3Republic of tbe llbihppines

~upretne (!Court
;!flllnnila

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 264192

PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, Present:

-versus- LEONEN, SA.J., Chairperson,

LAZARO-JAVIER,
LOPEZ, M.,
REBECCA S. TIOTANGCO, LOPEZ, J., and
Respondent. KHO, JR., JJ

Promulgated:

DE C ISIO N

LOPEZ, M., J.:

Once again, we encounter the question of whether a final assessment is

necessary to a j udgment for civil liability for unpaid taxes in the same criminal
action for violation of tax laws. Indeed, this Court is aware that in various tax-
re lated criminal actions filed before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), the CTA
ruled on the innocence or guilt of the taxpayer-accused but without a finding
for the civil liabi lity for taxes due to the absence of a formal assessment from
the Commissioner oflnternal Revenue (CIR). In this case, we reiterate that a
final decision on disputed assessment is not a condition precedent to the
imposition of civil liability in the criminal action. 1 Under the expanded
jurisdiction of the CT A,2· the tax court should make a determination on the
civil liability for unpaid taxes of 'the taxpayer-accused since the civil action
for collection is deemed instituted with the criminal action for the tax laws
violation.

/'eop!e v. /\·fend<!~, G.R. Nos. 2083 10- 11 and 208662, M arch 28, 2023, [Per J.M. Lopez, En Banc].
See Republ ic A ct (RA) No. 9282, entitl ed "An Act Expanding the Jurisd iction of the Court of Tax
Appeals (CTA), Elcvnting lis Rr.nk lo the Level of A Co llegiate Court W ith Special Jurisdiction and
Enlarging Its M embership, Amending for the Purpose Certa in Sections of Repub lic Act No. 1125, As
Amended, Otherwise Known as rhe L aw Creatin g the Court of Tax Appeals, and for Other Purposes,"

r
approved on March 30, '.2004.
Deci sion '
.t.. G.R. No. 264 192

For the Court's resolution i:~ a Petition for Review on Certiorari3 under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court fi i(:d by the People of the Philippines (P.eople),
through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), seeking to reverse the
4
Dec ision dated June 9, 2022 rmd the Resolution 5 dated November 4, 2022 of
the CTA En Banc in CTA EB Crim. No. 086 that affirmed the Decision 6 dated
February 26, 2020 and the Resolution 7 dated December 9, 2020 of the CTA
D ivision. The CTA Division did not rui e on the civil liabi lity of Rebecca S.
Tiotangco (Rebecca) despite the fin ding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt of
two counts of v iolation of Section 255 8 of the National Internal Revenue Code
of 1997, as amended (1997 Tax Code), in CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0 -602 and
0 -605 for lack of valid assessment.

ANTECEDENTS

Rebecca was charged with violation of Section 255 of the J 997 Tax
Code in two Informations filed before the CTA on August 17, 20 16. 9 The
accusatory of the Inform ations read:

CTt/ Crim. Case No. 0 -602

T hat o n or about April 15, 20 11 and thereafter, in Puerto Prinsesa

C ity, and w ithi n the jurisdic tio n of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, a registered taxpayer and entrepreneur of Anilos Trad ing and
Constn,ction and req uired by law to fil e income tax returns and to pay the
corresponding tax, did then and there w ill ful ly, unlawfully and felo niciusly
fa il to supply correct and accurate information in her income tax returns for
the taxable year 20 IO by not declaring her other sources or income
amounting to Eleven Million[,1 Five Hundred Seventy[-]Nine Thousand[,]
Th ree Hundred Seventy[-]Four Pesos and 8/100 ([PHP] 11 ,579,374.08),
thereby resulting in defi c iency tax in the amount of Three Million[,] Four
I

Rollo, pp. 4 1- 62.

Id. at I 0- 25. Penned by Assoc iate Justice Ma. Belen M . Ringpis-Liban, w ith the concurrence of
Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario and Associate Justices Juanito C. Castaneda, .Ir., Erl inda P. Uy.
Catherine T . Manahan, M aria Rowena Modes to-San Pedro, Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fa_jarclo, and Lanee S.
Cui-David. A ssociate Justice Jean M arie A. Bacorro- Vi llena concurred in the result.
Id. at 27- 32. Penned by Assoc iate Justice M a. 8elen M . Ringpis-Liban, w ith the concurrence of
Associate Justices Erlinda P. Uy, Catherine T. Manahan, M aria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, M arian
Ivy r. Rey es-Faj ardo, and Lanee S. Cui-David. Presiding Justice Ro,nan G. Del Rosario w ith Concurring
Opinion . A ssociate Just ice Jean Marie A . Bacorro-Vi llena maintained her concurrence in the res ult.
Associate Justi ce Corazon G. Ferrer-F lores took no part.
6
Id. at 95- I 18. Penned by Associate Ju~ticc Catherine T. Manahan, w ith the co ncurrence or Associate
Justice Esperan za R. Fabon- Victorino. Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario w ith Concurring and
D issenting Opinion. The Decision w<1s i~sued hy the Court of Tax A ppeals. First Division.
/cl. at I 19-- 127. Penned by A ssociate Justice Catherine T. Manahan . Pres iding Justice Roman G. Del
Rosario maintain ed his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion. A ssoc iate Justi ce Jean Marie A. Bacorro-
Vi llena with Concurr ing Opinion. The Resolution was issued by the Court of T ax Appeals, Fi rst
Division.
Section 255. Failure to F ile Ro!l11m, Supply Correct and Accurate ll~for111atio11, Pay Tux, Withhold
and Remit Tax and Refund i:.--.,cess Taxes Withheld 011 Compe11satio11. - · A ny person requ ired under
th is Code or by rules and regu lations prornulgmed thereunder to pay any tax, make a return, keep any
record. or supply correct and accura\e information, w ho willfully fails to pay such tax, make such
rrturn, keep such record, or supply such corn:ct a nd accurate info rma tion, or withhold or rem it
taxes withheld, or re fund exces., t:n:,~s w1thheld on com pensation, at thi.' time or tim es req uired by
law or rul es and regulations shal l, in addition to other penal ties provided hy law. uron conviction thereof~
be puni shed by a line of not less th!il Ten th ous?.nd pesos ((Pl-IP] 10,000) and suffer imprisonment of
not less thnn one ( I ) yea r bur not mo,-:2 !i1dn ten ( I 0) years. (Emphasis stq,pl ied)
9
CTA Crim. Case No. 0-602 wns rnf!led io Hie T hird Division whi le CTA Crim. Case No. O-60S wa~
rnffled 10 the First D ivision: r,11/0. p. 07

r
Decision 3 G.R. No. 264192

Hundred Sixty[-]Three Thousand[,] Ni ne Hundred Seventy Pesos and

01/100 ([PHP]J,463,970.01), excl usive of surcharges and interests.

Contrary to law. 10

CTA Crim. Case No. 0-605

That on or about April 15, 2009 and thereafter, in Puerto Prinsesa

City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, a registered taxpayer and entrepreneur of Anilos Trading and
Construction and required by law to fi le income tax returns and to pay the
corresponding tax, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and fe loni ously
fail to supply correct and accurate information in her income tax returns for
the taxable year 2008 by not declaring her other sources of income
amounting to FIFTY[-]NINE MILLION[,] SEVEN HUNDRED ONE
THOUSAND[,] FIVE HUNDRED ETGHTY[-]EIGHT AND 44/100
([PHP] 59,70 1,588.44), thereby resulting in deficiency tax in the amount of
NINETEEN MILLION[,] FOUR HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND[,]
THREE HUNDRED NlNpTY[-]NINE AND 40/100 ([PHP]
19,404,399.40), excl usive of surcharges and interests.

Contrary to law. 11

The tax court found probable cause for the issuance of arrest wanants.
Subsequently, Rebecca posted bail and pleaded "not guilty" on arraignment.
The cases were consolidated, and then trial on the merits ensued. 12

On February 26, 2020, the CTA Division found Rebecca guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense charged . The prosecution proved that Rebecca
willfully failed to supply correct and accurate information in her annual
income tax returns for the taxable years 2008 and 2010. However, the CTA
Division ruled that no proper determination ofRebecca's civil liabilities could
be made since the requ ired assessment procedures to collect taxes were not
complied with. 13 The excerpts of the Decision follow:

There is no civil liability against the

1
accused,

The prosecution presented a Letter of Authority SN:

eLA201100045739 (LOA-2 11-20 13-00000 180) dated September 25, 2013
authorizing revenue officers May Quiambao, Cristina Kahulugan, and
group supervisor Jose Maria Reyes of the National Investigation Division
to examine the books of accounts and other accounting records of Rebecca
S. Tiotangco for al I internai revenue taxes for the period January 1, 2008 to
December 31 , 20 12, pursuant to the Run After Tax Evaders (RATE)
Program.

Also presented in evidence were the Preliminary Assessment Notice

(PAN) dated June 18, 2018 and Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment
Notice (FLD/FAN) dated July 13, 2018.

10
lei. at 96.
II / c/. at 96- 97.
12
Id. at I 1- 12 and 96- 97.
" /c/.atl0l - 113.

!
Decision 4 G.R. No. 264192

However, accused denied receiv ing the assessments:

32.) Q - Awhile ago you said that you were shocked and
confused when you learned that the Bureau of Internal
j

Revenue is suing you for deficiency in payment of Value

Added Tax in your projects with the Provinc ial Government
of Pala wan, can you elaborate on these?

A - 1 was shocked because I did not receive any assessment

from the BIR regarding the all eged tax deficiency. xx x

T he prosecution presented only the registry receipts attached to the

PAN and FLD/FAN which proved at most that the said notices were mailed.
However, the prosecution did not present any evidence that such notices
were indeed received by the accused. Failing that, the assessment is deemed
void for failure to comply with due process.

While an assessment of the tax before a criminal action 1s not

necessary, a civil actio n for collection for the tax requires that the
assessment procedures be first complied with. As such, no proper
determination of the civil li abilit ies can be made by the Court in the instant
case.

WHEREFORE, the Cburt find s accused Rebecca S. Tiotangco

GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT on two (2) counts of
violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as
amended, and sentences her for each offense charged in CTA Criminal
Case No. 0-602 and CTA Criminal Case No. 0--605, to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of one (1) year, as minimum, to two (2) years as
maximum term of imprisonment, and is ORDERED TO PAY a fine in the
amount of [Pl-IP] I 0,000.00, w ith subsidiary imprisonment in case she has
no property with which to meet such fi ne pursuant to Section 280 of the
NJ RC of 1997, as amended.

SO ORDERED. 14 (Emphasis in the original)

On reconsideration, the CTA Division affirmed Rebecca's conviction.

The CTA Division reiterated that it cannot properly determine Rebecca's civil
liabil ity for deficiency taxes for lack of a valid assessment. 15

Before the CTA En Banc, the sole issue raised was whether the CTA
D ivision "erred in holding that a tax deficiency cannot be collected in a
criminal proceeding in cou1i without an assessment." 16

O n June 9, 2022, the CTAEn Banc ruled that while Section 205 of the
1997 Tax Code explicitly mandates the inclusion of an order for payment of
the unpaid taxes in the judgment in the criminal case, it is also clear that there
must first be a final determination of such civil liabil ity by the CIR. Without
such final determination, there will be no basis for the CTA to rule on the civil

1~ ic/.atl l'.2- !13 .

15
Id.at 12:2-1 2:i .
1
" Id. at 13.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 264192

liability of the taxpayer-accused, as in th-is case. 17 Thus:

WHEREFORE, the present Petition for Review is DENIED.

According ly, the Assailed Decision and Resolution of the CTA Division in
CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-602 and 0-605 are both AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 18 (Emphasis in the original)

Unsuccessful at reconsideration, 19 the People, as represented by the

OSG, elevates the case to this Court, insisting that a final assessment is not
necessary for a finding of civil liability for deficiency taxes following Section
203,20 in relation to Section 222 21 of the J 997 Tax Code, which allows a
proceeding in court for the collection of deficiency tax without prior
assessment. 22

In her Comrnent,2 3 Rebecca counters that the issues raised by the People
in its Petition are questions of fact which are not the proper subj ect of an
appeal by certiorari. Rebecca asserts that since she did not receive any formal
assessment from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), there is no basis for
the CTA to collect her civil liability.24

ISSUE

The core issue in this case is whether a final assessment is necessary for
the imposition of civil liability fo r taxes in the same criminal action.

RULING

The Petition is meritorious.

Preliminarily, the issue of whether a final assessment is necessary to

determine the taxpayer-accused's civil liability for deficiency taxes is not a
question of fact that is beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition. A question of
fact exists when its resolution demands the calibration of evidence, the

17
Id. at 13- 24.
18
Id. at 24.
19
Id. at 27- 32.
20
Section 203 . Period of Limitation Upon Assessment and Collection.- Except as provided in Section
222, interna l revenue taxes shall be assessed within three (3) years after the last day prescribed by law
for the filing of the return, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes
shal l be begun after the expiration of such period: Provided, That in a case where a return is filed beyond
the period prescribed by law, the three (3)-ycar period shall be counted from the day the return was filed.
For purposes of this Section, a return fil ed before the last day prescribed by law for the fi ling thereof
shall be considered as l·i led on such last ,fay.
21
Section 222. E:..:c.:eptions as lo Period (4Li111ilatio11 o/Assessment and Collection o/Taxes. -
(a) In the case ofa false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of failure to file a return, the tax
may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be filed without assessment,
at any time within ten ( 10) years afte r the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission: Provided, That in
a fraud assessment which has become final and executory, the fact of fraud shal l be judicially taken
cognizance of in the civ il or criminal action fo r the collection thereof.
xxxx
.,.. Rollo, pp. 50- 55.
~, lei. at 187- 192.
"·1 !d. at 188- 191.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 264 192

determination of the credibility of witnesses, the existence and the relevance

of the attendant circumstances, and the probability of specific situations. In
contrast, the re is a question of law when t here is doubt or controversy as to
what the law is on a certain set of facts .25

Thus, whi.le the Court may rule on the necessity of a valid assessment
as a precondition for the collection of the taxpayer-accused' s civil liabi lity, a
question of law, it does not extend to the computation or determination of the
taxpayer-accused's civil liability, a factual question that would require us to
review and calibrate the evidence of record. Well-settled is the rule that the
Court is not a trier of fac ts.

A valid assessment for deficiency taxes

is not a prerequisite for collecting the
taxpayer-accused's civil liability for
unpaid taxes in the criminal
prosecution for tax law violations

The CTA refused to impose civil liability for unpaid taxes on Rebecca
despite the finding of guilt in the criminal case because of the lack of a valid
assessment. According to the CTA, the BJR's failure to prove that Rebecca
received the assessment notices was tantamount to violating her right to due
process, which would invalidate the assessment. 26 Under Section 205 of the
1997 Tax Code, a formal assessment is required to award civil liability in
criminal cases. Therefore, without a valid assessment, there is no basis for the
CTA to rule on Rebecca's civil liability. 27

We disagree.

In the recent case of People v. Mendez,28 the Court clarified that with
the advent of Republic Act (RA) No. 9282, a formal assessment is no longer
a condition precedent to the imposition of civil liability for unpaid taxes
relative to the criminal tax case, viz. :

[B]efore the law expanded the jurisdiction of the CTA in RA No. 9282, the
government was not required to collect taxes in the same crimina l action for
violation o f the tax laws. In 2004, Congress enacted RA No. 9282,
expanding the jurisdiction of the CTA. Section 7 (b )( I) of RA No. 9282, in
re lation to Section 11 , Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax
Appeals, reads:

[Section 7 (b)( I), RA No. 92821

[Section] 7 . .Jurisdidion. - The CTA shall exercise:

xxxx

25 People v. Olpimlo, G.R. No. 25286 1, febrL1ary 15, 2022 [Per C.J. Gesmundo, En Banc].
26
Rollo. p. 23.
17 Id. at 13-17.
28 G. R. Nos. 2033 I 0- 11 and 208662, iVlarch 28, 2023 [Per J. M. Lopez, En Banc].

I
Decision 7 G.R. No. 264 192

(b) Jurisdiction over cases invo lving criminal offenses as herein

provided:

( 1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal

offenses arising from violations of the National
Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code
and other laws administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue or the Bureau of C usto1'ns:
Provided, however, T hat offenses or felonies
mentioned in this paragraph where the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and
penalties, claimed is less than One m illion pesos
([PHP] 1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified
amo unt claimed shall be tried by the regu lar Courts
and the jurisd iction of the CTA shall be appe llate.
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
civil liability for taxes and penalties shall at all
times be simultaneously instituted with, and
jointly determined in the same proceeding 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 filling
of such civil action separately from the criminal
action will be recognized.

[Section 11, Rule 9, Revised Rules of the Court of Tax A ppeals]

[Section] 11. Inclusion ofcivil action in criminal action. - In cases

within the jurisdiction of the Court, the criminal action and the
corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability and
penalties shall be deemed jointly instituted in the same
proceeding. The filing of the criminal action shall necessarily
carry with it the filing of the civil action. No right to reserve the
filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action
shall be allowed or recognized.

lndeed, the institution of the criminal action shall carry with it the
corresponding civi l action for taxes and penalties. We have repeatedly held
that the use of "shall" in a sta'tute connotes the mandatory nature of the
requirements and denotes an imperative obligation. Its use rendered the
provision mandatory. Therefore, the government cannot file a civil suit
for tax collection independently from the related criminal case. Simply,
the filing of a complaint for an offense that involves liability for unpaid
taxes, such as willful neglect to fil e a return and pay the tax, wiliful fai lure
to supply correct information in the return, and willful failure to withhold,
account for or rem it withholding taxes, automatical ly carries with it the
fil ing of a co llection case for defi ciency taxes.

It may be asked : since the civil action for collection is deemed

institlilted in the criminal tax case, is a final decision of the CIR on the
disputed assessment strn rctiufred for the BIR to collect delinquent tax
in the same criminal case pursuant to Section 205?

We answer in the negative.

Decision 8 G.R. No. 264192

Section 17 of RA No. 9282 is a general repealing clause as it fails to

identify or designate the laws or rules intended to be repealed. As such, the
presumption against implied repeals wi ll be applied. It must be noted that
repeals by implication are not favored in our jurisdiction. The legislature is
presumed to know the existing laws so that if repeal is intended, the proper
step is to express it. The fa ilure to add a specific repealing clause indicates
that the intent was not to repea~ any existing law unless there is a showing
that a plain, unavoid able, and irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy
exists in the terms of the new and old laws.

There is an implied repeal of Section 205 of the Tax Code (1)

requiring a prior finding of delinquency for the government to
exercise its remedy to collect in a criminal action and (2) allowing a
separate civil suit for collection and criminal action by Section 7 (b)(1)
of RA No. 9282.

To begin with, Section 205 of the Tax Code specifically prescribes

the "civi I remed ies for the collection of internal revenue taxes, fees, or
charges, and any increment thereto resulting from delinquency x x x by
criminal action." Further, ''[tlhejudgment in the criminal case shall not on ly
impose the penalty but shall also order payment of the taxes subject of the
criminal case as finally decided by the Com missioner.'' Next, Section 205
gives the CIR discretion to pursue the civil and criminal action
simultaneously. On the other hand, the clear import of Section 7 (b)(l) of
RA No. 9282 is to treat the criminal action as a collection case for unpaid
taxes relative to the criminal, case. Verily, both provisions cover the
institution of a collection case for delinquent taxes in a criminal case.

There is a substantial inconsistency between the terms of the two

laws. Section 205 requires delinquency, meaning the taxpayer must have
fail ed to pay the assessed tax within the period stated in the notice and
demand. On the other hand, RA No. 9282 mandates "the filing of the
criminal action being deemed to necessari ly carry with it the filing of the
civi I action." However, a formal assessment is not reg uired in the
prosecution of criminal cases for v iolation of tax laws. Therefore, by
requiring the s imultaneo us institution of the criminal case for v iolation of
the tax laws and the civil case for collection of taxes and penalties relative
to the criminal case in the same proceeding with the CTA, Congress
dispensed with the requirement of delinquency as a pre-condition to
collection. In other words, while Section 205 of the Tax Code mandates a
final decision of the CIR on the disputed assessment so that ·'[t]hejudgment
in the criminal case shall not only impose the penalty but shall also order
payment of the taxes subject of the criminal case asfinally decided by the
[CIR]," Section 7(b)(l) of RA No . 9282 impli edly repealed the same by
allowing the government to collect from the taxpayer its tax liabilities
without the formal assessment. '

It is observed that Section 7 (b)(I) of RA No. 9282 and Section 11,

Rule 9 of Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (IUZCTA) contemplate
a scenario where no civil suit for collection has yet been instituted at the
time of filing the criminal ~1dion. In case the civil action was filed before
the institution of the criminal action, or the government filed an answer to
the taxpayer's petition for review before the CTA, the civi I action (or the
resolution of the taxpayer's petition) shal I be suspended before judgment on
the merits, and shall last unti l final judgment is rendered in the criminal
Decision 9 G.R. No. 264 192

action. However, before judgment o n the merits is rendered in the civil

action, it may be conso lidated with the crimina l action. Section 2, Rule 111
of the Rules of Court, w hich applies suppletory to the RRCTA, reads:

Therefore, the government is not preduded from assessing the

taxpayer for deficiency taxes in accordance with Section 228 of the Tax
Code-the issuance of Preliminary and Final Assessment Notices , allowinab
the taxpayer to respond to the notices and contest the assessment, and the
issuance of the final notice and demand - while the criminal case is
pending. It may then introduce .in evidence the taxpayer-accused's liability
for unpaid taxes as finally determined by the CIR in the same criminal case.
The taxpayer, on the other hand, may avail itself of the remedies outlined in
the law to prevent the assessment from becoming final and executory - fi le
its protest to the Final Assessment Notice within 30 days from receipt and
thereafter appeal to the CTA within 30 days the decision or inaction of the
C IR on the d isputed assessment .. . .

Accordingly, the CTA erro neously refused to make a determ ination

on the civil liability for unpaid taxes on the part of accused Joel on the
ground of lack of a fo rmal assessment duly issued by the CIR. Under RA
No. 9282, a formal assessment is no longer a condition precedent to the
im position of civil liability for unpaid taxes relative to the crimina l tax
case.29 (Emphasis in the original)

The Court En Banc laid down these guidelines:

( l) When a criminal act,ion for violation of the tax laws is filed, a

prior assessment is not req uired. Neither [is] a final assessment . . . a
precondition to collection of delinquent taxes in the criminal tax case. The
criminal action is deemed a collection case. Therefore, the government must
prove two th ings: one, the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable
doubt, and two, the accused's civil liability for taxes by competent evidence
(other than an assessment).

(2) If before the institution of the criminal action, the government

fi led ([a]) a civil suit for coll ection, or ( [b]) an answer to the taxpayer's
petition for review before the CTA, the civil action or the resol ution of the
taxpayer's petition for review shall be suspended before judgment on the
merits until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. However,
before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civi l action, it may be
consolidated w ith the criminal action. In such a case, the judgment in the
criminal action shall inc lude a finding of the accused's civil liability for
unpaid taxes relative to the criminal case. 30

Here, the prosecution did not fi le a civil action for collection of

deficiency taxes apart from the Cfiminal case for violation of Section 255 of
the 1997 Tax Code. The criminal action is deemed a collection case.
Therefore, a prior assessmenl is not required for the CTA to rule on Rebecca's
deficiency tax liability. The amount of unpaid taxes and the corresponding
1
') Id.; c itations 0111 itted .
;o Id.

i
Decision 10 G.R. No. 264192

penalties can be determined by competent evidence, other than the formal

assessment.

At this juncture, we clarifi, that the order for payment of taxes in the
criminal case despite the absence o f a valid assessment is not a violation of
the taxpayer-accused's ri ght to d;.ie pr.c)cess. The essence of due process is that
taxpayers are able to present their case and adduce supporting evidence. 3 1
Since both the civil and criminal itnbilitics w ill be triedjointly, 32 the taxpayer-
accused can di spute the alleged deficiency taxes in the same crim inal action
by presenting competent evidence. Unlike in a civil case for collection, where
notices of the assessment are part of the due process requirement, 33 a precise
computation and final determ ination of a deficiency tax is not required in a
criminal case for tax violations.34 As decreed in Mendez, in a criminal action
for tax violation, the government must prove not only the guilt of the accused
by proof beyond reasonable doubt, but also the civil liability for taxes by
competent evidence (other than an assessment). 35

Proper recourse is to remand the

case to the CTA

T he Court is not a trier of facts . We are only confined to the issues

ra ised by the parties that are qualified as questions of law. Hence, there is a
need to remand the case to the CTA Division to determine Rebecca's civ il
liability in CTA Crim . Case Nos. 0 -602 and 0-605 for willful failure to fil e
to supply correct and acc urate information in her income tax returns for the
taxable years 20 IO and 2008.

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. T he Decision dated

June 9, 2022 and the Resolution dated November 4, 2022 of the Court of Tax
Appeals En Banc in CTA EB Crim. No. 086 are REVERSED. The case is
REMANDED to the Court of Tax Appeals, First Division to determine
Rebecca S. T iotangco' s civil liability for taxes and penalties for the taxable
years 2008 and 20 I 0. T he Court of Tax Appeals, F irst D ivision is
DIRECTED to conduct the proceedings w ith reasonable dispatch.

-' 1 C IR v. A!etro Srar Super,1111,1, :,'k·., ()52 ~•hil. l Tl, I t,4 (20 I 0) [Per .I . Mendoza, Second Division].
12 See Section 7 (b)( l ) of RA No. 97.32.
'·' In ( '/R v. Pi/ipinos Shell l't.>lrdc.:11111 Cu,pc-ration. 1U5 Phil. 875, 904 (2018) lPer J. Leonardo-Oe Cas1rn,
First Di vision!, this Cour, rr: iterated t!1 t! im pcnancc tif a va lid tax assessment in a civil action fo1
colkrtion ( ,r ta,es as part uf ,:hie proce;-;s:
In the normal cou,·s,: ofia:-.. ad111 111is1r::1tiOI! ~nd t nforce111ent, the BIR 111us1 firs: make
Jn Jf>sc:ss1nent then -:nforce tl !G ccilc.ct\,,.1 ul' tl 1e amounts so assessed. "l\n as~es:-;n 1;;>.nt
i:; not ;m action ,:,r proceed int for ti,:: c01:e.~tio11 of tr~:-:es. x x x It is a step prelimin::iry,
but es~e11tid w ,.,,,;:i1T>1nt dis1n1int. 11" st iP tea,iblt!, and, ai,,o, to establ ish a ca11"e fc,1
jud1ci,tl aclillil."' :he t3!R may surnman !:, enforce rnll0ction only when it !las acco:·ded
·th"' .axp11ver ,1drniT1 1'.;trntivc dc:e or•Jce~s. which virally includrs the is,rnan,.;e of"a val id
assessme;;t. :\ v,;i;J ;,:,!;t.:•:sment ~11t"ficie11liy intonm the taxpayer in writiiig of!he kgal
,l!id foc1 1rnl b;:;:;,~s ot tlic sa id c1:-.s('~s111cnt, 1.h•:n;hy :il low ing the taxpay:~r l 1J efli.'ctiv dy
protest the i1.,;s,?"~ n"r,~:i1 and addt:Ct,:,uppon11,::! ,·11 idence in it~ behal l".
1' Si'e /i11,<.:,afi r (.'w·i .!,·.. i 8C; P)r;: . 60<-l, ti l I} ( 1930) I l)i:r .i. C \,ncepcion. Jr., SeconJ Di vi:,ion ] .
Pct·/1/e 1·. :\i'e11cl<·:·. G.R. N,,,:. :·208-; I 0- 1 ! :::id 20i'>IJ6~. :,mm.:11 '.28, 2023 i Per J. rvl. I .0p~1.. Fn l>,'/1/r:I.

r
•:·
Decision 11 G.R. No. 264 l 92

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

----
. -~, ,
·-~ ~
.,;n~:1/ /, .,,..-"7.
( --~}-?
~
••~ • ,'

MARV[, . .F.
Senior Assoc iate Justice

AM,;' #t:;;;~-JA VIER JHOS~~tOPEZ

Associate.Justice Associate Justice

~----- - · ,..---.-~ -
.-------£~t(>1\f-«J T:;:kJ1 O~ "'
Associate J ustice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decis ion had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of Lhe opinion of the
Court's D ivision.
,'/ .,//
-~, /q.::/ //,:,/}// /
________ -~:?Z'~tf::C~/(' /
/
____. 1\,1ARVIUi.v .F. LEO 1 N
Senjor Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Divis.ion

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VJIJ, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, 1 certit)' that the conclusions in the above
Decis ion had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Courfs Division.