Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Epract 6

    Uploaded by

    Lizzz
    3 views1 page
    CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC,. VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE G.R. No. 210836, Septeme! 01, 201" #OCTRINE$ Excise tax on petroleum products is essentially a tax on property, the direct liability for which pertains to the statutory taxpayer (i.e., manufacturer, producer or importer). Any excise tax paid by the statutory taxpayer on petroleum products sold to any of the entities or agencies named in Section 13 of the National Internal Revenue Code (!"#$) exempt from excise tax is deemed illegal or erroneous, and should be credited or refunded to the payor pursuant to Section %&' of the !"#$. his is because the exemption granted under Section 13 of the !"#$ must be construed in faor of the property itself, that is, the petroleum products. FACTS$ $heron sold and deliered petroleum products to $lar* +eelopment $orporation ($+$) in the period from August %&& to +ecember %&&. $heron did not pass on to $+$ the excise taxes paid on the importation of the petroleum products sold to $+$ in taxable year %&&- hence, on %&&, it filed an administratie claim for tax refund or issuance of tax credit certificate. $onsidering that respondent $ommissioner of "nternal #eenue ($"#) did not act on the administratie claim for tax refund or tax credit, $heron eleate d its claim to the $A by petition for reiew. he $A /irst +iision denied $heron0s udicial claim for tax refund or tax credit. $heron appealed to the $A En Banc, which affirmed the ruling of the $A /irst +iision, stating that there was nothing in Section 13(c) of the !"#$ that explicitly exempted $heron as the seller of the imported petroleum products from the payment of the excise taxes- and holding that because it did not fall under any of the categories exempted from paying excise tax, $heron was not entitled to the tax refund or tax credit. "n addition, $A En 2anc noted that, "$onsidering that an excise tax is in the nature of an indirect tax where the tax burden can be shifted, Section 13(c) of the !"#$ of 1, as amended, should be construed as prohibiting the shifting of the burden of the excise tax to taxexempt entities who buys petroleum products from the manufacturer4seller by incorporating the excise tax component as an added cost in the price fixed by the manufacturer4seller.5 Also, based on urisprudence, the Supreme $ourt held that the exemption from excise tax payment on petroleum products under Section 13(a) of the !"#$ of 1, as amended, is conferred on international carriers who purchased the same for their use or consumption outside the 6hilippines. he oil companies which sold such petroleum products to international carriers are not entitled to a refund of excise taxes preiously paid on the petroleum products sold.5 hus, $heron is not entitled5. 7ence, $heron has filed the 8otion for #econsideration. ISSUE$ 9hether or not $heron was entitled to the tax refund or the tax credit for the excise taxes paid on the importation of petroleum products that it had sold to $+$ in %&&. HEL#$ %ES. Section 131 of the !"#$ declares that excise taxes on imported things shall be paid by the owner or importer to the $ustoms officers, conformably with the regulations of the +epartment of /inance and before the release of such articles from the customs house, unless the imported things are exempt from excise taxes and the person found to be in possession of the same is other than those legally entitled to such tax exemption. /or this purpose, the statutory taxpayer is the importer of the things subect to excise tax. $heron, being the statutory taxpayer, paid the excise taxes on its importation of the petroleum products 6ursuant to Section 13(c), petroleum products sold to entities that are by law exempt from direct and indirect taxes are exempt from excise tax. he phrase which are by law exempt from direct and indirect taxedescribes the entities to whom the petroleum products must be sold in order to render

    Original Title

    epract 6

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC,. VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE G.R. No. 210836, Septeme! 01, 201" #OCTRINE$ Excise tax on petroleum products is essentially a tax on property, the direct liability for which pertains to the statutory taxpayer (i.e., manufacturer, producer or importer). Any excise tax paid by the statutory taxpayer on petroleum products sold to any of the entities or agencies named in Section 13 of the National Internal Revenue Code (!"#$) exempt from excise tax is deemed illegal or erroneous, and should be credited or refunded to the payor pursuant to Section %&' of the !"#$. his is because the exemption granted under Section 13 of the !"#$ must be construed in faor of the property itself, that is, the petroleum products. FACTS$ $heron sold and deliered petroleum products to $lar* +eelopment $orporation ($+$) in the period from August %&& to +ecember %&&. $heron did not pass on to $+$ the excise taxes paid on the importation of the petroleum products sold to $+$ in taxable year %&&- hence, on %&&, it filed an administratie claim for tax refund or issuance of tax credit certificate. $onsidering that respondent $ommissioner of "nternal #eenue ($"#) did not act on the administratie claim for tax refund or tax credit, $heron eleate d its claim to the $A by petition for reiew. he $A /irst +iision denied $heron0s udicial claim for tax refund or tax credit. $heron appealed to the $A En Banc, which affirmed the ruling of the $A /irst +iision, stating that there was nothing in Section 13(c) of the !"#$ that explicitly exempted $heron as the seller of the imported petroleum products from the payment of the excise taxes- and holding that because it did not fall under any of the categories exempted from paying excise tax, $heron was not entitled to the tax refund or tax credit. "n addition, $A En 2anc noted that, "$onsidering that an excise tax is in the nature of an indirect tax where the tax burden can be shifted, Section 13(c) of the !"#$ of 1, as amended, should be construed as prohibiting the shifting of the burden of the excise tax to taxexempt entities who buys petroleum products from the manufacturer4seller by incorporating the excise tax component as an added cost in the price fixed by the manufacturer4seller.5 Also, based on urisprudence, the Supreme $ourt held that the exemption from excise tax payment on petroleum products under Section 13(a) of the !"#$ of 1, as amended, is conferred on international carriers who purchased the same for their use or consumption outside the 6hilippines. he oil companies which sold such petroleum products to international carriers are not entitled to a refund of excise taxes preiously paid on the petroleum products sold.5 hus, $heron is not entitled5. 7ence, $heron has filed the 8otion for #econsideration. ISSUE$ 9hether or not $heron was entitled to the tax refund or the tax credit for the excise taxes paid on the importation of petroleum products that it had sold to $+$ in %&&. HEL#$ %ES. Section 131 of the !"#$ declares that excise taxes on imported things shall be paid by the owner or importer to the $ustoms officers, conformably with the regulations of the +epartment of /inance and before the release of such articles from the customs house, unless the imported things are exempt from excise taxes and the person found to be in possession of the same is other than those legally entitled to such tax exemption. /or this purpose, the statutory taxpayer is the importer of the things subect to excise tax. $heron, being the statutory taxpayer, paid the excise taxes on its importation of the petroleum products 6ursuant to Section 13(c), petroleum products sold to entities that are by law exempt from direct and indirect taxes are exempt from excise tax. he phrase which are by law exempt from direct and indirect taxedescribes the entities to whom the petroleum products must be sold in order to render

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views1 page

    Epract 6

    Uploaded by

    Lizzz
    CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC,. VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE G.R. No. 210836, Septeme! 01, 201" #OCTRINE$ Excise tax on petroleum products is essentially a tax on property, the direct liability for which pertains to the statutory taxpayer (i.e., manufacturer, producer or importer). Any excise tax paid by the statutory taxpayer on petroleum products sold to any of the entities or agencies named in Section 13 of the National Internal Revenue Code (!"#$) exempt from excise tax is deemed illegal or erroneous, and should be credited or refunded to the payor pursuant to Section %&' of the !"#$. his is because the exemption granted under Section 13 of the !"#$ must be construed in faor of the property itself, that is, the petroleum products. FACTS$ $heron sold and deliered petroleum products to $lar* +eelopment $orporation ($+$) in the period from August %&& to +ecember %&&. $heron did not pass on to $+$ the excise taxes paid on the importation of the petroleum products sold to $+$ in taxable year %&&- hence, on %&&, it filed an administratie claim for tax refund or issuance of tax credit certificate. $onsidering that respondent $ommissioner of "nternal #eenue ($"#) did not act on the administratie claim for tax refund or tax credit, $heron eleate d its claim to the $A by petition for reiew. he $A /irst +iision denied $heron0s udicial claim for tax refund or tax credit. $heron appealed to the $A En Banc, which affirmed the ruling of the $A /irst +iision, stating that there was nothing in Section 13(c) of the !"#$ that explicitly exempted $heron as the seller of the imported petroleum products from the payment of the excise taxes- and holding that because it did not fall under any of the categories exempted from paying excise tax, $heron was not entitled to the tax refund or tax credit. "n addition, $A En 2anc noted that, "$onsidering that an excise tax is in the nature of an indirect tax where the tax burden can be shifted, Section 13(c) of the !"#$ of 1, as amended, should be construed as prohibiting the shifting of the burden of the excise tax to taxexempt entities who buys petroleum products from the manufacturer4seller by incorporating the excise tax component as an added cost in the price fixed by the manufacturer4seller.5 Also, based on urisprudence, the Supreme $ourt held that the exemption from excise tax payment on petroleum products under Section 13(a) of the !"#$ of 1, as amended, is conferred on international carriers who purchased the same for their use or consumption outside the 6hilippines. he oil companies which sold such petroleum products to international carriers are not entitled to a refund of excise taxes preiously paid on the petroleum products sold.5 hus, $heron is not entitled5. 7ence, $heron has filed the 8otion for #econsideration. ISSUE$ 9hether or not $heron was entitled to the tax refund or the tax credit for the excise taxes paid on the importation of petroleum products that it had sold to $+$ in %&&. HEL#$ %ES. Section 131 of the !"#$ declares that excise taxes on imported things shall be paid by the owner or importer to the $ustoms officers, conformably with the regulations of the +epartment of /inance and before the release of such articles from the customs house, unless the imported things are exempt from excise taxes and the person found to be in possession of the same is other than those legally entitled to such tax exemption. /or this purpose, the statutory taxpayer is the importer of the things subect to excise tax. $heron, being the statutory taxpayer, paid the excise taxes on its importation of the petroleum products 6ursuant to Section 13(c), petroleum products sold to entities that are by law exempt from direct and indirect taxes are exempt from excise tax. he phrase which are by law exempt from direct and indirect taxedescribes the entities to whom the petroleum products must be sold in order to render

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Under Art.

    293 of the Revised Penal Code, the following are the elements of
    Robbery:

    1. That there be personal property belonging to another.


    2. That there is unlawful taking of that property.
    3. That the taking must be with intent to gain, and
    4. That there is violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon
    anything.

    In the present case, the element of violence against or intimidation of any person
    or force upon anything is not present. Nothing from the complainants testimony
    says that the accused used violence, intimidation or force in snatching her cellphone.
    Hence, the charge of robbery against the accused must be dismissed.

    In the case of People vs Concepcion, the Supreme Court held that:

    The prosecution failed to establish that Concepcion used violence, intimidation or


    force in snatching Acampados shoulder bag. Acampado herself merely testified that
    Concepcion snatched her shoulder bag which was hanging on her left shoulder.
    Acampado did not say that Concepcion used violence, intimidation or force in
    snatching her shoulder bag. Given the facts, Concepcions snatching of Acampados
    shoulder bag constitutes the crime of theft, not robbery.

    The Revised Penal Code provides that theft is committed by any person who,
    with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force
    upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latters consent.

    In People v. Dela Cruz, this Court found the accused guilty of theft for
    snatching a basket containing jewelry, money and clothing, and taking off with it,
    while the owners had their backs turned.

    In People v. Tapang, this Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for
    frustrated theft because he stole a white gold ring with diamond stones from the
    victims pocket, which ring was immediately or subsequently recovered from the
    accused at or about the same time it was stolen.

    The accused should be held liable for the crime of theft and not robbery,
    since the element of violence, intimidation and force is not present.

    You might also like