® | Republic of the Bkilippines = Supreme Gouct Manila First Ditision Gentlemen: Quoted hereunder. for voir iiformation. isd resolution. of the First Division of this Court dared AUGUST 08, 2001 nG.it. No. 149434 (Ferdinand R. Marcos, JT - aes people of the Philippines). - The Court Resolves (a) WOrE and GRANT the manifestation and urgent motion of petitioner te withdraw the motion for extension of time iia a, petition fer review on: certiorari; and (b) ors WITHOUT ACTION the said motion for an extension ‘of thirty (30) days from duly 4, 2001 within which to file a petition for review on certiorari fee sew of the withdrawal of the said motion.” Very truly yours, Clerk of anit ANE 43 20 First Division | Cp h ( baler) Court of Appeals () Manila (CA-GR, CRNo, 18569) The Solicitor General (x) Makati CityCOURT OF APPEALS Republic of the Philippines EN oA <4 ) Manila \ ( SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION THE PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR No. 18567 PHILIPPINES, ae . Plaintiff—Appellee, Members: PARAS, Chairma! TAYAD-JAGUROS, — versus — 4AGCADILI, Jd. Promulgated: ocr 34 199 | Rerdpnesa: ee served as. Prova beginning ‘oO togetheron October Si, 199% that the accused was allowed to eet font woonee mene on Philippine ae but with several warrants for his arrest awaiting him. Pursuant the recommendation of her Commissioner tnternal Revenue Jose ue Ong (Commissioner? to. the Secretary feo waetice in a dated duly 25, 4991, Marcos: dr. was charged criminally with four” (4) counts eae ch of violation of Sect ie AS and 50 of she NIRC : amended, for having is neome tax returns, taxable years ding deficiency oe sone €S, 711.00 for i985,{Exhibit ©). His annual gross salaries were as follows: R10, 757-17 (1982), 78,215.85 {1983), P64, 555- 00 (19B4)s #78,780.00 (1985). Per gnvestigation of the team, he had an income tax deficiency: ineluding increments, of p2oe.70 for i@a2 (Exh. DD. Based on the provincial pPayrolis oF Tlecos Morte (Exhs. 2 to 794) which were signed by Paula Pastors then Liecos Norte Assistant Treasurer and officer-in-Charge 9 1985 and submitted to the team by Jas , Provincial Auditor oF Liocos hi bas custody oF FP for ten i acc received 1982 to Pastor. receivedca-G-R. CR No. 18569 Moe ee ke Sek OT City, Perseveranda pimentels (Senior Record Information Io Siva Revenue and Lydia administrative BuezonCA-GR. Cr No. 16569 pec tos 42.8% dated August ort . pee (Exh. T). Per gga sey Re ga, agai oF cynth Gat ee EOP no Markos ‘ Metroca-G.R. D 6 (e! made, she gave the passbo d oe Morales. After the deposit wae 8 eafter passbook was returned to hers heres oe. she checked whether the deposit mee Ee tax Based on the payrolls, there oe s withheld for the ancome accused from November © In the payrolis for } neome was ie) Informations in Criminal and 2916 the amount stated wasca-G-R. CR Mo, 18569 pre te tte Sh on ed Qn duly: 27, aes, Orne: Uther” comet Sense” Decision, the dispositive Portion thereof stating? "WHEREFORE, chy Court finds actusrt Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos II guilty reac reasonable doubt of the National hs ge 4 Revenue Code of 1977, as amended, a sentences him as FolcA-G-R. GR N chatahe WING: ieaeg \ ei hae BOR ee \ notice to hi fi im was n Pot ot in derogation Oo qrution- and equal prote £ Co tection clauses of the nst Tax colle ‘ chia > ee ia, di ee of the government gnclude. (Secti 302, NIRC aoe civil an criminal eet Lmaiy : : RC, 1977). . netant cases the BI en y income taxes due From his criminal prosecut ion othe requisite income a 1985- ey taxable y aCR NO: 18549 In case 3 Person fails to make and a return or list at the time Prescribed by law, oar Makes, willfully or otherwise. a false or fraudulent return or file : list, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall make return from his own knowledge and from obtain through Or otherwise. In any such case, the Commissioner the such information as he can ny be primes i : legalyey s i on & was forced by the circumstances. The STAT report, 1c the taxpayer and notices of assessment epared by the team, were submitted to the 1991 (Exhibit 4). The income @ prepared by authority of the 1 (Exhi 5 E—, G, I and ‘ to the thecR No. 18569 Au oe eon pee from the appellant’s gross income for the years 1985 ta 4985 in the amounts of F5,548.42, F4,542.00 and po, 416-275 respectively, 45 embodied in Paragraph 2 of the Request For Stipulation dated April 4, 1794, which was admitted by the trial court after noting the comments and qualifications made by the prosecution in their Comment dated April 14, 1994. No deficiency assessment for the taxable years 1982 to i985 was made on the part of the government against the appellant. It bears emphasis that the duty to withhold taxes from government employees: including elected officials Like the provincial qovernor.s has been reposed by law in the Government (Sections 70 (c)$ 94, NIRC of i977). Consequently, any deficiency in the taxes sp withheld is likewise attributable to and/or determinable by the government and not by the employee concerned (Section 91 tf), 1977 NIRG). The appellant had 4 right to rely on the computation and assessment by the BIR for whatever deficiency income taxes that may be due from him, aA5 after all, it is the government itself which deducts from his gross income the taxes which he should pay: over which he has no control. ; Considering that the income of the appellant for the years herein involved had already been subjected to the withholding tax system, Section Si sa} of the Tax Code, which provides that: "(a) Payment of Tax-— 1. In general—- The total amount of tax imposed by this Title shall be paid at the time the return is filed.” Sa eke to the case at bench, contrary to SA tehe ee of the appellee that the tax liability > ~appellant should have been paid by him at the time” of fi1i : Se ~ filing his returns. Deficiency assessment is CERTIFIED TRUE COP CA-G.RER/CV/SP inrta AY\Y DATTA IA * -REY roa (2) ° Nt EVAN NN \ Ny TIN ONSGR CR Ne. 18569 re cA. @ 2.0 n exception to that general rule —. ine. -aforequoted Section Si (a) of the Tax Code ~ NIRC. Annotated, Hector 5S. de Leon, i979 Ed.) The appellee loses sight of abe distinction between the tae “pffe ge CR No. 18549 x 4 ge ion ¢ pis obligation. Furthermore, there could be ’ no att t on his part, for his Failure to file the ae necessary income tax returns, to evade and defeat the tax as has in fact paid his tax obligations For the — years here-involved und the withholding Tn one case recer ly (Commissioner of 1 of Appeals, G.R No appellant, thi ryth at. least a month for the Raret ieee at the a ess to relay the Notices to axpayer and ‘eight days With respect to ee notices of ss mt to the appellant, the latter had no ample tunity to be apprised of and to pay his taxes before he was held to answer deficiency Taxes, the h he BIR.ing the appellant to Pay to the income taxes due with i BIk the Aterest at t he legaj appellant to pay a fing in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-92_ 2-29217 for failure tO File ‘Bars 1982, 1983 and 1984; of iminal Case No. O-91- : ta return for 1985,fudgereatt Forn Se 1 7 \ { \\ )\) SS . LER ie) Republic of the Philippines Manila FIRSTDIVISION versus G.R. No. 146434 SEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. €y ENTRY OF JUDGMENT This ts 10 certify that on August 08, 2001 a resolution rendered in the above-entitled case was filed in this office, the dispositive part of which reads as follows : ee I