People v. De La Peña

[CA No. 21489-R. May 30, 1960.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff and appellee , vs . PEDRO DE LA PEA , accused and appellant . Leodegario Alba, for accused and appellant. Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor Felicisimo R . Rosete, for plaintiff and appellee. SYLLABUS 1. CRIMINAL LAW; WAR PROFITS TAX LAW, VIOLATION OF; EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE NOT REQUIRED; REPUBLIC ACT NO. 55. For purposes of war profits tax, the law does not require evidence of receipt of notice of tax liability. Where a first notice under the War Profits Tax Law was sent to a taxpayer by registered mail at his address of record but the notice was returned unclaimed, and further efforts to locate his new address were likewise fruitless, his failure to notify the Bureau of Internal Revenue of any change of address is a clear indication that he willfully tried to avoid notices of tax delinquency and precludes him from invoking in his defense lack of notice. 2. EVIDENCE; OFFICIAL REPORT OF TAX EXAMINER, A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. An official report of tax examiner which is taken from the files of the Bureau of Internal Revenue is a public document and constitutes prima facie evidence of the fact that gave rise to its execution and the same does not need any certification as to its authenticity after it was duly identified during the trial. D E C I S I O N AMPARO , J p : The accused was charged in the Court of First Instance of Davao with a violation of Republic Act No. 55 in an amended information filed on January 29, 1954, for having allegedly filed a false and fraudulent report of the properties acquired by him during the period from December 8, 1941 to February 26, 1945, by understating their value in order to evade war profits tax; but after said properties were duly assessed he was found liable to pay war profits tax in the sum of P47,530.35 plus interest thereon, which he wilfully failed and refused to pay notwithstanding demands made upon him. LibLex Upon the evidence presented, the accused was found guilty of the crime charged and sentenced to not less than five (5) years nor more than ten (10) years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of ten thousand pesos (P10,000) and the costs. From that sentence the accused appealed and now assigns eight alleged errors of the trial court, which may be condensed into four, as follows: The lower court erred: (1) In finding the accused-appellant guilty of a violation of Republic Act No. 55 notwithstanding lack of notice of assessment of the properties acquired by him and reported in his War Profits Tax Return; (2) In finding that the accused filed a false and fraudulent return of the value of said properties; (3) In believing the testimony of prosecution witnesses Garcia and Formilleza, both income tax examiners of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, as to the assessed value of said properties; and (4) In holding that the accused-appellant wilfully failed to pay his war profits tax liability. The accused, a resident of Bonifacio St., Davao, Davao, filed on December 11, 1946, his War Profits Tax Return, Exhibit C-1 (BIR Form No. 17.50), showing that his properties and assets as of December 8, 1941 amounted to P21,200.00 and as of February 26, 1945 amounted to P14,640.00 or a decrease of P6,560.00. Page 3 of said return shows that in 1944 he purchased the following properties: Assessed value Land in Passi, Iloilo from Virgilio Montinola P1,000.00 Land in Lambunao from Ruperto Montinola 800.00 Land in Solis from A. Doronila 8,790.00 Land in Capiz from F. Acua 2,000.00 Total P12,590.00 The Bureau of Internal Revenue, thru its agents, verified the correctness of the assessed values of the lands as shown in the return and found said values grossly understated. According to the investigation conducted by Tax Examiner Paterno Jamerlan, the lands purchased from Virgilio Montinola situated in Lambunao (not Passi) Iloilo, consisting of six (6) parcels, have an aggregate assessed value of P10,630.00 as shown by the corresponding tax declarations, as per his report Exhibit C-3, instead of P800.00 as stated in the return. The accused purchased said lands on September 13, 1944, for P262,000.00 (Japanese money) as per deed of sale Exhibit I. The land acquired from the heirs of Ruperto Montinola, situated in Passi (not Lambunao) Iloilo, which has an alleged assessed value of P1,000.00 according to the return of the accused, consists of four (4) lots and have a total assessed value of P11,730.000 as shown by their tax declarations according to the same Tax Examiner Jamerlan and his report Exhibit C-3. The accused purchased said lands on September 15, 1944, for P200,000.00 (Japanese money), as per deed of sale Exhibit J. The land acquired from Fernando and Amparo Acua, situated in Sigma, Capiz, which has an alleged assessed value of P2,000.00, consists of three (3) parcels with an assessed value of P43,550.00, according to the testimony of B.I.R. Examiner Luis Formilleza and his report Exhibit C-4, based on the tax declarations covering said parcels. In accordance with the assessed values of the properties acquired by the accused during the war, as shown by the corresponding tax declarations, the Collector of Internal Revenue assessed the total amount of P47,530.35 as War Profits Tax due from the accused as per assessment and notice (Exhibits C-8 and C-9) dated March 11, 1950 addressed to the accused and sent by registered mail at his residence of record on Bonifacio St., Davao City. The tax due according to the assessment and notice (Exhibits C-8 and C-9), based on the increase of the net worth of the accused during the period from December 8, 1941 to February 26, 1945 was P31,686.90. For filing a false return, a surcharge of 50%, or P15,843.45 was included pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 55, making a total tax liability of P47,530.35 payable on or before April 15, 1950 (Exhibit C-9). The notice, sent by registered mail, was returned unclaimed because the accused could not be found at the address given in his return, and another notice (Exhibit C-12) was sent to him by ordinary mail at 117 P. Grande, San Juan, Rizal, where he was supposed to be residing according to the information furnished by the Police Department of the City of Iloilo. According to the new notice, dated May 12, 1951, because of 1% monthly interest and the additional surcharge of 15%, the total amount of tax liability as of June 30, 1951 was P78,900.38. For his failure to pay this amount, representing War Profits Tax, the accused was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment and to pay a fine, as above-stated. The judgment is silent as to his civil liability for taxes due and owing to the Government. The main contention of the appellant is that he could not be held guilty of a violation of Republic Act No. 55 for failure to pay War Profits Tax assessed against him for the reason that he was not notified of such liability as expressly required by law . Section 5 of Republic Act No. 55 provides as follows: "All assessments shall be made by the Collector of Internal Revenue and all individuals, partnerships, companies and corporations subject to the tax shall be notified of the account for which they are respectively liable on or before the last day of the fifth month following the approval of this Act." (Emphasis supplied) From the facts above-stated there can be no doubt that the Collector of Internal Revenue sent notices to him for the payment of his tax liability. In other words, he was duly notified. The law does not require evidence of receipt of notice. The first notice was sent to him by registered mail at his address of record but the notice was returned unclaimed. Efforts were made to locate his new address which was supposed to be at 117 P. Grande, San Juan, Rizal according to the information of the Police of Iloilo City. It turned out that he was not there, and there was no further available information as to his whereabouts. Evidently the accused had been in hiding in order to avoid notices of his tax liability. It was his duty to notify the Bureau of Internal Revenue of any change of address, and the fact that he failed to do so is a clear indication that he wilfully tried to avoid notices of tax delinquency. He played "hide and seek" in order to evade payment of his tax liability. His defense of lack of notice is entirely unfounded. Furthermore, under the provisions of the Rules of Court, the notice sent by registered mail by the Bureau of Internal Revenue at the address of record of the accused on Bonifacio St., Davao City, was fully effective for the purpose of his tax liability. Under Section 8, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, a notice sent by registered mail becomes effective five days after the first notice was sent by the post office to the addressee even though he failed to claim said mail. Likewise the notice sent to him by ordinary mail at 117 P. Grande, San Juan, Rizal, which is the place where he was residing in 1951 according to the information given by the police of Iloilo, is likewise effective because of the presumption that "a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of mail" (Sec. 69 letter v. Rule 123). His uncorroborated denial is not sufficient to overcome this presumption. With respect to the assessed values of the land acquired by him during the war said values were taken from the records of the office of the Provincial Treasurers of Iloilo and Capiz, where the parcels of land are located. Tax examiners Paterno Jamerlan and Luis Formilleza of the Bureau of Internal Revenue personally examined the tax declarations covering said parcels of land, wrote down their assessed values in their reports (Exhibits C-3 and C-4) filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Examiner Formilleza went to the extent of making copies of the tax declarations of the lands in Capiz, which were presented as Exhibits C-5, C-6 and C-7. The fact that said Exhibits were not duly certified by the Provincial Treasurer is no ground against their admissibility for the reason that the person who made copies of said declarations, did so in due course of his official duty and actually testified and affirmed that said tax declarations are correct and true copies of the originals kept in the office of the Provincial Treasurer. Had those tax declarations been simply presented as evidence, unaccompanied by the testimony of the person who made them, they would naturally be inadmissible. Tax Examiner Paterno Jamerlan was not available as witness at the trial, but his report as to the assessed value of the lands purchased by the accused in Iloilo was presented and marked Exhibit C-3. This report signed by Jamerlan and filed in the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and duly identified at the trial, is a public document and constitutes prima facie evidence of the fact that gave rise to its execution. (Sec. 39, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court.) Exhibit C-3 is the original report of Tax Examiner Jamerlan, taken from the files of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and does not need any certification as to its authenticity after it was duly identified by Revenue Agent Delfin H. Garcia. This report is an official statement constituting prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. "1. Official statements in general. Written statements made in the performance of duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by another person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, with personal or official knowledge of the facts stated therein, are prima facie evidence of the facts thus stated." (Emphasis supplied) Vol. 3, Moran Comments on the Rules of Court, 1957 ed., p. 383. No evidence was presented by the accused to disprove or dispute the correctness of the assessed values of the lands in Capiz and Iloilo, bought by him during the war. As a lone witness in his behalf he presented no defense whatsoever, except the alleged lack of notice. He only testified that he made a simulated sale to Cesar Ledesma of the lands in Sigma, Capiz which he bought from Fernando H. Acua, and his testimony on this point is irrelevant and immaterial as a defense against the charge that he filed a false return and failed and refused to pay the War Profits Tax assessed against him. The facts above-stated show clearly that the accused made a false return by understating the assessed value of the real properties acquired by him during the war; and not only that, he also refused to pay the corresponding tax on the increase of his net worth after the true and correct assessed values of said properties have been determined by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. For filing a false return a surcharge of 50% was added to his tax liability. For failure to pay the War Profits Tax assessed against him amounting to P78,900.38 as of June 30, 1951, he was found guilty and sentenced, pursuant to section 8, Republic Act No. 55, to suffer not less than five (5) years and not more than ten (10) years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00). No pronouncement was made as to his civil liability to the Government for unpaid taxes, evidently because the National Internal Revenue Code (section 316) provides specific remedies for their collection. After a careful analysis of the evidence, we find no error in the judgment appealed from and the same is hereby affirmed with costs. casia SO ORDERED. Pea and Hernandez, JJ . , concur.