People v. Delgado

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CRIM. CASE NO. 077. February 21, 2022.] (C.T.A. Crim. Case No. O-660) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , petitioner , vs. JOSE EDUARDO C. DELGADO, and DELBROS, INC. , respondents . RESOLUTION CASTAEDA, JR. , J p : For resolution of the Court En Banc is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 1 filed on July 1, 2021. Petitioner's Motion seeks reconsideration of the Decision of the Court En Banc promulgated on June 9, 2021, 2 (Assailed Decision) denying the present Petition for Review for lack of merit. Respondents filed their Comment/Opposition Against Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Decision Dated 09 June 2021] via registered mail on October 27, 2021. In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner asked this Court to reconsider respondents' civil liability. Petitioner argues that the right of the BIR to collect is based on a valid assessment that is final, executory and demandable and that respondents are liable to pay deficiency internal revenue taxes for the year 2008. 3 Respondents, on the other hand, argue that the BIR failed to prove that they received the assessment notices. Respondents also assert that no new letter of authority was issued authorizing the reassigned revenue officer to examine respondents' books. Finally, respondents maintain that the issues and arguments raised in the present motion for reconsideration are mere rehash and repetition of the same issues and arguments already raised and duly passed upon by this Court. There being no matters or issues raised to warrant reversal thereof, the motion for reconsideration must be denied. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration shall be denied. A careful review of the case records and the arguments raised by petitioner in its Motion for Reconsideration reveals that the arguments relied upon are mere reiterations or restatement of the matters which have already been thoroughly discussed and passed upon by the Court En Banc in the Assailed Decision. Petitioner failed to raise any new or substantial matter or any compelling reason that will justify reversal or even modification of the Court En Banc 's findings. Accordingly, the Court En Banc stands by its ruling that petitioner's evidence miserably failed to satisfactorily prove that respondents actually received the PAN, FLD and Assessment Notices. Hence, the failure of petitioner to prove actual receipt of the assessment notices by respondents leads to the conclusion that no assessment was validly issued. In sum, the Court En Banc finds no plausible reason to deviate from its ruling in the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE , petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) JUANITO C. CASTAEDA, JR. Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy, Catherine T. Manahan, Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo and Lanee S. Cui-David, JJ. , concur. Roman G. del Rosario, P.J. , I reiterate my concurring opinion. Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, J. , I reiterate my concurrence with the Concurring & Dissenting Opinion of Justice Villena. Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, J. , I reiterate my Concurring & Dissenting Opinion. Footnotes 1. Court En Banc Docket, pp. 93-101. 2. Id. , pp. 67-92. 3. Id. , pp. 94-99.