BIR computer operator found liable for estafa

CEBU, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas has indicted a former computer Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)-Cebu City computer operator for estafa through falsification of official documents and recommended the filing of an anti-graft case before the court.

Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Maria Regina Hagad-Fernandez said she found sufficient evidence to bring Mae Cheryl de Gracia-Enguio to trial.

Fernandez’s resolved the complaint based only on available records submitted by the BIR because Enguio did not submit any document to refute the allegation against her.

“To date, respondent failed to submit either a counter-affidavit or a position paper. It may, hence, be presumed that respondent waived her right to submit a counter-affidavit or position paper,” read the resolution.

Fernandez recommended a P40,000 bail for Enguio’s temporary liberty for estafa through falsification of official documents and P30,000 more for violating the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the BIR-Revenue Region No. 13, represented by Atty. Issac Darcera III, against Enguio before the Ombudsman.

In its complaint, the BIR said its Special Investigation Division conducted an investigation on alleged payments Enguio received for capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax that were not remitted and credited to the National Treasury.

The taxes were for the sale of a condominium unit at City Lights Garden Tower II in Nivel Hills, Lahug, Cebu City.

In support of the complaint, Francis Fabian Borromeo, former owner of the condominium unit, executed an affidavit stating that in Dec. 2009, he negotiated with Rosalia Arcilla Foulds of RAF Realty Enterprises for the sale of his property.

Borromeo said that since he wanted to expedite the transfer of title, he looked for a person to help him. 

His colleague Steve Matthew Aparte volunteered to help in transacting with the Registry of Deeds and with the Cebu City Assessor’s Office. Aparte recommended Enguio to facilitate the transactions with the BIR.

On Feb. 3, 2010, Borromeo sold his condominium unit to Foulds at a contract price of P4.5 million. On the same day, he requested Aparte to contact Enguio to inquire on the BIR requirements and payments.

Borromeo said Enguio gave the list of requirements for the BIR tax clearance, and he assumed in good faith that all documents and the computation of the P202,500 payment were true and accurate.

He said that on Feb. 24, 2010, he received a duplicate new owner’s condominium certificate of title in the name of Foulds, the certificate authorizing registration, tax clearance certificate, capital gains tax return, documentary stamp tax return, real property tax clearance, and the deed of absolute sale.

However, sometime in May 2010, Borromeo was surprised to receive a letter from Revenue District Officer Maria Socorro Lozano informing him that he has not paid the capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax amounting to P520,312.05 relative to the sale of his condominium unit.

He said he also received a text message from Foulds on Sept. 6, 2010 telling him that the BIR Special Investigation Division requested documents from her on the condominium unit she purchased.

He went to the BIR to inquire and was told that the capital gains tax return and the documentary stamp tax return with stamp showing tax payment through the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) on Feb. 5, 2010 were “irregular”. The bank allegedly denied receiving payments on the transaction because the money paid was not credited to BIR.

The BIR also showed him a copy of a documentary stamp tax return showing a P103,000 payment made in May 2010 the bank received for the sale of his condominium unit. Borromeo said that left him confused because he supposedly made his payment February and not May that year.

Fernandez had summoned Enguio to file her counter-affidavit and other evidence to controvert Borromeo and BIR’s claims but she did not.

In ruling in favor of BIR, Fernandez said all elements of the crime were present.

“Respondent is a public employee who presented to Borromeo a capital gains tax return and documentary stamp tax return with a stamp from…LBP, thereby making it appear that the amounts indicated therein were actually paid to and received by LBP, when in fact, no such payment was made to or received by the LBP,” read the resolution. (FREEMAN)