were subject of
a Deed of Sale executed on 16 June 2008 marked as
Exhibit "P-7-2" for the Prosecution. Can you please
explain to us why was there a Deed of Sale executed in
16 June 2008 when you negotiated to have the purchase
price paid only in March 20 11?
A19. That Deed of Sale was executed in order that
Kingsam can secure the loan that it needed for the~
52 Section 19(b), Rule 132, Rules of Court

"Section 19. Classes of Documents. -For the purpose of their presentation evidence,
documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) xxx xxx;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments;
and
(c) XXX XXX."
53 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Judicial Affidavit of Samuel S. Santos,
Exhibit A-53, p. 1223.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 16 of 36
purchase of the four (4) buses from a bank, ma'am. In the

loan business, it is ordinary in financing agencies that
the ownership of the property being subject of a loan be
transferred first, before the financing agencies will
release the loan being secured. That is the reason why we
executed that Deed of Sale, ma'am.
On the other hand, the Deed of Sale (DOS) for the 2009
acquisition 5 4 shows that accused Santos was the vendor of said
buses while accused Kingsam, represented by a certain Leandro
S. Santos, was the vendee. Such fact is highly suspicious
considering that accused Santos is the President of said
company as shown in the PN, Contract to Sell, and other
documents presented before the Court. Furthermore, the plate
numbers in said Dosss do not jibe with the plate numbers in
their Certificates of Registration 56 based on the engine or motor
number of said buses as stated in the said DOS. Thus, the latter
is apparently falsified.
Second, the deliberate non-recognition of the acquired

buses in the financial statements (FS) as assets and the
loans incurred, i.e, from Philippine Business Bank, AMA
Rural Bank of Mandaluyong, Inc., RCBC Leasing & Finance
Corporation, and Insular Bank, as liabilities is an indication
of unlawful intent to hide the actual transaction.
Accused Santos insisted in his judicial affidavit57 that the

buses were not assets of accused Kingsam during the year of its
acquisition because it was not able to use said buses due to the
absence of Certificate of Public Convenience which was only
released on June 23, 20 10, to wit:
Q32. The prosecution alleges that King sam acquired

seven (7) buses for the year 2008, and it was not reflected
as assets in the Financial Statements of Kingsam
Express Incorporation submitted for the years 2008 and
even in 2009. What can you say about this?
A32. All I know, ma'am, is that those buses which
Kingsam purchased in 2008 and 2009 cannot be
considered yet as Kingsam's assets because we were not
able to use those buses until after the Certificate of Public ~
55 Id.
56 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibit P-10-1 to P-10-17, pp. 1085-
1101.
57 Id., Exhibit A-53, pp. 1228-1229.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 17 of 36
Convenience was released by the LTFRB in June 23,

2010. Also ma'am, during those years, Kingsam has not
yet derived any benefit from the usage of those buses so
we cannot say that those buses are assets yet of the
company. I am not an accountant, ma'am so I really do
not know whether those buses can be declared as assets
in the financial statements and income returns of
Kingsam. But I relayed all those transactions to the
accountants and auditor that Kingsam hired, and relied
mainly in their expertise on that matter.
Q33. How about, why it was not declared as liabilities?
A33. Because ma'am, the money that was partly paid for
the purchase of those buses came from my wife's funds
as her investment in Kingsam, and partly from the
proceeds of the loans from various bank. Again, I am not
an accountant, ma'am, so I really do not know how to
treat those transactions in the financial documents of
Kingsam. The accountants and auditor which Kingsam
hired and who prepared the financial statements and
income tax returns are more knowledgeable on these
matters because they are experts on that field. I simply
relied on their expertise, ma'am.
Q34. How about the reason why the acquisition by
Kingsam Express Incorporation of eighteen (18) buses for
the year 2009, was not reflected as assets in the Financial
Statements of Kingsam Express Incorporation submitted
for the year 2009?
A34. We started purchasing thoses (sic) buses for the
year 2009 only in August 2009, ma'am, and started
paying monthly amortization in September 2009. The
payment for those buses in 2009 partly came from my
wife's funds as her investment in Kingsam and party (sic)
from the proceeds of the loans which we secured from
various banks. During that time, we have not used those
buses since we do not have the Certificate of Public
Convenience yet issued by the LTFRB. That is why, I
think we cannot consider it as an asset yet because we
have not derived any benefit from it. Again, it is
Kingsam's accountants and auditor who prepared our
financial statements and income tax returns, who should
know better because I mainly relied on their expertise.
Q35. How about the reason why those eighteen (18)
buses were not declared as liabilities.
A35. For the same reason as earlier explained, ma'am. I
left the discretion to the accountants and auditor that we
hired since they are experts in the field of accountancy.~
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 18 of 36
Such assertion was also backed up and justified by

accused Kingsam's accountant, Benigno M. Cubacub Jr., in his
judicial affidavit, to wit:
QlS. As an accountant, when should an asset be

recognized as such in the financial document of a
taxpayer?
AlS. Under the Philippine Accounting Standard ("PAS"),
a financial instrument is recognized as financial assets of
a company when the latter becomes a party to the
instrument's contractual provisions. In cases where the
purchase of those financial assets requires delivery
within a certain time frame established by regulation or
convention in the marketplace, then the financial assets
are recognized on the trade date accounting or settlement
date accounting. On the other hand, under the
International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS")
which the Philippines have also followed, a financial
instrument is recognized as financial assets only if there
is likely a future economic benefit from its use or sale.
Q 16. Can you explain to us the phrase "trade date
accounting"?
A16. Under trade date accounting, the financial asset
and liability are recognized on the date the enterprise
commits to the purchase.
Q17. How about the phrase "settlement date accounting",
can you please explain this to us?
Al7. Under settlement date accounting, the financial
asset is recognized on the date it is delivered.
Q18. Applying the principles that you just mentioned in
the case of Kingsam Express Incorporation, can you
recognize those buses acquired in 2009 as assets
already?
Al8. Not yet, ma'am. Following the PAS, those buses
should have been recognized as assets when Kingsam
became a party to the contractual instrument for its
acquisition and as of the settlement date of accounting.
On the other hand, following IFRS, since Kingsam do not
have any control yet on those buses because the
ownership thereof were not yet transferred to Kingsam
immediately after their acquisition in 2008 and 2009,
and that it did not derive any economic benefit therefrom,
then those buses cannot be considered yet as assets
during the taxable years 2009. The same is true with
respect to the acquisition of buses in 2008. (/Ill/
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 19 of 36
Q 19. On the other hand, when should a liability be

recognized as such in the financial document of a
taxpayer?
A19 A financial instrument is recognized as a liability
when there is a present obligation arising from the past
events that needs to be settled, and the outflow of
resources embodying economic benefits from the
company is measured reliably or is probable.
Q20. Applying what you just mentioned relative to the
recognition of a financial instrument as a liability in the
case of Kingsam Express Incorporation, can you
recognize those buses acquired in 2009 as liabilities
already?
A20. No, ma'am. Since the buses acquired by Kingsam in
2009 were paid only starting in 20 10 and some in 20 11,
then those buses cannot be recognized yet as liabilities
in 2009. Based on the loan documents belatedly given to
Mr. Santos, particularly the four (4) buses which he
acquired from the Philippine International Bus, Inc. in
2009, Kingsam's payment of its loan instalment started
only in 2011.
A scrutiny of the Contract to Sell5 8 for the 4 buses reveals

that there was no reservation nor any stipulation as to the
retention or reservation of ownership by the seller, PIBI, but it
merely stipulates the term of its payment by installment as
shown above.
Article 14 77 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides

that the ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the
vendee (buyer) upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof.
A notarized deed of sale is constitutive of constructive delivery. 59
In the case of Silvestre Dignos et al. v. Hon. Court ofAppeals

et al.,6o the Supreme Court ruled that even if the contract is
designated as contract of a conditional sale, it is still a deed of
absolute sale absent any stipulation or reservation as to the
retention of ownership by the seller or vendor, to wit:
Thus, it has been held that a deed of sale is

absolute in nature although denominated as a "Deed of
Conditional Sale" where nowhere in the contract in~
58 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibit A-34, p. 1413.
59 Article 1498, Civil Code of the Philippines; Villamar v. Mangaoil, G.R. No. 188661
dated April 11, 2012; Chua v. Court of Appeals, 449 Phil. 25 (2003).
6o G.R. No. L-59266, February 29, 1988.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 20 of 36
question is a proviso or stipulation to the effect that

title to the property sold is reserved in the vendor
until full payment of the purchase price, nor is there
a stipulation giving the vendor the right to
unilaterally rescind the contract the moment the
vendee fails to pay within a f'IXed period.
A careful examination of the contract shows that

there is no such stipulation reserving the title of the
property on the vendors nor does it give them the right to
unilaterally rescind the contract upon non-payment of
the balance thereof within a fixed period. (Emphasis
supplied)
The difference between a contract of sale and a contract to

sell was explained in the case of Spouses Vicente and Lourdes
Pingol v. Han. Court of Appeals et al., 61 to wit:
The decisive issue in this case is whether Exhibit

"A" embodies a contract of sale or a contract to sell. The
distinction between the two is important for in a contract
of sale, the title passes to the vendee upon the delivery of
the thing sold, whereas in a contract to sell, by
agreement, ownership is reserved in the vendor and is
not to pass until the full payment of the price. In a
contract of sale, the vendor has lost and cannot recover
ownership until and unless the contract is resolved or
rescinded, whereas in a contract to sell, title is retained
by the vendor until the full payment of the price, such
payment being a positive suspensive condition, failure of
which is not a breach but an event that prevented the
obligation of the vendor to convey title from becoming
effective.
Applying the abovementioned cases in the said contract to

sell, such contract is definitely a contract of absolute sale,
hence, ownership is transferred to accused Kings am upon
delivery of said buses which is the legal basis of the accused to
include it in its FS and books of accounts.
These buses should be part of accused Kings am's

Property, Plant, and Equipment (PPE) Account in its FS.
Pursuant to International Accounting Standard (lAS) No. 16
relative to accounting for PPE, it should be recognized as assets:
( 1) When it is probable that the future economic benefits
associated with the asset will flow to the entity; and (2) the costu;k..--
61 G.R. No. 102909, September 6, 1993.

DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 21 of 36
of the asset can be measured reliably. As shown above, these

requisites have been satisfied in the 2008 transactions.
However, accused still failed to recognize these assets in its
books.
Lastly, there is intentional hiding of the actual

transaction of such acquisition from the authorities.
If the assertion and justification by accused Santos and

Kingsam's accountant will be followed, the recognition of said
assets and liabilities in accused Kingsam's FS should have been
reflected in the FS for the ending period of 20 10 or 20 11 when
Kings am's certificate of public convenience was issued or
payments were being made, respectively. But none of that
reporting was made. As shown in the following balances for PPE
Accounts and Liability Accounts in the FS of accused Kingsam
for calendar years 2008 to 20 12, such transactions were not
reflected at all, to wit:
Ending PPE Liability

period Account Account
2008 62 2,110,800.00 2,328,028.35
2009 63 1,872,000.00 2,194,391.00
2010 64 4,509,870.00 4,855,573.00
2011 65 3,947,740.00 3,909,061.00
2012 66 3,391,012.22 3,063,376_.06
Based on the loan documents, the acquisition of 7 buses

in 2008 alone had a cost of Php32,800,000.00, which is far
higher than the balances as shown in the above table. Also
contrasted with the acquisition cost thereof in the Deeds of
Absolute Sale, there is a marked difference of
Php 19, 150,000.00.
The accused had really no intention to disclose the actual

transaction in its FS because if accused Santos and his
accountant were truthful in their testimony, the balances in the
year 2010 to 2012 should have already contained the additional~
63 Id., Exhibit P-6-4, p. 1035.
64 Id., Exhibit P-6-3. p. 1016.
65 Id., Exhibit P-6-2. p. 992.
66 Id., Exhibit P-6-1, p.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 22 of 36
buses in the PPE account of accused Kingsam and the

corresponding loan amounts in the liability account.
What then is the end to be achieved by the accused in

hiding said transaction?
To recapitulate, there were down payments made by the

accused in the acquisition of 3 and 4 Kinglong buses in 2008
amounting to 5,040,000.00, 400,000.00, and 2,080,000.00,
respectively. Further, there were 3 Hyundai buses (with Plate
Nos. TXX963, TXX945, and TXX813) acquired in 2009 which
were not purchased through financing or loans.
Accused failed to explain the source of the said down

payments. The PN and other loan documents for said
acquisitions which were submitted during the trial showed that
these down payments for the purchase of the buses were not
included in the amount of loans granted to the accused.
It is basic knowledge that down payment usually involves

an outright outlay of cash or any asset which belongs to the
buyer as part of the payment of the consideration or price of the
purchase or acquisition.
The absence of an explanation from accused Santos as to

the source of said down payments for the acquired 7 Kinglong
buses which could come either from the asset or income of the
corporation and which was not disclosed by accused Kingsam
in its FS deserves close scrutiny.
The non-disclosure of the down payment as well as the

non -recording of the actual transaction in the financial
documents or book of accounts of accused Kingsam had
effectively enabled the latter to evade any tax assessment that
may arise from the said transaction. Thus, the underlying intent
of the accused corporation deducible from such inaction or
deliberate failure to disclose is to purposely evade the
accompanying tax that could arise from such undeclared
income or asset.
It should be noted that accused Kingsam is a corporate

entity and a juridical person while accused Santos is the
President of said corporation. In the instant case, said accused
were charged under Section 254 of the 1997 NIRC as amended,~
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 23 of 36
of tax evasion for taxable year 2008, the provision of which is

quoted below:
SEC. 254. Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax. -Any person

who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or
defeat any tax imposed under this Code or the
payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties
provided by law, upon conviction thereof, be punished by
a fine not less than Thirty thousand (P30,000) but not
more than One hundred thousand pesos (PlOO,OOO) and
suffer imprisonment of not less than two (2) years but not
more than four (4) years: Provided, That the conviction or
acquittal obtained under this Section shall not be a bar
to the filing of a civil suit for the collection of taxes.
(Emphasis supplied)
Further, Sections 52(A) and 253(d) of the 1997 NIRC, as

amended, indicate the persons who should be responsible to file
and pay the required internal revenue taxes, and the persons
who shall be liable for the failure to file and pay said internal
revenue taxes, respectively, to wit:
SEC. 52. Corporation Returns. -

(A) Requirements. -Every corporation subject to
the tax herein imposed, except foreign corporations not
engaged in trade or business in the Philippines, shall
render, in duplicate, a true and accurate quarterly
income tax return and final or adjustment return in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter XII of this
Title. The return shall be filed by the president, vice-
president or other principal officer, and shall be
sworn to by such officer and by the treasurer or
assistant treasurer.
XX XXX
SEC. 253. General Provisions. -

(a) XXX XXX
(b) XXX XXX
(c) XXX XXX

(d) In the case of associations, partnerships or
corporations, the penalty shall be imposed on the
partner, president, general manager, branch manager,
treasurer, officer-in-charge, and the employees
responsible for the violation.
(e) xxxxxx ~
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 24 of 36
(Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the elements of such offense are the following:
1. Offender is required to pay the tax imposed under NIRC;

2. Offender attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any
tax imposed, or the payment thereof;
3. The attempt to evade or defeat any tax imposed, or the
payment thereof was willful; and
4. In case the offender is a corporate taxpayer, the accused
is its responsible officer.
Based on the evidence adduced, all the abovementioned

elements are present in the instant case as discussed below.
On the first element, it was established by the records of

the case that accused Kingsam is a domestic corporation, duly
organized and incorporated, 67 which is required under the law,
rules and regulations to file the ITR indicating therein the true
and accurate information as to its receipts or income, expenses
and other relevant information for the purpose of payment of
proper taxes to the government and accordingly, the payment
of said internal revenue taxes.
Highly cognizable also is the fact that accused Kingsam

had only an authorized capital stock of Php1,000,000.00, 25°/o
of which was subscribed and accused Santos owns
Php124,900.00 or a 12.49°/o interest in the said corporation
while his wife, Maritess F. Santos, owns Php124,800.00 or a
12.49o/o interest. 68 Thus, accused Santos had a direct and
indirect interest of almost all the subscribed capital stock.
Accused Santos, who admitted in open court as well as

represented himself in the PN, Contract to Sell, and other loan
documents as the President of accused Kingsam69, filed the ITR
for the taxable year 200870 on February 5, 2009. Without a
doubt, the first requisite exists.
As to the second element, the facts of the case, based on

the evidence, evince that accused Kingsam through the action fh'l--
67 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibit P-3, pp. 946-955.
69 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibit A-53, Judicial Affidavit of Samuel
S. Santos, A3, p. 1219.
70 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibit P-6-5, pp. 1059-1061.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 25 of 36
of accused Santos hid the actual transactions from the

government authorities particularly as to the down payment
made to PIBI in 2008 acquisition amounting to
Php7 ,520,000.00.
The amount ofPhp7,520,000.00 down payment to the said

buses should have been reported in accused Kings am's 2008
income tax return (ITR) and the corresponding income tax
should have been paid. Furthermore, such amount was not
covered by the loan from the banks, hence, their source is highly
questionable.
Based on the Expenditure Method, which is being

forwarded by the public complainants of these cases, if the
subject taxpayer's expenditures during a given year exceed his
reported income, and the source of the funds used to make the
expenditures is unexplained, it may be inferred that such
expenditures represent unreported income. The expenditure
method of proof formula is as follows:7I
Expenditure (Money Spent or Applied)

Less: Non-Taxable Sources of Funds
Equals: Corrected Adjusted Gross Income
Less: Itemized/ Standard Deduction
Personal Exemptions
Equals Corrected Taxable Income
Less: Reported Taxable Income
Equals: Additional Taxable Income
(Unreported Income)
This audit procedure, namely, Expenditure Method, that

was adopted by the public prosecutor finds support in Section
6 (B) of the NIRC which authorizes the CIR to assess the proper
tax based on the best evidence available. Said section provides:
"SEC. 6. Power of the Commissioner to Make Assessments and

Prescribe Additional Requirements for Tax Administration and
Enforcement. - xxx (B) Failure to Submit Required Returns,
Statements, Reports and other Documents. - When a report
required by law as a basis for the assessment of any national
internal revenue tax shall not be forthcoming or when there is
reason to believe that any such report is false, incomplete or cmt..,...
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 26 of 36
erroneous, the Commissioner shall assess the proper tax on

the best evidence obtainable."
To implement the foregoing provision, the BIR issued

Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 23-2000 entitled
"Existing Revenue Procedures on the Assessment of
Deficiency Internal Revenue Taxes Based on the 'Best
Evidence Obtainable'" to guide its revenue examiners in the
conduct of tax audit of taxpayers without or lacking in
accounting records and other relevant documents pertaining to
the taxes paid.
Based on this circular, this Court finds the application of
the Networth Method of Investigation corroborative of the
Expenditure Method utilized by the prosecutors, as falling in all
fours to the case at hand, when the accused failed to declare
those buses and the alleged loans taken up to acquire those
assets in their FS, books of account and income tax returns.
The application of this audit procedure in tax investigation was
aptly upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of William Li Yao
v Collector of Internal Revenue72 which we hereinafter quote, as
follows:
"In the case at bar, the existence of assets or properties

appearing in the name of the taxpayer without the taxpayer
being able to give a definite reasonable explanation for their
existence, justifies the Court of Tax Appeals and this Court to
resort to the inventory method of assessment, such being
necessary and at the same time just and equitable."7 3
In the instant case, the ITR74 for taxable year 2008 showed
only the amount ofPhpl,212,772.89 as its total sales/revenue
or receipts which is more or less 620°/o understated compared
with the down payment of Php7,520,000.00 made for the 7
Kinglong buses in the said year. Thus, the income tax paid was
not commensurate to the actual income earned by the accused
since the Php7,520,000.00 down payment which is deemed as
unreported income is not included in its total income earned for
the said taxable year. This is a clear case of substantial under-
declaration. (h1'\/
72 G.R. No. L-11875, December 28, 1963.

73 Ibid; This Yao ruling has also been adopted in three cases: Perez vs Collector, G.R. No.
L-10507, May 30, 1958; Collector us. Reyes, G.R. Nos. L-115534 and L-11558, Nov.
25, 1958; and Avelino vs. Collector, G.R. No. L-17715, July 31, 1963.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 27 of 36
Section 248(B) of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, states that

such unreported or undeclared income constitutes substantial
under-declaration and prima facie evidence of a fraudulent
return, to wit:
(B) In case of willful neglect to file the return within

the period prescribed by this Code or by rules and
regulations, or in case a false or fraudulent return is
willfully made, the penalty to be imposed shall be fifty
percent (50%) of the tax or of the deficiency tax, in case,
any payment has been made on the basis of such return
before the discovery of the falsity or fraud: Provided, That
a substantial under-declaration of taxable sales,
receipts or income, or a substantial overstatement of
deductions, as determined by the Commissioner
pursuant to the rules and regulations to be promulgated
by the Secretary of Finance, shall constitute prima
facie evidence of a false or fraudulent return:
Provided, further, That failure to report sales, receipts or
income in an amount exceeding thirty percent (30°/o)
of that declared per return, and a claim of deductions
in an amount exceeding (30%) of actual deductions, shall
render the taxpayer liable for substantial under-
declaration of sales, receipts or income or for
overstatement of deductions, as mentioned herein.
(Emphasis supplied)
If not for the investigation made by the Bureau of Internal

Revenue (BIR) and the subsequent filing of the instant case, the
actual transaction could have not been known. Hence, the
second element of evading or defeating payment of any tax
imposed is satisfied.
As to the third and fourth elements, the knowledge and

action of accused Santos as President of Kingsam on said actual
transactions indicate willfulness and deliberate attempt to
evade payment of income tax on said down payments.
Accused Santos' admission of falsifying the Deeds of Sale

for 2008 acquisition of buses which were submitted to LTO, the
deliberate non-recognition of said acquisition in accused
Kingsam's FS as well as in its books of accounts, 7 5 and the
intentional hiding and non-reporting of the actual transactions
to the proper authorities such as LTO and BIR are all indicia of~
75 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Judicial Affidavit of Samuel S. Santos,
Exhibit A-53, pp. 1228-1229.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 28 of 36
unlawful acts which were resorted to in order to evade the

payment of a higher income tax.
In the case of Jose Aznar v. Court of Tax Appeals et al., 7 6

the Supreme Court explains the willful and deliberate action of
the offender that resulted in fraud, to wit:
... The fraud contemplated by law is actual and not

constructive. It must be intentional fraud, consisting of
deception willfully and deliberately done or resorted to in
order to induce another to give up some legal right.
Negligence, whether slight or gross, is not equivalent to
the fraud with intent to evade the tax contemplated by
the law. It must amount to intentional wrong-doing with
the sole object of avoiding the tax ...
The abovementioned action resorted to by accused Santos

was a deception that is indicative of willful and deliberate intent
to hide the actual transaction particularly on the down payment
made for 2008 acquisition of buses and eventually to evade the
corresponding income tax due on such undeclared income.
Without an iota of doubt, the knowledge and actual

participation of accused Santos in hiding the down payments
for 2008 acquisition satisfies the third and fourth elements.
Therefore, there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that

accused Kingsam and Samuel S. Santos had committed the
offense of tax evasion under Section 254 of the 1997 NIRC, as
amended, for taxable year 2008, as charged in CTA Crim. Case
No. 0-522.
In CTA Crim. Case No. 0-554, accused Kingsam and

Samuel S. Santos were charged under Section 255 of the 1997
NIRC, as amended or failure to supply correct and accurate
information for taxable year 2008, the provision is quoted
below:
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~
76 G.R. No. L-20569, August 23, 1974.

DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 29 of 36
accurate information, who willfully fails to pay such

tax, make such return, keep such record, or supply
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. (Emphasis
supplied)
Relative to the abovementioned provision, Sections 52(A)

and 253(d) of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, which are previously
quoted, indicate the person who should be responsible to
declare such correct and accurate information, and the person
who shall be liable for such failure to provide correct and
accurate information.
The following, therefore, are the requisites for the said

offense to be considered committed or consummated, to wit:
1. The offender is required under the 1997 NIRC, as

amended, or by rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder to pay any tax make a return, keep any
record, or supply correct and accurate information;
2. The offender fails to pay such tax, make such return,
keep such record, or supply 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;
3. Such failure was willful; and
4. In case the offender is a corporate taxpayer, the
accused is its responsible officer.
On the first requisite, it is undisputed that accused

Kingsam is a domestic corporation. duly organized and
incorporated, 77 which is required under the law, rules and
regulations to file the ITR indicating therein the correct and
accurate information as to its receipts or income, expenses and
other relevant information for purpose of payment of proper
taxes to the government. t.nrV
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 30 of 36
Accused Santos, who admitted in open court as President

of said corporation,78 filed the ITR for the taxable year 2008 79
on February 5, 2009. Without a doubt, the first requisite exists.
As to the second requisite, the down payments amounting

to Php7 ,520,000.00 for the acquisition of Kinglong buses in
2008 made by accused Kingsam to PIBI constitute an
undeclared income based on the Expenditure Method. Said
method is based on a theory that if the subject taxpayer's
expenditures during a given year exceed his reported income,
and the source of the funds used to make the expenditures is
unexplained, it may be inferred that such expenditures
represent unreported income. The failure by the accused to
explain the source of such down payments renders the same as
undeclared income.
The accused failed to indicate such downpayments in the

ITR for taxable year 200880 which was filed on February 5, 2009.
The total sales/revenue or receipts showed only the amount of
Phpl,212,772.89 which was far lower than the said undeclared
income. The absence of such information in the ITR for taxable
year 2008 is proof that accused failed to supply correct and
accurate information as to its sales/revenue or receipts. Hence,
the second requisite was complied.
As to the third and fourth requisites, the admission of

accused Santos of falsifying the Deeds of Sale for 2008
acquisition of buses submitted to LTO, the deliberate non-
recognition of said acquisition in accused Kingsam's FS as well
as in its books of accounts, and the intentional hiding and non-
reporting of the actual transactions to the proper authorities
such as LTO and BIR are all indication of unlawful acts which
were resorted to by the accused in order to evade the payment
of a higher income tax.
The abovementioned action resorted to by accused Santos

was a deception that is indicative of a willful and deliberate
intent to hide the actual transaction particularly the down
payments made for 2008 acquisition and eventually to evade~
78 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibit A-53, Judicial Affidavit of Samuel
S. Santos, A3, p. 1219.
7 9 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibit P-6-5, pp. 1059-1061.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554,
Page 31 of 36
the corresponding income tax for such undeclared income from

authorities such as BIR and LTO.
Thus, the result of said actions is the failure of the accused

corporation to supply the correct and accurate information as
to its sales/revenue or receipts. Thus, it satisfies the third and
fourth requisites of the said offense.
Such first hand knowledge and actual participation of

accused Kingsam through accused Santos, as shown by the
evidence presented, in its attempt to hide the down payments
for the acquisition of the 7 Kinglong buses which should have
been reported as income in its ITR for taxable year 2008 is proof
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed or
consummated the acts punishable under Section 255 of the
1997 NIRC, as amended, as charged in CTA Crim. Case No.
0-554.
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-525 & 523
In CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-525 & 523, said accused were
also charged under Section 254 (tax evasion) and 255 (failure to
supply correct and accurate information), respectively, of the
1997 NIRC as amended, for taxable year 2009.
In CTA Crim. Case No. 0-525, the first, third, and fourth
elements of the offense are proven to have existed as shown in
the discussion above.
On the second element, the Deed of Sale dated October 12

2009,81 alone for the 12 buses acquired in 2009 shows an
acquisition cost of Php24,000,000.00 while the amount of loan
taken from RCBC Leasing & Finance Corporation on August 20,
2009 and October 12, 2009 only has a total amount of
Php13,440,000.00. Thus, there is a balance of
Php10,560,000.00 which the other loans in 2009 could have
not funded since they were beyond the date of the Deed of Sale.
If the defense of the accused that said amount was taken from
those loans, such fact is highly doubtful since the Deed of Sale
did not provide for a staggered payment of the purchase price.
In the ordinary course of business of lending, a bank or a

financial institution will grant the loan if the borrower has a~
Sl Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibit P-7-3, p. 1083.
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 32 of 36
corresponding collateral that may answer the loanable amount.

However, in the case of accused Kingsam, it only has
Php1,000,000.00 in authorized capital stock and its subscribed
capital stock amounts only to Php250,000.00.82 Hence, it
cannot guaranty with its assets the loanable amount of
Php 10,560,000.00
The only deducible conclusion from such facts is that the

balance of Php10,560,000.00 came from the income or asset of
accused Kingsam. Such amount is considered unreported
income based on the Expenditure Method as discussed above
and it must be declared in the ITR and the corresponding tax
payable should be paid.
In its 2010 ITR for taxable year 2009 which was filed and
paid on August 15, 2010,83 the total sales or revenue declared
amounts only to Php1,623,734.60 and compared to the amount
of unreported income, it is more or less 650°/o understated. It,
therefore, satisfies the second element of Section 254 on tax
evasion.
The existence of all the elements shows that there is proof

beyond reasonable doubt that accused Kingsam through
accused SamuelS. Santos committed tax evasion as charged in
CTA Crim. Case No. 0-525.
In CTA Crim. Case No. 0-523, the first, third, and fourth
elements of the offense are also proven to have existed as shown
in the discussion above.
As to the second element, there was a Php10,560,000.00

unreported income for taxable year 2009 based on the
Expenditure Method. However, the amount was not declared in
the ITR for taxable year 2009 which was filed and paid in 2010.
The accused has the obligation to declare such amount but it
failed to do so. Hence, without a doubt the second element
existed.
There is, therefore, proof beyond reasonable doubt that the

offense under Section 255 of 1997 NIRC, as amended, is~
82 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibit P-2, p. 941.
83 Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, Vol. III, Exhibit P-6-4, p. 1029
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 33 of 36
committed by accused Kingsam through its President, accused

Samuel S. Santos as charged in CTA Crim. Case No. 0-523.
As to the civil liability, however, the prosecution failed to

prove that the payment of the taxes subject of the criminal case
was finally decided by the Commissioner.
Section 205(b) of the NIRC, as amended, provides the

requisites for the award of civil liability in criminal case, to wit:
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) xxx xxx; 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: Provided, however, That the remedies
of distraint and levy shall not be availed of where the amount
of tax involved is not more than One hundred pesos (PlOO).
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.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue shall advance the amounts

needed to defray costs of collection by means of civil or
criminal action, including the preservation or transportation
of personal property distrained and the advertisement and
sale thereof, as well as of real property and improvements
thereon. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The prosecution did not adduce any evidence that will

show a final assessment which had been finally decided by the
Commissioner. The abovementioned provision requires that in
order to be included in the judgment of said civil liability, it
must be the final decision of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. Thus, it refers to a formal assessment. In Adamson v.
Court of Appeals84 , the Supreme Court intimated the requisites
of formal assessment, viz:
We rule that the recommendation letter of the

Commissioner cannot be considered a formal~
84 G.R. Nos. 120935 & 124557, May 21, 2009.

DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 34 of 36
assessment. Even a cursory perusal of the said letter would

reveal three key points:
1. It was not addressed to the taxpayers.

2. There was no demand made on the taxpayers to
pay the tax liability, nor a period for payment set
therein.
3. The letter was never mailed or sent to the
taxpayers by the Commissioner.
Thus, applying the abovementioned case, a formal

assessment should be: (1) addressed to the taxpayer; (2)
contained a demand on the taxpayer to pay the tax liability and
must set a period for payment; and (3) mailed or sent to the
taxpayer by the Commissioner. However, the prosecution failed
to adduce the same.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court rules as

follows:
1. In CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, accused

SAMUEL S. SANTOS is hereby found GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of violating Section 254 of the
NIRC of 1997, as amended, for taxable year 2008 and is
hereby SENTENCED to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum, to four (4)
years as maximum, and ORDERED to pay a fine in the
amount ofPhp100,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment,
in case accused has no property with which to meet such
fine, pursuant to Section 280 of the NIRC of 1997, as
amended.

SAMUELS. SANTOS is hereby found GUILTY BEYOND
amended.

SAMUELS. SANTOS is hereby found GUILTY BEYOND~
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 35 of 36

amended.

SAMUEL S. SANTOS is hereby found GUILTY BEYOND
amended.
In addition, KINGSAM EXPRESS INCORPORATION is

further ORDERED TO PAY the following fines pursuant to
Section 256 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended:
1. In CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522, a fine of ONE HUNDRED

THOUSAND PESOS (Php 100,000.00) for being found
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violating
Section 254 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, for
taxable year 2008;

THOUSAND PESOS (Php100,000.00) for being found
taxable year 2009;

THOUSAND PESOS (Php 100,000.00) for being found
taxable year 2009; and

THOUSAND PESOS (Php100,000.00) for being found~
DECISION
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525, & 0-554
Page 36 of 36

taxable year 2008.
SO ORDERED.
'
~1'.-/f~
CATHERINE T. MANAHAN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
_y$-
~~-~c-~~ '2 (with Dissenting Opinion)
JUANITO C. CASTANE:61\, ,JR. CAESAR A. CASANOVA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were

reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
~itz:, c .Q;;t-'~~ \L
JUANITO C. CASTANElJA;"JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution and

the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
Presiding Justice
Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
Quezon City
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522,0-523,

Plaintiff, 0-525 & 0-554
Members:
-versus- CASTANEDA, JR., Chairperson

CASANOVA, and
MANAHAN,].].
KINGSAM EXPRESS Promulgated:

INCORPORATION and
SAMUEL S. SANTOS,
Accused. MAR 1 2 2018 tJ~ ?;o rfr'
){- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -){
DISSENTING OPINION
CASANOVA,].:
This is a prosecution for violation of Sections 254 and 255 of the

National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, wherein
the accused Samuel S. Santos pleaded not guilty upon being arraigned
on the following Informations:
Crim. Case No. 0-522

(Amended Information)
"In the Amended Information, the above-named

accused is being charged for violation of section 254 of the
National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, allegedly
committed as follows:
'That on or about the 15th day of April 2009, in

Valenzuela City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused KingSam E){press Incorporation and
Samuel S. Santos, being the President and~
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 2 of 16
responsible officer of the said corporation, with

Taxpayer Identification No. 239-173-420, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
attempt to evade or defeat the payment of its correct
tax, as said accused substantially underdeclare the
corporation's income for taxable year 2008, in order
resulting to a deficiency income tax in the amount of
Four Million Ninety Five Thousand Pesos
(Php4,095,000.00) exclusive of surcharge and
interest, as of the time of the filing of the complaint,
to the damage and prejudice of the government.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 1

"The undersigned Assistant State Prosecutor of the

Department of Justice, hereby accuses King Sam Express
Incorporation and Samuel S. Santos in his capacity as
President of the corporation, of the offense of violation of
Section 255 of Republic Act No. 8424 (National Internal
Revenue Code of 1997), as amended, committed as follows:

named accused Kingsam Express Incorporation and
Samuel S. Santos, being the President and
and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously fail to
supply correct and accurate information in its
income tax return for taxable year 2009 by making it
appear that the corporation's income/revenue for
taxable year 2009 was in the amount of
Php1,623,734.60 only, when, in truth and in fact,
Kingsam Expresss, Inc. had other income during
same taxable year but failed to declare them in the
ITR as shown by its acquisition of bus units in the
total amount of Php36,000,000.00, and failing to
declare or report the same during said taxable year,
thus concealing the corporations (sic) true and
correct income for taxable year 2009, to the damageA
1
Per Resolution dated November 25, 2015, CT A Crim. Case No. 0-522, Docket (II), p. 512.
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 3 of 16
and prejudice of the government in the estimated

amount of Ten Million Eight Hundred Thousand
Pesos (Php10.800.000.00) exclusive of surcharge
and interest. representing accused's income tax
deficiency as of the time of the filing of the
complaint.
CONTRARY TO LAW."2


Department of Justice, hereby accuses King Sam (sic)
Express Incorporation and Samuel S. Santos in his capacity
as President of the corporation, of the offense of violation of

named accused King Sam (sic) Express
Incorporation and Samuel S. Santos, being the
President and responsible officer of the said
corporation, with Taxpayer Identification No. 239-
173-420, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously attempt to evade or defeat the
payment of its correct tax, as said accused
substantially under declare the corporation's
income tax in the amount of Ten Million Eight
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php10.800.000.00)
exclusive of surcharge and interest. as of the filing of
the complaint, to the damage and prejudice of the
government.
CONTRARY TO LAW."3

Department of Justice, hereby accuses KINGSAM EXPRESS
INCORPORATION AND SAMUELS. SANTOS in his capacity~
2
Per Resolution dated December 9, 2015, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-523, Docket, pp. 291-292.
3
Per Resolution dated December 9, 2015, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-523, Docket, pp. 292-293.
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 4 of 16
as President of the corporation, of the offense of violation of


named accused Kingsam Express Incorporation and
Samuel S. Santos, being the President and
and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously fail
to supply correct and accurate information in its
income tax return for taxable year 2008 by making
it appear that the corporation's income/revenue for
taxable year 2008 was in the amount of
Php1,212,773.00 only, when in truth and in fact,
Kingsam Express, Inc. had other income during
same taxable year but failed to declare them in the
ITR as shown by its acquisition of bus units in the
total amount of Php13,650,000.00, and failing to
declare or report the same during said taxable year,
thus, concealing the corporation's true and correct
income for taxable year 2008, to the damage and
prejudice of the government in the amount of Four
Million Ninety Five Thousand Pesos
(Php4,095,000.00) exclusive of surcharge and
interest, representing accused's income tax
deficiency as of the time of the filing of the
complaint.
CONTRARY TO LAW."4
KINGSAM EXPRESS INCORPORATION ("Kingsam" for brevity) is

also pleaded as Accused in the above Informations.
Notably, evidence for the prosecution was furnished by Mr.

Medardo L. Tipon only. In his testimony, he stated that he is currently
employed as Revenue Officer I in the Bureau of Internal Revenue since
1991 and is presently assigned at the Revenue District Office (RDO) No.
24-Valenzuela City. He is tasked to conduct the audit investigation of all
internal revenue taxes for tax cases assigned to him and to perform other
related functions as may be assigned to him from time to time.~
4
Per Resolution dated June 2, 2016, CT A Crim. Case No. 0-554, Docket, pp. 261-262.
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 5 of 16
He was one of the revenue officers who conducted the preliminary

investigation on Kingsam. He mentioned that he executed, together with
other two revenue officers: Manolita Dimacali and Jose Sanga, the Joint
Complaint Affidavit and Joint Reply Affidavit filed against Kingsam and
Samuel S. Santos.
Mr. Tipon stated that he conducted the preliminary investigation

against the accused in this wise: (i) that he checked the registration
status of Kingsam with RDO No. 24-Valenzuela; (ii) that he accessed
Kingsam's Annual Income Tax Returns (AITR) and Financial Statements
(FS) for taxable years 2008-2012; (iii) that he checked its registration
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); and, (iv) that he
checked Kingsam's records with the Land Transportation Office (LTO).
He obtained the following documents from the SEC: Kingsam's

2009 General Information Sheet, Articles of Incorporation and Certificate
of Filing Amended Articles of Incorporation. In ROO No. 24-Valenzuela,
he got hold of the following: Certificate of Registration, Annual Income
Tax Returns with Financial Statements for the taxable years 2008-2012.
In LTO, he was able to obtain copies of Certificates of Registration under
the name of Kings am and Deeds of Sale, whereby Kings am was the buyer
of the subject buses.
On the premise that the amount of P49,650,000.00 was the

undeclared revenue of Kingsam for taxable years 2008 and 2009, Mr.
Tipon concluded that Kingsam failed to supply correct and accurate
information when it did not reflect in its AITRs and FS for the subject
taxable periods the acquisition cost of the buses acquired during the
same years. As a consequence, Kingsam was, accordingly, able to evade
payment of income tax in the amount of P9,828,000,00 for taxable year
2008; and the amount ofP23,760,000 for taxable year 2009.
Testifying in his defense, accused Samuel S. Santos states that he is

the same person being charged in this case, in his official capacity as the
President of Kingsam Express Incorporation.
He mentioned that the Letter of Authority (LOA) dated October 22,

2013 was only served to Kingsman's Clerk, Mr. Deney Rodillas, on
October 23, 2013. Accordingly, the said personnel was not authorized to
receive any documents for and on behalf of Kingsam.
One day after the service thereof, the BIR immediately filed a
Complaint against him and the company before the Department of
Justice, which accordingly, violated his right against due process of law.?-
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 6 of 16
He testified that, if the BIR just gave them the opportunity and
sufficient time to respond and comply with the LOA, they could have
presented their financial documents, and could have shown to the BIR
that there was no willful intent on their part to evade or defeat payment
of any taxes.
In proving that acquisition of three (3) buses (with Engine Nos.

FE6TC-003941H, FE6TC-003944H and FE6TC-003957H) in 2008 came
from the proceeds of loan, Mr. Santos presented the Promissory Note
with Chattel Mortgage executed with Philippine Business Bank.
He also claimed that the company used his wife's funds and
proceeds of loans in purchasing the four (4) buses (with Engine No.
FE6TC-003885H, FE6TC-003882H, FE6TC-003896H, and FE6TC-
003881H) in 2008, from Mr. Elison Tan. He also mentioned that Mr. Tan
agreed with the arrangement that he will only be paid after Kingsam has
been granted a Certificate of Public Convenience. Thus, he started paying
Mr. Tan only in March 2011.
To prove that the said buses came from bank financing, Mr. Santos
presented Contracts to Sell with Philippine International Bus, Inc.
Accordingly, the Statement of Account issued by the latter will show that
Kingsam started paying the purchase price only in March 2011. The
same four (4) buses were also the subject of a Deed of Sale executed on
June 16, 2008.
He added that the Certificates of Registration of those buses will

prove that the same were encumbered.
Mr. Santos claimed that there was no fraudulent and willful act of
under declaration of any sales in 2008 since the money used in
purchasing said buses came partly from his wife's fund and from the
proceeds of loan. Likewise, there was no attempt to evade and defeat the
payment of any taxes on their part since he made a voluntary payment of
Kingsam's tax liabilities after the BIR filed a complaint against him and
Kingsam, and while the case is pending before the CTA. Accordingly, he
even requested for a reinvestigation on December 12, 2013, and
requested to proceed with audit examination.
Mr. Santos also stressed that there was no under declaration of

sales in 2009 since the money used in purchasing eighteen (18) buses,
amounting to P36,000,000.00, likewise, came partly from his wife and
loan proceeds released by various banks.~
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 7 of 16
To prove the foregoing, Mr. Santos presented the following

documents: Certification from AMA Bank showing that Kingsam has
secured a total of seventeen (17) loans starting 2009; Certifications from
RCBC Leasing showing that Kingsam has secured three (3) loans in 2009
and 2010; and two (2) Statement of Accounts from Malayan Leasing and
Finance Corporation showing that two (2) promissory notes were
obtained on August 20, 2009 and October 12, 2009, respectively; and
Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage with Insular Bank showing that
Kingsam obtained a loan for its two (2) buses with Insular Bank on
December 16, 2009; Letter from Orix Metro Leasing and Finance
Corporation advising that Kingsam availed of its loan facility for the
purchase of two (2) units of buses, including the original Promissory
Note with Chattel Mortgage Authority to Pay, Undertaking, Continuing
Surety and Acknowledgement Receipt; Certificates of Registration
showing that the buses purchased in 2009 were all encumbered. He also
presented several checks issued by his wife.
He said that the reason why the said acquisition costs of the said
buses were not reflected as Kingsam's assets in its 2008 and 2009
Financial Statements was due to the fact that they were not able to use
the same until after the issuance Certificate of Public Convenience by the
LTFRB on June 23, 2010.
The acquisition costs of the said buses were, likewise, not declared
as liabilities because the money used in purchasing the same came from
his wife's funds, as her investment in Kingsam, and partly from the
proceeds of the loans taken from various banks.
He also testified that while this case is pending before the CTA, he
voluntarily made payment of Kingsam's tax liabilities in the amount of
P1,546,000.00, including payment of compromise penalty. Accordingly,
the said amount was based on the recommendation of Ms. Manolita
Dimacali, who re-assessed Kingsam's tax liabities. To prove such fact, he
presented Payment Forms for taxable year 2008 in the respective
amounts of P2,000.00, P357,000.00, P37,000.00 and P25,000.00. He also
presented the corresponding confirmation receipts and BIR-
DepositjPayment Slips. He also presented the Payment Forms for
taxable year 2009 in the respective amounts of P1,004,000.00,
P6,000.00, P90,000.00 and P25,000.00, as well as their corresponding
confirmation receipts and BIR-BIR Deposit/Payment Slips.
Another witness for the defense, Mr. Benigno M. Cubacub, Jr. says
that that his accounting firm, Jeodimel Octaviano Coronado, prepared
Kingsam's Audited Financial Statement and Income Tax Return for
taxable year 2009. He opined that the accused did not attempt to evad~
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 8 of 16
or defeat any payment of taxes by substantially under declaring it

income for taxable years 2008 and 2009 since the BIR did not give the
accused the opportunity to present its books of accounts and other
documents for said years. He also stated that the BIR merely assumed
that Kingsam was able to acquire several buses in 2008 and 2009 on
cash basis, and that the BIR did not see that the money used in
purchasing buses came from loans obtained from different financial
institutions.
Mr. Cubacub also stated that after the BIR filed a complaint against
the accused, and while the case is already being heard before the CTA,
accused Santos got hold of the copies of several loan documents, which
were not turned over to them when they prepared the AFS and AITR of
Kingsam in 2009. He also thinks that the same goes when the AFS and
ITR for 2008 were being prepared for and on behalf of Kingsam.
In claiming that the accused cannot be held liable under Section

255 of the 1997 NIRC, he testified as follows:
"x x x As mentioned earlier, at the time that our accounting

firm prepared the AFS and ITR for and on behalf of
Kingsam for the taxable period of 2009, there were no
documents available yet, either in our possessions or Mr.
Santos' possession that could support the acquisition of
Kingsam's buses in 2008 and 2009. The buses were not
even delivered to Kingsam in those years, to my
knowledge, and the ownership thereon was not yet
transferred to Kingsam based on the Certificate of
Registration available in the LTO. In addition, Kingsam did
not derive any economic benefit from the acquisition of
those buses in 2008 and 2009 since it cannot use and
operate those buses on the streets due to lack of Certificate
of Public Convenience from the LTFRB. As such, there is no
basis for the declaration of those buses in Kingsam's AFS
and ITR for the year 2009 either as an asset or liability.
Consequently, it was an error for the BIR to assume that
Kingsam or Mr. Santos willfully failed to supply correct
and accurate information in its ITR for the year 2009. The
same is true with respect to 2008, even though it is not our
accounting firm that prepared the AFS and ITR for 2008."
He also stated that under the Philippine Accounting Standard, a

financial instrument is recognized as financial assets of a company when
the latter becomes a party to the instrument's contractual provisions. In
cases where the purchase of those financial assets require delivery~
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 9 of 16
within a certain time frame established by regulation or convention in

the market place, then the financial assets are recognized on the trade
date accounting or settlement date accounting. Thus, those buses should
accordingly have been recognized as assets when Kingsam became a
party to the contractual instrument for its acquisition and as of the
settlement date of accounting.
He further stated that under the International Financial Reporting

Standards, a financial instrument is recognized as financial assets only if
there is likely a future economic benefit from its use or sale. Thus, Mr.
Cubacub opined that, since Kingsam did not have any control yet on
those buses because the ownership thereof were not yet transferred to
Kingsam immediately after their acquisition in 2008 and 2009, and that
it did not derive any economic benefit therefrom, then those buses
cannot be considered yet as assets during the taxable years 2009. The
same is true with respect to the acquisition of buses in 2008.
He also explained that the liability shall only be recognized in the

financial document when there is already a present obligation arising
from the past events that needs to be settled, and that the outflow of
resources embodying economic benefits from the company is measured
reliably. Consequently, he opined that the buses acquired in 2009 cannot
yet be recognized as liabilities in 2009 since the same were paid only in
2010 and sometime in 2011.
He also stated that even the buses acquired in 2008 cannot be

considered yet as liability on the ground that the ownership thereon
were not yet transferred to Kingsam, and the latter did not derive any
economic benefit due to lack of Certificate of Public Convenience from
the LTFRB, which was granted only in 2010.
After analyzing carefully all the evidence on record, both

testimonial and documentary, the undersigned finds that the evidence
adduced by the prosecution were insufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Numerous circumstances gave the undersigned reasons to doubt

the truthfulness of the accusation.
First, there is no dispute that a criminal case can be filed before

the Court even without the accused being assessed by the Revenue
Officers or a criminal case can proceed even if the Administrative Protest
is still on-going. However. in case the amount of tax deficiency is
alleged in the Information. the same must be accurate and true. for
~
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 10 of 16
the amount being claimed plays an important role. The amount

claimed determines which Court has jurisdiction over the case.
Accordingly, the amount must not be based on PRESUMPTIONS OR
ESTIMATES, like in the instant cases for it will give undue power to the
complainants to select the court they feel will be in their favor. This
fact holds true in the advent of the law creating the Court of Tax Appeals,
Republic Act No. 1125, as amended by Republic Act No. 9282, otherwise
known as "The Expanded Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals". Sec.
7(b)(1) of said law specifically provides as follows:
"Sec. 7. JURISDICTION- The CTA shall exercise:
a) XXX
b) Jurisdiction over cases involving Criminal Offenses

as herein provided:
1) Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over all

criminal offenses arising from violations of the
NIRC or Tariff and Customs Code and other
laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue and the Bureau of Customs: Provided,
however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in
this paragraph where the principal amount of
taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and
penalties claimed is less that One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified
amount claimed shall be tried by the regular
Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be
appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of
Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the
criminal action and the corresponding civil
action for the recovery of the civil liability for
taxes and penalties shall at all times be
simultaneously instituted with and jointly
determined in the same proceedings by the
CTA, the filing of the criminal action being
deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of
the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing
of such civil action separately from the criminal
action will be recognized."
From the above, it is crystal clear that before a taxpayer can be

prosecuted for criminal offenses arising from violations of the NIRC or
Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC), the principa~
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 11 of 16
amount of taxes being claimed as alleged in the Information should

only either be definite or no specified amount at all at the time of
the filing of the case in Court. This is so because it determines the
jurisdiction of the Court. In case the claim is One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000.00), or more, the CTA has exclusive original jurisdiction
over the case. On the other hand, if the claim is less than One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.00), or where no specified amount is claimed, the
cases shall be tried before the regular courts and the jurisdiction of the
CT A shall be appellate.
In addition, the amount of tax deficiency being claimed in the

Information does not only determine the jurisdiction of the Court, but
also become one of the elements of the crime that must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt which the prosecution failed in the instant
cases since the amount alleged in the Informations were all
PRESUMPTIONS OR ESTIMATES. To prove the same, no assessment has
been made by the BIR at the time of the filing of these cases at the
Department of Justice. In fact, the lone prosecution witness, Mr.
Medardo Tipon, admitted in Court that the Letter of Authority was
served to accused's company the day before the cases were filed. He
admitted too that while the cases were still pending in court, there is an
ongoing preliminary investigation being conducted at the BIR to
determine the underdeclared income of the accused for the years 2008
and 2009. Question? Where did they get the amount of tax deficiency
that they alleged in the Informations- if not thru PRESUMPTIONS AND
ESTIMATES.
Second, there are reasons to believe that the Constitutional Right

of the accused to DUE PROCESS was violated at the time the case was
filed before this Court.
Section 14(1), Article III of the Bill of Rights of our Constitution

state that, "no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law".
As applied to criminal trial, denial of due process is the failure to

observed that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of
justice, and in order to declare a denial of it, we must find that the
absence of fairness fatally injected in the trial, and that the acts
complained of must be of such quality as necessarily prevent a fair trials.
It is basic that, in the collection of the BIR deficiency tax, the total
correct income of the accused for the taxable years 2008 and 2009a
5
Lisenba vs. California, 314 U.S. 219.
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 11 of 16
amount of taxes being claimed as alleged in the Information should

only either be definite or no specified amount at all at the time of
the filing of the case in Court. This is so because it determines the
jurisdiction of the Court. In case the claim is One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000.00), or more, the CTA has exclusive original jurisdiction
over the case. On the other hand, if the claim is less than One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.00), or where no specified amount is claimed, the
cases shall be tried before the regular courts and the jurisdiction of the
CTA shall be appellate.
In addition, the amount of tax deficiency being claimed in the

Information does not only determine the jurisdiction of the Court, but
also become one of the elements of the crime that must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt which the prosecution failed in the instant
cases since the amount alleged in the Informations were all
PRESUMPTIONS OR ESTIMATES. To prove the same, no assessment has
been made by the BIR at the time of the filing of these cases at the
Department of Justice. In fact, the lone prosecution witness, Mr.
Medardo Tipon, admitted in Court that the Letter of Authority was
served to accused's company the day before the cases were filed. He
admitted too that while the cases were still pending in court, there is an
ongoing preliminary investigation being conducted at the BIR to
determine the underdeclared income of the accused for the years 2008
and 2009. Question? Where did they get the amount of tax deficiency
that they alleged in the Informations- if not thru PRESUMPTIONS AND
ESTIMATES.
Second, there are reasons to believe that the Constitutional Right

of the accused to DUE PROCESS was violated at the time the case was
filed before this Court.
Section 14(1 ), Article III of the Bill of Rights of our Constitution

state that, "no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law".
As applied to criminal trial, denial of due process is the failure to

observed that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of
justice, and in order to declare a denial of it, we must find that the
absence of fairness fatally injected in the trial, and that the acts
complained of must be of such quality as necessarily prevent a fair trials.
It is basic that, in the collection of the BIR deficiency tax, the total
correct income of the accused for the taxable years 2008 and 2009a
5
Lisenba vs. California, 314 U.S. 219.
DISSENTING OPINION -·"
Crim. case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 12 of 16
should first be determined through a proper investigation by the

revenue officers. In said investigation, the DUE PROCESS
REQUIREMENT should be observed.
Section 3 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 of the BIR is more

explicit with the requirement of due process in the issuance of a
deficiency tax assessment, to wit:
I
"Sec. 3. Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a

Deficiency Tax Assessment-
3.1 Mode of procedures in the issuance of a deficiency tax

assessment:
3.1.1 Notice for informal conference. - The Revenue Officer

who audited the taxpayer's records shall, among others,
state in his report whether or not the taxpayer agrees with
his findings that the taxpayer is liable for deficiency tax or
taxes. If the taxpayer is not amenable, based on the said
Officer's submitted report of investigation, the taxpayer
shall be informed, in writing, by the Revenue District
Office or by the Special Investigation Division, as the case
may be (in the case Revenue Regional Offices) or by the
Chief of Division concerned (in the case of the BIR National
Office) of the discrepancy or discrepancies in the taxpayer's
payment of his internal revenue taxes, for the purpose of
'Informal Conference', in order to afford the taxpayer
with an opportunity to present his side of the case. If the
taxpayer fails to respond within_ fifteen (15) days from--
date of receipt of the notice for informal conference, he ·
shall be considered in default, in which case, the Revenue
District Officer or the Chief of the Special Investigation
Division of the Revenue Regional Office, or the Chief of
Division in the National Office, as the case may be, shall
endorse the case with the least possible delay to the --
Assessment Division of the Revenue Regional Office or to
the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, as
the case may be, for appropriate review and issuance of a
deficiency tax assessment, if warranted.
3.1.2 Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN). - If after

review and evaluation by the Assessment Division or by the
Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, as the
case may be, it is determined that there exists sufficient
basis to assess the taxpayer for any deficiency tax or taxes,
the said Office shall issue to the taxpayer, at lease by~
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 13 of 16
registered mail, a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN)

for the proposed assessment, showing in detail, the
facts and the law, rules and regulations, or
jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment is
based. If the taxpayer fails to respond within fifteen
(15) days from date of receipt of the PAN. he shall be
considered in default, in which case, a formal letter of
demand and assessment notice shall be caused to be issued
by the said Office, calling for payment of the taxpayer's
deficiency tax liability, inclusive of the applicable penalties.
3.1.3 Exceptions to Prior Notice of the Assessment.- x x x.
3.1.4 Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice.-

The formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall be
issued by the Commissioner or his duly authorized
representative. The letter of demand calling for payment of
the taxpayer's deficiency tax or taxes shall state the facts,
the law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which
the assessment is based, otherwise, the formal letter of
demand and assessment notice shall be void. The same shall
be sent to the taxpayer only by registered mail or by
personal delivery. If sent by personal delivery, the taxpayer
or his duly authorized representative shall acknowledge
receipt thereof in the duplicate copy of the letter of demand,
showing the following: (a) His name; (b) signature; (c)
designation and authority to act for and in behalf of the
taxpayer if acknowledged received by a person other than
the taxpayer himself; and (d) date of receipt thereof.
3.1.5 Disputed Assessment. - The taxpayer or his duly

authorized representative may protest administratively
against the aforesaid formal letter of demand· and
assessment notice within thirty (30) days from date of
receipt thereof. If there are several issues involved in the
formal letter of demand and assessment notice but the
taxpayer only disputes or protests against the validity of
some of the issues raised, the taxpayer shall be required to
pay the deficiency tax or taxes attributable to the
undisputed issues, in which case, a collection letter shall be
issued to the taxpayer calling for payment of the said
deficiency tax, inclusive of the applicable surcharge and or
interest. No action shall be taken on the taxpayer's disputed
issues until the taxpayer has paid the deficiency tax or taxes
attributable to the said undisputed issues. The prescriptive
period for assessment or collection of the tax or taxes-c.
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 14 of 16
attributable to the disputed issues shall be suspended."

(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In sum, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) first issues a

Notice of Informal Conference to the taxpayer based on the findings of
tax deficiencies. Subsequently, a PAN is issued if, after a review and
evaluation by the Assessment Division or the Commissioner himself or
his duly authorized representative, it is found that the taxpayer is indeed
liable to deficiency taxes. A protest may be filed by the taxpayer in
answer to the Pan within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. In case
of the taxpayer's failure to protest or reply to the PAN, or if the CIR is not
satisfied with the protest or reply of the taxpayer, a Formal Letter of
Demand and FAN is then issued by the CIR against the taxpayer.
In the instant cases, the undersigned found from the evidence

presented by the prosecution showed that the BIR's observance of the
DUE PROCESS was TOTALLY not applied to the accused and, therefore,
he must be acquitted. The accused was not given a FAN or Formal Letter
of Demand by the BIR at any time prior to, or at the time of the filing of
the instant case in Court. Clearly, the Revenue Officers failed to observe
the minimum DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT by not sending a FAN to the
accused before the filing of the instant case in Court. Such failure
resulted in the violation of accused's Constitutional Right to Due Process,
which our Philippine Constitution guarantees to every individual, right
or poor, ordinary or celebrity. Evidently, the BIR miserably failed to
afford the accused of its primordial right to due process.
Third, accused Samuel S. Santos was not positively identified in

open court by the lone prosecution witness, Mr. Medardo Tipon. It is
elementary rule that in all CRIMINAL CASES, the accused must be
positively identified by a prosecution witness or witnesses to be
considered as the AUTHOR of the CRIME or CRIMES. If not positively
identified, as in the instant cases, the Accused must be acquitted.
Fourth, the credibility of the lone prosecution witness, Mr.

Medardo Tipon, is open to doubt. He had previously made statements,
which contradicted his present testimony in court. To cite a few:
a) He testified in court saying that he was the one

who obtained from the Land Transportation Office
(L TO) copies of the Certificate of Registration
under the name of Kingsam and copies of Deeds of
Sale when in truth and in fact three (3) of them
obtained the said copies as stated in their Joint
Complaint Affidavit filed before the Department of~
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 15 of 16
Justice. It was clearly stated therein that he, Mr.

Jose Sanga, Ms. Manolita Dimacali were the ones
who made access to the said documents in the said
agency.
b) Again, according to him, he was the one who

obtained Kingsam's Articles of Incorporation, Certificate of
Filing Amended Articles of Incorporation and General
Information Sheet for 2009 at the Securities and Exchange
Commission but the truth of the matter is already stated
above.
c) For the third time, according to him, he checked the

registration status of Kingsam with the Revenue District No.
24-Valenzuela and he accessed it Annual Income Tax
Returns and Financial Statements filed for taxable year
2008 to 2012, but for the third time, the truth of the matter
is already stated above. He was not alone as he wanted to
portray himself to be. He was not even the TEAM LEADER of
the group. In fact, it is unbelievable that there is no assigned
LEADER in the group who made the Preliminary
Investigation.
d) For the fourth time, according to him, he proceeded

with the computation of the deficiency income tax of the
accused that may be due from Kingsam on the premise of
considering the amount of P29,650,000.00 as undeclared
income for taxable year 2008 and 2009 but the truth is in
their Joint Complaint Affidavit there is no name of the
PERSON who did the computation. Question, who really did
the computation among the three (3) of them? How can we
rely now on the testimonies of the lone prosecution
witness?
It is elementary rule that for a witness to be believed in his story,

he must be credible as well as his testimony in court. This is not present
in the instant cases.
Fifth. Now, let us proceed further regarding the formula used by

the prosecution witness to determine the undeclared income of the
accused for the years 2008 and 2009, referring to the EXPENDITURE
METHOD of tax investigation. From the said formula, Mr. Medardo
Tipon, the lone prosecution witness, found out that the accused had
undeclared income for years 2008 and 2009 upon scrutiny of
information from the financial statements attached to the ITRs filed b~
DISSENTING OPINION
Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, 0-525 & 0-554
Page 16 of 16
Kingsam for taxable years 2008 and 2009, and the revenues do not in
any way support Kingsam, financially, to acquire the questionned buses
but in his defense, the accused and his witness were able to explain and
prove in court that he had no undeclared income on said years by
11 11
presenting various documents, marked as Exhibits A-1" to A-54-A",
except Exhibits ~~A-30-A", ~~A-34" and ~~A-36", to really prove his claims
that the money used to purchase the buses subject of the present cases
came partly from his wife and from the proceeds of the loans from
various banks which the undersigned believes.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding that the

prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Samuel S. Santos is hereby
ACQUITTED with cost de officio.
SO ORDERED.
CAESA~ANOVA
Associate Justice

Cta 2D Co 00522 D 2018mar12 VTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cta 2D Co 00522 D 2018mar12 VTC

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

Cta 2D Co 00522 D 2018mar12 VTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522

CASTANEDA, JR. , Chairperson

These are consolidated cases 1 for alleged violations of the

Indicted are Kingsam E){press Incorporation and Samuel

CTA Crim. Case No. 0-522

"That on or about 15th day of April 2009, in

of the filing of the complaint, to the damage and prejudice

CTA Crim. Case No. 0-523

"That on or about 15th day of April 2010, in

CTA Crim. Case No. 0-525

"That on or about 15th day of April 20 10, in

amount of Twenty Three Million Seven Hundred Sixty

CTA Crim. Case No. 0-554

"That on or about 15th day of April 2009, in

The prosecution moved to amend the abovementioned

Information, pp. 274-275.

Information, pp. 285-286.

abovementioned information. Hence, the following are the amended

CTA Crim. Case No. 0-5226

"That on or about 15th day of April 2009, in

CTA Crim. Case No. 0-5237

"That on or about 15th day of April 20 10, in

the estimated amount of Ten Million Eight Hundred

CTA Crim. Case No. 0-5258

"That on or about 15th day of April 2010, in

Finding probable cause against the accused, this Court

Accused Santos was arrested 11 on February 2, 2016 for

On April 1, 2016, CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-522, 0-523, and

on July 4, 2016 for the above-mentioned cases where the

On May 4, 20 16, an Information was filed against the

Accused Santos was arrested 18 on July 19, 2016 for CTA

On September 19, 2016, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-554 was

Trial ensued and the prosecution presented only one

On April 3, 20 17, accused moved for leave of court25 to file

Thereafter, accused proceeded with the presentation of

On August 22, 20 17, accused filed their Formal Offer of

On October 27, 2017, the prosecution filed its

Thus, on December 11, 2017, the instant case was deemed

The parties stipulated the following issue:

Whether or not accused is guilty of violating Sections 254

Ruling of the Court

In order to resolve these consolidated cases, it is best to

The evidence revealed that the accused acquired seven (7)

Q34. How about the reason why the acquisition by

However, the prosecution was able to provide evidence

XMQ6119 buses in 20083 7 and seventeen (17) HYUNDAI buses

Engine No. Plate No.

The prosecution proved that the acquisitions in 2008 of

and 1077-1078, respectively.

The defense presented evidence showing that acquisition

Purchase Price p 16,800,000.00

As shown above, the total cost of said buses is not

Plate No. PN No. Date Started Amount Financed

As to the other 4 buses (KING LONG Model XMQ6119 with

Contract Price/Unit p 4,000,000.00

40 Id., Exhibits A-33 to A-33-D, pp. 1407-1412.