This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-06-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| x x x Neither has [herein petitioner corporation] presented sales invoices or receipts showing sales of gold, copper concentrates, and pyrite to the CBP, [PASAR], and [PHILPHOS], respectively, and the dates and amounts of the same, nor any evidence of actual receipt by the said buyers of the mineral products. It merely presented receipts of purchases from suppliers on which input VATs were allegedly paid. Thus, the Court of Tax Appeals correctly denied the claims for refund of input VATs or the issuance of tax credit certificates of petitioner [corporation]. Significantly, in the resolution, dated 7 June 2000, this Court directed the parties to file memoranda discussing, among others, the submission of proof for "its [petitioner's] sales of gold, copper concentrates, and pyrite to buyers." Nevertheless, the parties, including the petitioner, failed to address this issue, thereby necessitating the affirmance of the ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals on this point.[39] This Court is, therefore, bound by the foregoing facts, as found by the appellate court, for well-settled is the general rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals, by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law; findings of fact of the latter are conclusive.[40] This Court is not a trier of facts. It is not its function to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented.[41] | |||||
|
2002-01-18 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In assailing the weight of evidence supporting his conviction, petitioner asks this Court to review the factual evidence and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses' testimonies.[10] However, questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court and are not proper for its consideration.[11] Petitioner has not shown that the case falls under any of the exceptions to this rule.[12] Moreover, it is not the function of this Court to examine and determine the weight of the evidence supporting the assailed decision.[13] | |||||