Dissenting Opinion -4- G.R. No. 224469 A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, its resolution must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants, but must rely solely on what the law provides on the given set of facts. If the facts are disputed or if the issues require an examination of the evidence, the question posed is one of fact. The test, therefore, is not the appellation given to a question by the party raising it, but whether the appellate court can resolve the issue without examining or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question offact. 10 This notwithstanding, the majority acquits petitioners for failure by the prosecution to prove their guilt not based on an insufficiency of evidence but a question of law brought about by an alleged confusion as to the applicability of the law. In support thereof, the majority opinion likened the present case with Saguin, et al. v. People 11 where We acquitted accused therein who failed to comply with Section 23 of P.D. No. 1752, 12 as amended, by R.A. No. 7742 13 for failing to remit Pag-ibig contributions of the employees at the hospital they were working at. The facts of said case, however, are not on all fours with the case before Us. In Saguin, the accused were charged for violating the following penal provision: Section 23. Penal Provisions. - Refusal or failure without lawful cause or with fraudulent intent to comply with the provisions of this Decree, as well as the implementing rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Trustees, particularly with respect to registration of employees, collection and remittance of employee savings as well as employer counterparts, or the correct amount due x x x. Under the provision cited above, the failure to effect the remittances is punishable when the refusal or failure is: (1) without lawful cause or (2) with fraudulent intent. We ruled in Saguin that accused persons therein could not be convicted for failing to make remittances of the hospital employees because neither of the two (2) requirements were proven. First, We explained that the devolution of the hospital where the accused were working to the provincial government was a lawful cause for their inability to make the remittances. This was due to the fact that said duty to remit was already turned over to said provincial government by virtue of R.A. No. 7160 or the Local Government Code 1993. Thus~: By April 1, 1993, however, the RMDH had been devolved to the Provincial or Local Government of Zamboanga del Norte. Thus, all financial transactions of the hospital were carried out through the Office of the Provincial Governor. The petitioners, therefore, had legal basis to believe that the duty to set aside funds and to effect the HDMF remittances was IO II 12 13 Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co. Inc. v. People, 721 Phil. 760, 767 (2013). 773 Phil. 614 (2015). Entitled "Amending the Act Creating the Home Development Mutual Fund," December 14, 1980. Entitled "An Act A mending Pre.,;dent;a/ Dec,ec No. 1752. A.<Amended." Juoe 17. 1994. {I$