People v. Docena

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CRIM. CASE NO. O-087. March 12, 2014.] For: Violation of Sec. 255 in relation to Sec. 253 (d) of the NIRC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff, vs . EFREN O. DOCENA and ROLANDO E. PALAD, SOUTH SEA SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. , accused . AMENDED DECISION UY , J p : This resolves the " MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION " on July 30, 2013 filed by defense counsel for both accused, 1 with the prosecution's " COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION " thereto, filed on September 6, 2013, 2 seeking the reconsideration of this Court's Decision dated July 15, 2013, insofar as the civil liabilities of said accused are concerned. Additionally, records show that prior to the promulgation of the Decision rendered in this case, a " MOTION TO DISMISS " was filed by defense counsel, for and on behalf of accused Efren O. Docena on June 7, 2013. 3 Considering that the Certificate of Death 4 attached thereto was a mere photocopy, defense counsel was directed to submit the original or certified true copy of said Certificate in the Order dated June 24, 2013. 5 The same was complied with by defense counsel only on July 30, 2013. 6 In the interim, this Court promulgated its Decision on July 15, 2013, 7 the dispositive portion of which reads: " WHEREFORE , the two accused EFREN O. DOCENA and ROLANDO E. PALAD are hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. TCDHIc However, the two named accused are directed to jointly or severally pay the remaining balance of the assessed deficiency DST and compromise penalty in the amount of Php4,778,692.07 plus deficiency interest of twenty (20%) percent thereof from the day of default, as indicated in the schedule of payment pursuant to Section 249 D, in relation to Section B of the NIRC, as amended. SO ORDERED ." Subsequently on July 30, 2013, defense counsel for both accused filed the instant " MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION " of the above Decision with the prosecution's " COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION " thereto filed on September 6, 2013. Thus, We shall resolve, in this Amended Decision, the said Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Dismiss . HTCaAD In the Motion for Reconsideration , defense counsel prays for the exoneration of said accused from being personally, jointly and severally liable to pay the obligation of South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. in the amount of P4,778,692.07, representing deficiency Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) and compromise penalty plus deficiency interest of twenty percent (20%) from the day of default. Defense counsel argues that the latter were merely officers of South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. and no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove that they committed any fraud or any illegal act which would make them personally liable for the obligations of the said corporation. Allegedly, a corporation is a juridical entity with a separate and distinct personality from its officers acting for and in its behalf and therefore, the obligations incurred by the corporation, acting through its directors and officers, are allegedly its sole liabilities. Said legal fiction may only be disregarded if it is used to perpetrate fraud or an illegal act, or as a vehicle for the evasion of existing obligation, the circumvention of statutes, or to confuse legitimate issues, citing Section 31 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines. Hence, to hold a director or an officer personally liable for corporate obligations, the following requisites must allegedly concur: (1) there must be an allegation in the complaint that the director or officer assented to patently unlawful acts of the corporation, or that the officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith; and (2) there must be a clear and convincing proof of such unlawful act, negligence or bad faith. Defense counsel claims that the prosecution failed to establish the foregoing requisites; and that the prosecution did not allege or prove specific acts to warrant a finding of solidary liability other than a general allegation that both accused are corporate officers or members of the board of directors of South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. On the other hand, the prosecution argues that Sections 255 and 253 (d) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended, applies in the instant case and not Section 31 of the Corporation Code because these provisions of the Tax Code clearly define the direct, distinct and separate liability of the accused-individuals. Since it was never disputed that the accused Efren O. Docena and Rolando E. Palad were then the President and EVP/COO, respectively, of the corporation, the prosecution contends that accused-individuals are the persons required under the Tax Code to pay the deficiency tax assessment. Moreover, the prosecution avers that had the two accused made true their offer to settle the 2003 deficiency DST liability of South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. by paying the six (6) installments from August 15, 2005 to January 15, 2006, the Bureau of Internal Revenue would not have filed the instant case. In the Motion to Dismiss , defense counsel prays for the dismissal of the instant case insofar as accused Docena is concerned, on the ground that the latter's criminal liability has been extinguished when he died on April 15, 2013, pursuant to Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. THE COURT'S RULING After taking a second hard look at the arguments of both parties vis-a-vis the applicable law and jurisprudence in this case, We find merit in both motions filed by accused, through counsel. TAacHE The civil liability to pay the assessed deficiency Documentary Stamp Tax is a corporate obligation of South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. In Proton Pilipinas Corporation vs. Republic of the Philippines , 8 involving a corporate-taxpayer, the Supreme Court ruled: caADSE ". . . . It should be borne in mind that the tax and the obligation to pay the same are all created by statute; so are its collection and payment governed by statute. The payment of taxes is a duty which the law requires to be paid. Said obligation is not a consequence of the felonious acts charged in the criminal proceeding nor is it a mere civil liability arising from crime that could be wiped out by the judicial declaration of non-existence of the criminal acts charged. Hence, the payment and collection of customs duties and taxes in itself creates civil liability on the part of the taxpayer . Such civil liability to pay taxes arises from the fact, for instance, that one has engaged himself in business, and not because of any criminal act committed by him. xxx xxx xxx . . . . Taxes being personal to the taxpayer, it can only be enforced against herein petitioner because the payment of unpaid customs duties and taxes are the personal obligation of the petitioner as a corporate taxpayer, thus, it cannot be imposed on its corporate officers , much so on its individual stockholders, for this will violate the principle that a corporation has personality separate and distinct from the persons constituting it . . . ." (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In the instant case, it is undisputed that South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. is the corporate taxpayer, which the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) found to have been assessed for DST and compromise penalty covering taxable year 2003. 9 In this connection, it has been held that " (a)n assessment fixes and determines the tax liability of a taxpayer . As soon as it is served, an obligation arises on the part of the taxpayer concerned to pay the amount assessed and demanded. " 10 Thus, considering that the subject assessments have been made against South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., the obligation to pay the said DST and compromise penalty rests upon said corporation, and not upon the two (2) accused. DHESca Moreover, the Amended Information dated May 17, 2010 itself states that the deficiency documentary stamp tax and compromise penalty is due and collectible from South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. and not from accused Docena and Palad, as corporate officers of said company. The Amended Information reads: "That on or about May 9, 2005, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other and being then the President and EVP/COO, respectively , of SOUTH SEA SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., with business address at Suite 501 5/F East Tower, Philippine Stock Exchange Center, Exchange Road, Ortigas Complex, Pasig City, having filed their internal revenue tax for the year 2003, and after an examination and audit of the same, it has been found out that there is due and collectible from said SOUTH SEA SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. , under Assessment Notice No. LN No. 025-34-2004 dated May 9, 2005, the amounts of Php5,773,176.07 and Php25,000.00 or all valued at Php5,758,176.07 representing DEFICIENCY DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX AND COMPROMISED PENALTY for the said year, did then and there willfully and unlawfully fail, refuse and neglect to pay said taxes and without formally protesting against or appealing the same despite due notice and demand to do so, to the damage and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines, in the aforesaid amount of Php5,758,176.07, Philippine Currency. Contrary to law." 11 (Italics supplied) Clearly, the amount of deficiency DST sought to be collected is the corporate obligation of South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., as the taxpayer-corporation, and not personal tax obligations of the accused-individuals. Such being the case, South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., as the delinquent taxpayer, must itself bear the burden of paying for the said tax liabilities. AcHCED Accused Docena and Palad cannot be held personally liable for the deficiency DST and compromise penalty. In the case of Heirs of Fe Tan Uy vs. International Exchange Bank , 12 the Supreme Court said: "Basic is the rule in corporation law that a corporation is a juridical entity which is vested with a legal personality separate and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and, in general, from the people comprising it. Following this principle, obligations incurred by the corporation, acting through its directors, officers and employees, are its sole liabilities. A director, officer or employee of a corporation is generally not held personally liable for obligations incurred by the corporation . Nevertheless, this legal fiction may be disregarded if it is used as a means to perpetrate fraud or an illegal act, or as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation, the circumvention of statutes, or to confuse legitimate issues. This is consistent with the provisions of the Corporation Code of the Philippines, which states: Sec. 31. Liability of directors, trustees or officers . Directors or trustees who wilfully and knowingly vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or who are guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation or acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such directors or trustees shall be liable jointly and severally for all damages resulting therefrom suffered by the corporation, its stockholders or members and other persons. Solidary liability will then attach to the directors, officers or employees of the corporation in certain circumstances, such as: DAEcIS 1. When directors and trustees or, in appropriate cases, the officers of a corporation: (a) vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation; (b) act in bad faith or with gross negligence in directing the corporate affairs; and (c) are guilty of conflict of interest to the prejudice of the corporation, its stockholders or members, and other persons; 2. When a director or officer has consented to the issuance of watered stocks or who, having knowledge thereof, did not forthwith file with the corporate secretary his written objection thereto; 3. When a director, trustee or officer has contractually agreed or stipulated to hold himself personally and solidarily liable with the corporation; or 4. When a director, trustee or officer is made, by specific provision of law, personally liable for his corporate action. Before a director or officer of a corporation can be held personally liable for corporate obligations, however, the following requisites must concur: (1) the complainant must allege in the complaint that the director or officer assented to patently unlawful acts of the corporation, or that the officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith; and (2) the complainant must clearly and convincingly prove such unlawful acts, negligence or bad faith ." (Emphases and underscoring supplied) In this case, there was no evidence, nor a finding that the accused Docena and Palad, as officers of South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., " assented to patently unlawful acts of the corporation "; or that said accused " was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith ". In fact, in the Court's Decision, We held: " All the foregoing coupled by the demeanor of accused Palad on the witness stand which mirrored his soul do not instill belief that he and his co-accused willfully and feloniously failed and refused to pay the assessed DST and compromise penalty to the damage and prejudice of the Government . In a criminal case, every circumstance favoring innocence of the accused must be duly taken into account. xxx xxx xxx The pieces of evidence presented show a pattern of affirmative acts on the attempt of the Corporation, through both accused, to pay the tax liability of the Corporation amidst financial distress. Clearly, these acts negate voluntary or purposeful intention, on the part of both accused, not to pay the tax liabilities of the Corporation . SDcITH Precisely the Court cannot subscribe to the prosecution's contention that the two accused are criminally liable for non-payment of DST and compromise penalty assessed by the BIR . It must be emphasized that the prosecution has the primordial duty not only to prove that a tax is due, but also to establish that the accused "willfully fails" to pay the tax due. In this regard, the prosecution utterly failed. It has been held that where the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt to warrant conviction of the accused for the offense charged was not established, accused should be acquitted." (Emphases supplied) Nevertheless, it is the prosecution's assertion that Section 31 of the Corporation Code does not apply in the instant case since Sections 255 and 253 (d) of the NIRC, as amended, clearly define the direct, distinct and separate liability of the accused-individuals. The prosecution added that accused Docena and Palad, who were then the President and EVP/COO of South Sea Surety & Insurance Co. Inc., are the persons required to pay the assessed deficiency DST and compromise penalty. We disagree. Sections 255 and 253 (d) of the NIRC of 1997 provide: "SEC. 255. Failure to File Return, Supply Correct and Accurate Information, Pay Tax, Withhold and Remit Tax and Compensation . Any person required under this Code or by rules and regulations promulgated hereunder to pay any tax, make a return, keep any record, or supply correct and accurate information, who wilfully fails to pay such tax, make such return, keep such record, or supply such correct and accurate information, or withhold or remit taxes withheld, or refund excess taxes withheld on compensation, at the time or times required by law or rules and regulations shall, in addition to the 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 . DHTCaI xxx xxx xxx." (Emphasis supplied) "SEC. 253. General Provisions . xxx 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 employees responsible for the violation." (Emphasis supplied) . Clearly, there is nothing in the aforequoted provisions making herein accused-individuals, as officers of South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., personally liable for the tax obligations of the corporation. What the foregoing provisions prescribe is the penal liability of responsible officers of a corporation, in case said officers are found guilty for violation of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997. Since accused Docena and Palad were acquitted for the crime charged, Section 253 (d) is of no moment. Accordingly, absent any finding of the commission of fraud or unlawful act on the part of the accused-individuals as officers of the corporation pursuant to Section 31 of the Corporation Code, the civil liability to pay the deficiency assessment remains to be the corporate obligation of South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. Effect of death of the accused Docena. In the Motion to Dismiss filed by defense counsel on June 7, 2013, it is alleged that accused Efren O. Docena died on April 15, 2013 and therefore his criminal liability is totally extinguished pursuant to Article 89 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, which reads: DaIACS "Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. xxx xxx xxx" In view however of the acquittal of both accused in this case and this Court's finding that both accused are also not civilly liable for the non-payment of DST and compromise penalty assessed by the BIR, the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss on the basis of Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, has become moot. CcADHI Nevertheless, had the death of accused Efren O. Docena been proven prior to the promulgation of the assailed Decision, this case should have been dismissed insofar as accused Docena is concerned, considering that upon his death " the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused ". 13 WHEREFORE , all the foregoing considered, the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration are hereby GRANTED . Accordingly, the dispositive portion of this Court's Decision promulgated on July 15, 2013 is hereby MODIFIED to read as follows: " WHEREFORE , the case is DISMISSED insofar as accused EFREN O. DOCENA is concerned; while accused ROLANDO E. PALAD is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. With regard to the civil liability, SOUTH SEA SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. is hereby ORDERED TO PAY the amount of FOUR MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETY TWO PESOS AND SEVEN CENTAVOS (P4,778,692.07) , representing the assessed deficiency DST and compromise penalty, plus 20% delinquency interest thereof per annum , counted from June 10, 2005 until fully paid, pursuant to Section 249(C)(3) of the NIRC of 1997." SO ORDERED . (SGD.) ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, J., concurs. Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, J., with Dissenting Opinion. Separate Opinions FABON-VICTORINO , J., dissenting opinion : With due respect, I dissent. In resolving the pending incidents, the majority holds that accused Docena and Palad should not be held solidarily liable for the payment of the remaining balance of the assessed deficiency documentary stamp tax (DST) and compromise penalty in the amount of P4,778,692.07, plus deficiency interest as stated in the assailed Decision of July 15, 2013. In the Motion to Dismiss, defense counsel claims that the case against accused Docena should be dismissed since the latter's criminal liability has been totally extinguished when he died on April 15, 2013, pursuant to Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that the criminal liability of an offender is totally extinguished by his death as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. In the Motion for Reconsideration, defense prays that the two accused be free from paying jointly and severally the remaining balance of the assessed deficiency Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) and compromise penalty, plus deficiency interest of twenty (20%) percent thereof from the day of default, as indicated in the schedule of payment. HCIaDT The relief prayed for is anchored on the allegation that the prosecution was unable to prove that the two accused committed fraud or any illegal act which would render them personally liable for the tax obligations of South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. Besides, the Corporation is a juridical entity with separate and distinct personality from its officers accused Docena and Palad. Thus, the conclusion that the remaining tax obligations of the corporation, acting through the two accused, are its sole liabilities. Allegedly, this legal fiction may only be disregarded under the circumstances cited in Section 31 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines which are lacking in the case at bar. There was no fraud, unlawful act or bad faith in not paying the BIR the DST due. The admitted non-payment of the remaining balance was due to the Cease and Desist Order issued by the Insurance Commission against the Corporation. Moreover, piercing the veil of corporate entity should be done with caution. 1 For the prosecution however, accused Docena and Palad were the persons required under the Tax Code to pay the deficiency tax assessment as responsible officers of the Corporation, pursuant to Sections 255 and 253 (d) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. In fact, they already paid portions of the obligation by installment from August 15, 2005 to January 15, 2006. There is no question that the death of accused Efren O. Docena on April 15, 2013 ipso facto extinguished his criminal liability as to personal penalties pursuant to Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code. caHCSD However, I respectfully submit that this fact and his subsequent acquittal with his co-accused Palad on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the element of "willfulness" in the commission of the crime charged, do not constitute extinction of their civil liability. In other words, the civil liability of both accused imposed by the Court in the assailed Decision remains notwithstanding the foregoing circumstances. It must be emphasized that death of accused extinguishes only the criminal liability, not the criminal act. Thus, only his personal punishment or the consequences upon his person that is obliterated by reason of his death. The cause and effect subsists and all those with participation in the commission of the crime must suffer the consequences of such participation. 2 Moreover, the Supreme Court has numerous times held that in case of acquittal, the accused may still be adjudged civilly liable. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action where (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused was acquitted. 3 Further the rule that the acquittal of an accused of the crime charged do not necessarily extinguish his civil liability, unless the court declares in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. 4 Courts can acquit an accused on reasonable doubt but still order payment of civil damages in the same case. 5 Notably, the two elements of the crime charged were not only proved by the prosecution but also admitted without qualification by the two accused. Only willful intent to commit the crime charged was not established which caused their acquittal. They were exonerated for absence or lack of willfulness on their part not to pay the taxes due. As stated earlier, they already paid six (6) installments of the tax liability in accordance with their settlement with the BIR when they were legally prevented from paying the balance thereof. In other words, they admitted the existence of the tax liability and their obligation to pay it only that they were prevented from making further payments in accordance with their undertaking by the Cease and Desist Order issued by the Insurance Commission. ICHAaT Being a criminal case against the Corporation, a juridical person created by legal fiction, it would be the responsible officers such as the two accused who would be charged and penalized, if found guilty. In fine, it is upon the two accused that the corresponding civil liability would be imposed. In the case of People vs. Tan Boon Kong 6 the Supreme Court held that the corporation can act only through its officers and agents and all who participate in the illegal act must necessarily answer for its consequences, thus: The question to be decided is whether the information sets forth facts rendering the defendant, as manager of the corporation liable criminally under section 2723 of Act No. 2711 for violation of section 1458 of the same act for the benefit of said corporation. Sections 1458 and 2723 read as follows: SEC. 1458. Payment of percentage taxes. Quarterly reports of earnings . The percentage taxes on business shall be payable at the end of each calendar quarter in the amount lawfully due on the business transacted during each quarter; and it shall be on the duty of every person conducting a business subject to such tax, within the same period as is allowed for the payment of the quarterly installments of the fixed taxes without penalty, to make a true and complete return of the amount of the receipts or earnings of his business during the preceding quarter and pay the tax due thereon. . . . (Act No. 2711.) SEC. 2723. Failure to make true return of receipts and sales . Any person who, being required by law to make a return of the amount of his receipts, sales, or business, shall fail or neglect to make such return within the time required, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both. TCaADS And any such person who shall make a false or fraudulent return shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand pesos or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. (Act No. 2711.) Apparently, the court below based the appealed ruling on the ground that the offense charged must be regarded as committed by the corporation and not by its officials or agents. This view is in direct conflict with the great weight of authority. A corporation can act only through its officers and agents, and where the business itself involves a violation of the law, the correct rule is that all who participate in it are liable ( Grall and Ostrand's Case, 103 Va., 855, and authorities there cited.) In case of State vs. Burnam (17 Wash., 199), the court went so far as to hold that the manager of a diary corporation was criminally liable for the violation of a statute by the corporation through he was not present when the offense was committed . In the present case the information or complaint alleges that he defendant was the manager of a corporation which was engaged in business as a merchant, and as such manager, he made a false return, for purposes of taxation, of the total amount of sale made by said false return constitutes a violation of law, the defendant, as the author of the illegal act, must necessarily answer for its consequences, provided that the allegation are proven . (emphasis supplied) SAHIaD Clearly, the civil liability of both accused remains. The Government still has the right to collect and be paid the remaining unpaid deficiency DST and compromise penalty assessed against the Corporation of which the two accused were responsible officers at the time of the assessment. It is also worth to note that South Sea Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. no longer exists or at the very least, had closed shop. In other words, there is no more corporation to speak of to be adjudged liable for the remaining balance of the unpaid deficiency DST. Significantly, it was the two accused who made the arrangement with the BIR and provided the manner by which such tax liability would be settled. It has been ruled that the tax and the obligation to pay the same are created and governed by statute; so are its collection and payment. The payment of taxes is a duty which the law requires. The said obligation is not a consequence of the felonious acts charged in the criminal proceeding nor is it a mere civil liability arising from crime that could be wiped out by the judicial declaration of non-existence of the criminal acts charged. Hence, the payment and collection of customs duties and taxes in themselves create civil liability on the part of the taxpayer. Such civil liability to pay taxes arises from the fact, for instance, that one has engaged himself in business, and not because of any criminal act committed by him. 7 On this note, I vote to deny the Motion for Reconsideration filed by both accused. Both accused should still be held jointly and severally liable to pay the total assessed amount of Php5,758,176.07 for deficiency DST and compromise penalty. TDAcCa Footnotes 1. Docket, pp. 609 to 613. 2. Docket, pp. 617 to 620. 3. Docket, pp. 581 to 582. 4. Docket, p. 583. 5. Docket, p. 584. 6. Docket, pp. 606 to 609. 7. Docket, pp. 589 to 605. 8. G.R. No. 165027, October 12, 2006. 9. Exhibits "G" to "G-1"; "M" to "M-1"; "N" to "N-1", and "O" to "O-1", Docket, pp. 143, and 150 to 152. 10. Emphasis supplied. Refer to Callanta, et al. vs. Office of Ombudsman, et al. , G.R. Nos. 115253-74, January 30, 1998; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Island Garment Manufacturing Corporation, et al. , G.R. No. L-46644, September 11, 1987; and Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Benipayo , G.R. No. L-13656, January 31, 1962. 11. Docket, pp. 107 to 108. 12. Heirs of Fe Tan Uy vs. International Exchange Bank, etseq , G.R. Nos. 166282 and 166283, February 13, 2013. 13. Refer to People of the Philippines vs. Agacer, et al. , G.R. No. 177751, January 7, 2013. FABON-VICTORINO, J., dissenting opinion: 1. G.R. Nos. 166282 and 166283, February 13, 2013. 2. People v. Innovero , 13 CA Rep. 74. 3. Jaime Alferez v. People of the Philippines , G.R. No. 182301, January 31, 2011, 641 SCRA 116, citing Ambito v. People , G.R. No. 127327, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 69, 94, citing Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi , G.R. No. 165496, February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 502, 513. 4. Bautista v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 46025, 2 September 1992, 213 SCRA 231, 236; Calalang v. IAC , G.R. No. 74613, 27 February 1991, 194 SCRA 514. 5. Padilla v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. L-39999, 31 May 1984, 129 SCRA 558, 567. People v. Jalandoni , G.R. No. L-57555, 28 August 1984, 131 SCRA 454; Maximo v. Garuchi , G.R. Nos. L-47994-97, 24 September 1986, 144 SCRA 326; Vizconde v. Intermediate Appellate Court , G.R. No. L-74231, 10 April 1987, 149 SCRA 226; People v. Ligon , G.R. No. L-74041, 29 July 1987, 152 SCRA 419. 6. G.R. No. L-35262, March 15, 1930. 7. Petron Pilipinas Corp. vs. Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Bureau of Customs , G.R. No. 165027, October 16, 2006.