People v. Tiotangco

FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CRIM. CASE NO. O-602. February 26, 2020.] (NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-141-00270) For: Violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff , vs. REBECCA S. TIOTANGCO, 153 Mabini St., Puerto Princesa City, Entrepreneur of Anilos Trading and Construction , accused . [C.T.A. CRIM. CASE NO. O-605. February 26, 2020.] (NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-141-00270) For: Violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff , vs. REBECCA S. TIOTANGCO, Entrepreneur of Anilos Trading and Construction , accused . DECISION MANAHAN , J p : Accused Rebecca S. Tiotangco is charged for violation of Section 255 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, as amended (NIRC), in the two Informations quoted below: CTA Crim. Case No. O-602 "The undersigned Assistant State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, hereby accuses REBECCA S. TIOTANGCO of violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, committed as follows: 'That on or about April 15, 2011 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 file income tax returns and to pay the corresponding tax, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to supply correct and accurate information in her income tax returns for the taxable year 2010 by not declaring her other sources of income amounting to Eleven Million Five Hundred Seventy Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Four Pesos and 8/100 (P11,579,374.08) , thereby resulting in deficiency tax in the amount of Three Million Four Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Pesos and 01/100 (P3,463,970.01) , exclusive of surcharges and interests.' CONTRARY TO LAW. " 1 CTA Crim. Case No. O-605 "The undersigned Assistant State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, hereby accuses REBECCA S. TIOTANGCO of violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, committed as follows: CTIEac '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 file income tax returns and to pay the corresponding tax, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to supply correct and accurate information in 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 EIGHTY EIGHT AND 44/100 (P59,701,588.44) , thereby resulting in deficiency tax in the amount of NINETEEN MILLION FOUR HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINETY NINE AND 40/100 (P19,404,399.40) , exclusive of surcharges and interests.' CONTRARY TO LAW. " 2 Antecedents The above-quoted Informations were filed with the Court on August 17, 2016, with CTA Crim. Case No. O-602 raffled to the Third Division, while CTA Crim. Case No. O-605 was raffled to the First Division. Both Divisions found probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against the accused Tiotangco and set the bail at Php20,000.00 for each case. 3 Accused posted bail before the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Puerto Prinsesa City. 4 Accused's arraignment for CTA Case No. O-602 was set on December 7, 2016, 5 while that for CTA Case No. O-605 was set on February 1, 2017. 6 Accused pleaded "Not Guilty" to both cases. 7 Meanwhile, accused filed a Motion for Consolidation 8 on January 20, 2017, which was granted, 9 and consolidated the cases before the Third Division. During the pre-trial conference on June 21, 2017, the parties stipulated the following facts: 1. Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, otherwise known as "An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals" grants exclusive original jurisdiction to the Honorable Court over all criminal offenses arising from violation of the provisions of the 1997 NIRC; and 2. The accused is the same person named and charged under the Informations filed. 10 The Pre-Trial Order (PTO) 11 was issued on July 7, 2017 to govern the proceedings, later amended on November 15, 2019, 12 to reflect accused's exhibit markings. SaCIDT During trial, the prosecution presented its witnesses: (1) Jose Maria Y. Reyes 13 on September 20, 2017 14 to prove the following: (a) that he is a Revenue Officer of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and was a member of the investigating team that conducted an investigation on accused Rebecca S. Tiotangco (accused); (b) that accused is a registered taxpayer of Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 36, Puerto Prinsesa City, Palawan and assigned with Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) 121-252-527-000; (c) that accused is a sole proprietor, doing business under the trade name Anilos Trading & Construction , a company engaged in the business of construction and sale of construction supplies; (d) that accused was engaged in the construction of several infrastructure projects in Palawan funded by the Malampaya Funds for taxable years 2008, 2009 and 2010; (e) that accused received payments from the Provincial Government of Palawan for said projects; (f) that accused willfully failed to supply correct and accurate information in her Income Tax Returns for taxable years 2008 and 2010; (g) that accused failed to supply correct and accurate information in her Quarterly Value Added Tax Returns for taxable years 2008 and 2010; (h) that accused committed tax evasion for taxable year 2008 and 2010; (i) that the Bureau of Internal Revenue filed criminal charges against accused; (j) other matters related to the foregoing, which includes the identification of documents in support of the foregoing; and, (k) other material allegations in the Information. 15 After which, the witness was subjected to cross and re-direct examinations. Mr. Reyes was subsequently recalled 16 on July 25, 2018 17 to prove that: (a) Preliminary Assessment Notice was issued and served to accused Rebecca S. Tiotangco; (b) Formal Letter of Demand was issued and served to accused; (c) accused has deficiency taxes due to the Government; (d) accused was informed about her deficiency taxes; and, (e) other matters related to the foregoing, which includes the identification of documents in support of the foregoing. 18 SCaITA (2) Edna R. Maligro 19 on October 18, 2017 20 to prove the following: (a) that she is an Accountant IV in the Office of the Provincial Accountant, Puerto Prinsesa City, Palawan; (b) that the Provincial Government of Palawan has records pertaining to accused; (c) that the Provincial Government of Palawan issued a certification dated December 5, 2013 stating its payments to accused; (d) that she prepared the schedule of payments attached to the certification dated December 5, 2013 issued by the Provincial Government of Palawan; (e) that she is privy to the documents attached to her judicial affidavit; (f) that accused received payments from the Provincial Government of Palawan; (g) Other matters related to the foregoing, which includes the identification of documents in support of the foregoing; and, (h) other material allegations in the Information. 21 Ms. Maligro's cross-examination was conducted on April 4, 2018. 22 (3) Arlene N. Sabellina 23 on October 18, 2017 24 to prove the following: (a) that she is the Assistant Provincial Accountant in the Office of the Provincial Accountant, Puerto Prinsesa City, Palawan; (b) that the Provincial Government of Palawan has records pertaining to accused; (c) that the Provincial Government of Palawan issued a certification dated December 5, 2013 stating its payments to accused; (d) that she certified as true the schedule of payments attached to the certification dated December 5, 2013 issued by the Provincial Government of Palawan; (e) that she is privy to the documents attached in her judicial affidavit; (f) that accused received payments from the Provincial Government of Palawan; (g) other matters related to the foregoing, which includes the identification of documents in support of the foregoing; and, (h) other material allegations in the Information. 25 After which, the witness was subjected to cross-examination. (4) Luzviminda S. Acosta 26 on April 4, 2018 to prove the following: (a) that she was an employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); (b) that she was the Head of the Data Processing Section (DPS) of the Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 36, Puerto Prinsesa City; (c) that Accused filed her income tax returns for taxable years 2008 and 2010; (d) the existence of accused's income tax returns for the taxable years 2008 and 2010 in the records of the BIR; (e) that she certified accused's income tax returns for the taxable years 2008 and 2010, as true copy of the original per BIR records; (f) other matters related to the foregoing, including the identification of documents in support thereof; and, (g) other material allegations in the Information. 27 After which, the witness was subjected to cross-examination. The prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Evidence (FOE) 28 on August 22, 2018. On September 20, 2018, the cases were transferred to the First Division in view of the reorganization of the Court. 29 On December 18, 2018, the Court resolved the prosecution's FOE, admitting all of the prosecution's offered exhibits, except for Exhibit "P-21" for the prosecution's failure to present the original for comparison. For the defense, the following testimonies were presented: (1) Rebecca S. Tiotangco 30 on January 30, 2019, 31 by way of her Judicial Affidavit previously submitted in CTA Crim. Case Nos. O-599, O-601, O-603, and O-604, to prove that (a) she did not intentionally, knowingly and purposely fail to supply correct and accurate information in her income tax returns for taxable years 2008 and 2010; (b) Anilos Trading and Construction did not receive an assessment with regard to the alleged deficiency taxes; and, (c) she will identify relevant documents and will testify on other related matters. 32 After which, the accused was subjected to cross-examination. aTHCSE (2) Fernando G. Tiotangco 33 on April 10, 2019 34 to prove: (a) that accused did not intentionally, knowingly and purposely fail to supply correct and accurate information in her income tax returns for taxable years 2008 and 2010; (b) that Anilos Trading and Construction did not receive an assessment with regard to alleged deficiency taxes; and, (c) other related matters in connection with these cases. 35 After which, the witness was subjected to cross- and re-direct examinations. On June 13, 2019, the Court received accused's Formal Offer of Evidence, 36 posted June 3, 2019 with accused's Motion with Leave of Court to Amend Pre-Trial Order. On September 4, 2019, the Court resolved accused's FOE, and ordered the submission of memoranda. 37 On November 28, 2019, the cases were submitted for decision taking into consideration plaintiff's Memorandum 38 filed on October 16, 2019 and the accused's Memorandum 39 posted on October 28, 2019. Issues 40 1. Whether accused is guilty as charged under the Informations filed; and 2. Whether accused is liable to pay the deficiency taxes. Ruling of the Court In the Informations, accused is charged with violations of Section 255 of the NIRC for failure to supply correct and accurate information in her income tax returns for taxable years 2008 and 2010. Section 255 of the NIRC provides: SEC. 255. Failure to File Return, Supply Correct and Accurate Information, Pay Tax, Withhold and Remit Tax and Refund Excess Taxes Withheld on Compensation . Any person required under this Code or by rules and regulations promulgated thereunder to pay any tax, make a return, keep any record, or supply correct and accurate information, who willfully fails to pay such tax, make such return, keep such record, or supply such correct and accurate information, or withhold or remit taxes withheld, or refund excess taxes withheld on compensation, at the time or times required by law or rules and regulations shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000) and suffer imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more than ten (10) years. xxx xxx xxx From the foregoing, in order to sustain a conviction for the offense of willful failure to supply correct and accurate information, the following elements must be proved: 1) That a person is required to supply correct and accurate information; 2) That there is failure to supply correct and accurate information at the time or times required by law or rules and regulations; and 3) That such failure to supply correct and accurate information is done willfully. The Court will now determine if the foregoing elements have been sufficiently proven by the prosecution. 1st element: Required to supply correct and accurate information Every Filipino citizen residing in the Philippines is required to file an income tax return. 41 Relative to such obligation to file an income tax return is the obligation to supply correct and accurate information, as provided in Sec. 255 of the NIRC. In the instant case, accused admitted that she is the same person named and charged under the Informations filed. 42 She further admitted that she is the registered owner of Anilos Trading and Construction, which was registered with the Department of Trade and Industry. 43 She is also registered with the BIR with Tax Identification Number (TIN) 121-252-527-000. 44 cAaDHT Clearly, accused is required to file her returns and to supply correct and accurate information. 2nd element: Failure to supply correct and accurate information at the time required by law It is undisputed that accused filed her income tax returns for taxable years 2008 45 and 2010. 46 This was clarified during the hearing on April 10, 2019, as follows: ATTY. TORTOLES Your Honors, we are stipulating that the Accused filed Income Tax Return, only that, your Honors, she did not supply correct and accurate information in her Income Tax Return. ATTY. MARATA That's the allegation of the Prosecution, your Honors, but we would accept their stipulation that the Accused indeed filed her Annual Income Tax Returns for taxable years (interrupted) JUSTICE VICTORINO Actually, they are not questioning that. In fact, counsel said they do not have any issue in so far as Accused's filing of her Income Tax Return for the pertinent year. She is saying that the issue here is that she failed to indicate therein correct information in the said ITR. ATTY. MARATA Yes, we submit, your Honors. We have no further questions with the witness, your Honors. 47 However, prosecution alleges that accused failed to supply correct and accurate information when accused knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately failed to declare the amounts received from the Provincial Government of Palawan. These alleged undeclared amounts were discovered on the basis of a certification issued by the Office of the Provincial Accountant, in response a request letter 48 sent by the BIR. On December 5, 2013, the Office of the Provincial Accountant certified that the Provincial Government of Palawan paid Anilos Trading and Construction the total amount of Php120,145,403.48 for various construction projects covering the years 2008 to 2010. 49 Based on the documents presented by the prosecution, accused declared the following gross income for taxable years 2008 and 2010, as compared to the amount as certified by the Provincial Accountant of Palawan: HCaDIS Declared in the ITR (as found in the audited financial statements) Certification from Provincial Government of Palawan Under-declaration per BIR 2008 Sales-Construction Materials 1,509,891.50 50 Gross Receipts from Contracting Services 14,978,514.60 51 Sales/Receipts 16,488,408.10 52 70,189,994.54 53 59,701,588.44 54 2010 Gross Revenues 20,047,706.27 55 31,627,080.35 56 11,573,374.08 57 Less: Cost of Sales 17,985,305.53 58 Gross Income 2,062,400.74 59 Gross Income from Construction 2,431,523.70 60 Total Direct Cost 1,474,314.44 61 Total Gross Income From Construction 975,209.27 62 Prosecution witness, Jose Maria Y. Reyes, testified as to the amount of underdeclaration, as follows: 72.Q. What is your basis in saying that Accused Tiotangco substantially under-declared her income for taxable years 2008 and 2010? A. The certification with attached schedules issued by the Provincial Government of Palawan stating the income payments it made to Accused Tiotangco in years 2008 and 2010 and the Income Tax Returns and Quarterly VAT Returns which Accused Tiotangco herself filed for taxable years 2008 and 2010. 73.Q. In the Income Tax Return, how much is the under-declaration of Accused Tiotangco? A. For taxable year 2008, Accused only declared in her Income Tax Return an amount of P16,488,406.10 as her gross income. However, upon audit, it should be P76,189,994.54. Thus, there was an under-declaration of P59,701,588.44. For taxable year 2010, Accused only declared in Income Tax Return an amount of P20,047,706.27 as her gross income. However, upon audit, it should be P31,627,080.35. Thus, there was an under-declaration of P11,573,374.08. 63 The Court notes that the BIR findings did not take into consideration that accused had other income from sales of construction materials. Based on the Court's examination, the under-declaration as computed against the gross income from construction services should be Php61,211,479.94 for 2008, and Php29,195,555.65 for 2010, as shown below: Declared in the ITR (as found in the audited financial statements) Certification from Provincial Government of Palawan Under-declaration (per Court findings) 2008 Sales-Construction Materials 1,509,891.50 64 Gross Receipts from Contracting Services 14,978,514.60 65 76,189,994.54 66 61,211,479.94 67 Sales/Receipts 16,488,406.10 68 2010 Gross Revenues 20,047,706.27 69 Less: Cost of Sales 17,985,305.53 70 Gross Income 2,062,400.74 71 Gross Income from Construction 2,431,523.70 72 31,627,080.35 73 29,195,566.65 74 Total Direct Cost 1,474,314.44 75 Total Gross Income From Construction 975,209.27 76 Be that as it may, accused did not deny that she received the said payments from the Provincial Government of Palawan, neither did she present any evidence to prove that she had declared the said payments in her income tax returns. In her Amended Judicial Affidavit, which was adopted as her testimony in these cases, she admitted that the sales to the government were not declared in her VAT returns. 29.)Q What was your reaction if any when you learned that the Bureau of Internal Revenue is suing you for deficiency in payment of Value Added Tax in your projects with the Provincial Government of Palawan? AHCETa A I was shocked and confused because I thought that the Value Added Taxes were already withheld for our projects with the Provincial Government of Palawan. xxx xxx xxx 32.)Q A while ago you said that you were shocked and confused when you learned that the Bureau of Internal Revenue is suing you for deficiency in payment of Value Added Tax in your projects with the Provincial Government of Palawan, can you elaborate on these? A I was shocked because I did not receive any assessment from the BIR regarding the alleged tax deficiency. In addition, contrary to the allegations of the BIR, it is not our intention to hide Anilos Trading and Construction's gross receipts for taxable years 2008 and 2010 and evade payment of value added tax (VAT). Otherwise, we would have omitted that in our audited financial statements and income tax returns altogether. We thought sales to government agencies were not supposed to be declared in our VAT returns in a way like interest on bank deposits do. After all, not a single centavo was deprived of the government by the said transactions because they have been already subjected to five percent (5%) withholding tax. 77 Comparing the Certification from the Office of the Provincial Accountant of the Province of Palawan with that of the amounts declared in accused's income tax returns, there is a clear discrepancy. Further, accused did not refute the existence of such income payments from the Provincial Government of Palawan, nor did she prove that she actually declared the same in her income tax returns. Based on the foregoing, there is clear failure to supply correct and accurate information in accused's income tax returns for taxable years 2008 and 2010, proving the second element. 3rd element: failure to supply correct and accurate information was willful According to Black's Law Dictionary, 78 the term "willful" is defined as: An act or omission is "willfully" done, if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done; that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law x x x. A willful act may be described as one done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently . A willful act differs essentially from a negligent act. The one is positive and the other negative. Act is "willful" within meaning of section (sic) of Internal Revenue Code imposing penalty for willful failure to pay federal income and social security taxes withheld from employees if it is voluntary, conscious and intentional; no bad motive or intent to defraud the United States need be shown, and a "reasonable cause" or "justifiable excuse" element has no part in definition. Harrington v. U.S. , C.A.R.I., 504 F2d 1306, 1315." (Underscoring supplied) ScHADI In People v. Judy Anne Santos y Lumagui , 79 the CTA explained: Citing Black's Law Dictionary , the term "willful" is defined as voluntary and intentional. And in Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation , "willful" in tax crimes statutes is defined as voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty . Applying the foregoing in the case at bench, the element of willful failure to supply correct and accurate information must be fully established as a positive act or state of mind; it cannot be presumed nor attributed to mere inadvertent or negligent acts . (Citations omitted, underscoring supplied) As to how willfulness is proven, the CTA explained in People v. Bienvenido S. Dimson , 80 as follows: . . . And although "willfulness" is a state of mind that may be inferred from the circumstances of the case, and proof of willfulness may be, and usually is, shown by circumstantial evidence alone , in this case, we have direct admissions by the accused. (Citations omitted, underscoring supplied) Accused defends that she thought that the income from government transactions need not be declared in the income tax return since the same have already been subject to withholding tax. Accused also states that she relied on her accountant for tax matters. The Court is not persuaded. In the instant case, accused is clearly aware of her tax obligations and even hired an accountant to handle said matters: 12.)Q Who are the other officers responsible in the operations of Anilos Trading and Construction? A We have engineers who are responsible in the construction projects and an accountant who is responsible in the preparation of necessary papers needed in our taxes. We also have some staffs that help with the daily operations of Anilos Trading and Construction. 13.)Q How many accountants do you have in Anilos Trading and Construction? A We usually have one accountant in our office. 14.)Q You said that your accountant is responsible for the preparation of necessary papers needed in your taxes, what if any, are her/his other responsibilities in Anilos Trading and Construction? A She is also responsible in maintaining our financial records. She is also responsible in ensuring that all financial reporting deadlines are met. She also monitors our compliance with taxation issues and it is also her responsibility to file on time all compliances that needed to be complied with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. It is also her duty to prepare our Income Tax Return and Value Added Tax Returns. 81 While she relied on her accountant, she still read the returns before signing the same. 82 Thus, as found in CTA Case Nos. O-599, O-601, O-603 and O-604, involving the same accused: Accused is literate. She is a retired school teacher who is more than capable of understanding the content and even the instructions indicated in the tax forms. In fact, she admitted that she would first read the tax returns prepared by her accountant before affixing her signature therein, negating her claim that she merely relied on what her accountant prepared for her. Astute as she was, she obviously made sure that nothing therein would pass without her examination and approval. 83 Accused's argument that she believed sales to government need not be declared in the income tax return because the same have already been subjected to withholding is contradicted by her own income tax return. A perusal of accused's 2010 income tax return shows that it is supported by a schedule of income payments from DPWH-Palawan, totaling Php2,431,823.70 with total taxes withheld amounting to Php48,636.47. 84 The amount of Php2,431,823.70 is declared in accused's Statement of Income, 85 as follows: aICcHA Gross Income from Construction P2,431,523.70 Less: Direct Costs Direct Materials 653,797.61 Direct Labor 607,880.93 Other Direct Costs 212,635.90 1,474,314.44 Total Gross Income from Construction P957,209.27 The amount of Php957,209.27 is declared as income in accused's 2010 annual income tax return in Line 32A. Such amount from DPWH-Palawan clearly constitutes income payments from government transactions which were subjected to withholding taxes. The accused declared them in her income tax return, and yet failed to declare the payments received from the Provincial Government of Palawan. Also telling is accused's testimony, to wit : 32.)Q A while ago you said that you were shocked and confused when you learned that the Bureau of Internal Revenue is suing you for deficiency in payment of Value Added Tax in your projects with the Provincial Government of Palawan, can you elaborate on these? A I was shocked because I did not receive any assessment from the BIR regarding the alleged tax deficiency. In addition, contrary to the allegations of the BIR, it is not our intention to hide Anilog Trading and Construction's gross receipts for taxable years 2008 and 2010 and evade payment of value added tax (VAT). Otherwise, we would have omitted that in our audited financial statements and income tax returns altogether . We thought sales to government agencies were not supposed to be declared in our VAT returns in a way like interest on bank deposits do. After all, not a single centavo was deprived of the government by the said transactions because they have been already subjected to five percent (5%) withholding tax. 86 (Underscoring supplied) Accused states that if they had intended to hide the gross receipts for taxable years 2008 and 2010 and to evade payment of tax, they would have omitted the same from their audited financial statements and income tax returns. Considering that the income payments from the Provincial Government of Palawan were not declared in accused's income tax returns and also not reflected in the audited financial statements for taxable years 2008 and 2010, the Court can only conclude that said income payments were willfully and deliberately excluded from the 2008 and 2010 income tax returns. Thus, the prosecution has sufficiently proven that accused willfully failed to supply correct and accurate information in her annual income tax returns for taxable years 2008 and 2010 by not declaring therein the income received from the Provincial Government of Palawan. There is no civil liability against the accused. The prosecution presented a Letter of Authority SN: eLA201100045739 (LOA-211-2013-00000180) 87 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 all internal revenue taxes for the period January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012, pursuant to the Run After Tax Evaders (RATE) Program. Also presented in evidence were the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) 88 dated June 18, 2018 and Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) 89 dated July 13, 2018. EHaASD However, accused denied receiving the assessments: 32.)Q Awhile ago you said that you were shocked and confused when you learned that the Bureau of Internal Revenue is suing you for deficiency in payment of Value Added Tax in your projects with the Provincial Government of Palawan, can you elaborate on these? A I was shocked because I did not receive any assessment from the BIR regarding the alleged tax deficiency. x x x 90 The prosecution presented only the registry receipts 91 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 is not necessary, a civil action for collection for the tax requires that the assessment procedures be first complied with. As such, no proper determination of the civil liabilities can be made by the Court in the instant case. WHEREFORE , the Court finds 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. O-602 and CTA Criminal Case No. O-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 Php10,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case she has no property with which to meet such fine pursuant to Section 280 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, J. , concurs. Roman G. del Rosario, P.J. , see concurring and dissenting opinion. Footnotes 1. Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. O-602, Vol. 1, Information, p. 6. 2. Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. O-605, Information, p. 6. 3. Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. O-602, Vol. 1, Resolution dated September 2, 2016, pp. 423-424; CTA Crim. Case No. O-605, Resolution dated September 21, 2016, pp. 424-426. 4. Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. O-602, Vol. 1, Resolution dated October 14, 2016, p. 459; CTA Crim. Case No. O-605, Resolution dated December 13, 2016, pp. 460-461. 5. Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. O-602, Vol. 1, Resolution dated October 24, 2016, p. 465. 6. Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. O-605, Resolution dated December 13, 2016, pp. 460-461. 7. Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. O-602, Vol. 1, Order dated December 7, 2016, pp. 484-485; CTA Crim. Case No. O-605, Order dated February 1, 2017, pp. 471-472. 8. Docket, CTA Crim. Case No. O-602, Vol. 2, pp. 486-489. 9. Docket, Vol. 2, Resolution dated February 16, 2017, pp. 506-507. 10. Docket, Vol. 2, Pre-Trial Order (PTO), p. 637. 11. Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 637-665. 12. Docket, Vol. 4, Amended Pre-Trial Order, pp. 2075-2094, in relation to Resolution dated September 4, 2019, pp. 2031-2051. 13. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-24" Judicial Affidavit (of Jose Maria Y. Reyes), pp. 1367-1389. 14. Docket, Vol. 2, Minutes of Hearing on September 20, 2017, p. 832. 15. Docket, Vol. 3, Compliance with Offer, pp. 1365-1366. 16. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-32" Judicial Affidavit, pp. 1165-1170. 17. Docket, Vol. 3, Minutes of Hearing on July 25, 2018, p. 1188. 18. Docket, Vol. 3, Compliance with Offer, p. 1163. 19. Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-25" Judicial Affidavit (of Edna R. Maligro), pp. 868-879. 20. Docket, Vol. 3, Minutes of Hearing on October 18, 2017, p. 1008. 21. Docket, Vol. 2, Compliance with Offer, p. 865. 22. Docket, Vol. 3, Minutes of Hearing on April 4, 2018, p. 1116. 23. Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-27" Judicial Affidavit (of Arlene N. Sabellina), pp. 991-1000. 24. Docket, Vol. 3, Minutes of Hearing on October 18, 2017, p. 1008. 25. Docket, Vol. 2, Compliance with Offer, p. 988. 26. Docket, Vol. 4, Exhibit "P-33" Judicial Affidavit (of Luzviminda S. Acosta), pp. 1614-1618. 27. Docket, Vol. 4, Compliance with Offer, p. 1612. 28. Docket, Vol. 3, pp. 1193-1246. 29. Docket, Vol. 4, Order dated September 20, 2018, p. 1643. 30. Adopted the Amended Judicial Affidavit of Ms. Rebecca S. Tiotangco executed on January 7, 2019 found in CTA Crim. Case Nos. O-599, O-601, O-603, and O-604, Vol. 4, p. 599. 31. Docket, Vol. 4, Minutes of Hearing on January 30, 2019, pp. 1659-1661. 32. Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), January 30, 2019, p. 11. 33. Docket, Vol. 4, Exhibit "A-220" Judicial Affidavit of Fernando G. Tiotangco, pp. 1667-1670. 34. Docket, Vol. 4, Minutes of Hearing on April 10, 2019, pp. 1682-1683. 35. Docket, Vol. 4, Submission, pp. 1665-1666. 36. Docket, Vol. 4, pp. 1999-2019. 37. Docket, Vol. 4, pp. 2031-2051. 38. Docket, Vol. 4, pp. 2053-2063. 39. Docket, Vol. 4, pp. 2064-2072. 40. Docket, Vol. 2, PTO, p. 638. 41. Sec. 51 (A) (1) (a), NIRC. 42. Docket, Vol. 2, PTO, p. 637. 43. Amended Judicial Affidavit of Rebecca S. Tiotangco, in CTA Case Nos. O-599, O-601, O-603, and O-604, as adopted during the hearing on January 30, 2019; TSN on January 30, 2019, p. 12. 44. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-5", p. 1323. 45. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-11", pp. 1333-1338. 46. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", pp. 1339-1349. 47. TSN, Hearing on April 10, 2019, p. 15. 48. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-9", p. 1328. 49. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-10", pp. 1329-1332. 50. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-11", Income Statement, p. 1334. 51. Id. 52. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-11", Line 29A, p. 1333. 53. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-10-a", p. 1331. 54. 76,189,994.54 16,488,406.10 = 59,701,588.44. 55. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", Line 29A, p. 1339; Statement of Income, p. 1340. 56. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-10-a", p. 1332. 57. 31,627,080.35 20,047,706.27 = 11,573,374.08. 58. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", Line 30A, p. 1339; Statement of Income, p. 1340. 59. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", Line 31A, p. 1339; Statement of Income, p. 1340. 60. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", Statement of Income, p. 1340. 61. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", Statement of Income, p. 1340. 62. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", Line 32A, p. 1339; Statement of Income, p. 1340. 63. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-24", pp. 1383-1384. 64. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-11", Income Statement, p. 1334. 65. Id. 66. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-10-a", p. 1331. 67. 76,189,994.54 14,978,514.60 = 61,211,479.94. 68. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-11", Line 29A, p. 1333. 69. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", Line 29A, p. 1339; Statement of Income, p. 1340. 70. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", Line 30A, p. 1339; Statement of Income, p. 1340. 71. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", Line 31A, p. 1339; Statement of Income, p. 1340. 72. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", Statement of Income, p. 1340. 73. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-10-a", p. 1332. 74. 31,627,080.35 2,431,523.70 = 29,195,556.65. 75. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", Statement of Income, p. 1340. 76. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", Line 32A, p. 1339; Statement of Income, p. 1340. 77. Amended Judicial Affidavit of Rebecca S. Tiotangco, pp. 19-21. 78. 6th Edition, St. Paul Minn. West Publishing Co., 1990, p. 1599. 79. CTA Crim. Case No. O-012, January 16, 2013. 80. CTA Crim. Case Nos. O-071 and O-085, July 2, 2014. 81. Amended Judicial Affidavit of Rebecca S. Tiotangco, pp. 3-4. 82. Amended Judicial Affidavit of Rebecca S. Tiotangco, pp. 4-5. 83. People of the Philippines v. Rebecca S. Tiotangco , CTA Crim. Case Nos. O-599, O-601, O-603, and O-604, November 13, 2019, p. 19. 84. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", p. 1343. 85. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-12", p. 1340. 86. Amended Judicial Affidavit of Rebecca S. Tiotangco, pp. 20-21. 87. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-8", p. 1326. 88. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-30", pp. 1171-1179. 89. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibit "P-31", pp. 1180-1183. 90. Amended Judicial Affidavit of Rebecca S. Tiotangco, p. 20. 91. Docket, Vol. 3, Exhibits "P-30-a" and "P-31-a", pp. 1171 and 1180.