CTA Case No. 28 (Resolution)

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) llll ll lllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllll 22-000488-0037 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. A-15 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, - versus - AGERICO L. BANZON, Accused-Appellee. x-------------------------------------x NOTICE OF RESOLUTION CTA CRIM CASE NO. A-28 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, - versus - AGERICO L. BANZON, Accused-Appellee. To: MR. AGERJCO L. BANZON BANZ BU ILT CONSTRUCTION c/o Atty. Ma. Nanette Q. Encarnacion Peneyra Road beside Coliseum Puerto Prinscsa City, Palawan ATTY. CATHEIUNE ROSER. TORTOLES Bureau oflntemal Revenue Room 704, Prosecution Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman. Quezon City ATTY. MA. NANETTE Q. ENCARNACION (Counsel for the Accused Agerico L. Banzon) Paneyra Road beside Coliseum Puerto Princesa City. Palawan THE PRESIDING J UDGE REGIONAL TRIAL COU RT Branch 52 � Puerto Princesa City Justice Hall Building, Rafols Road Puerto Prineesa City. Palawan Page 1 of2

GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on October 16, 2025, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, October 17, 2025. .. AttyE. MxeacuritaivJenC ~ ~uCrthIaIn-Te Page 2 of2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No. A-15 Plaintiff-Appellant, (Criminal Case Nos. 32803 & 32806 For: Violation of Section 254 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended -versus- Criminal Case Nos. 32804 & 32805 For: Violation of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended) AGERICO L. BANZON , Accused-Appellee. X-----------------------------------------X AGERICO L. BANZON , CTA Crim. Case No. A-28 Accused-Appellant, Members: -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Promulgated: Plaintiff-Appellee'. ~OCT 1~ 2025j (o :~5Nf'f X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~- - - - - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION For the Court's resolution are the following: 1. People of the Philippines' (plaintiff's) "Motion for Reconsideration (To the Resolution dated February 20, 2025)" (MR) in CTA Crim. Case No. A-15, filed personally on 05 March 2025 and via electronic mail on 06 March 2025, without Agerico L. Banzon's (accused 's) comment despite due notice;1 and Per Records Verification dated 27 May 2025.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. A-1 5 a nd A-28 People of the Philippines v. Agerico L. Banzo n Agerico L. Banzon v. People of the Phili ppines x-------- -------- ------------------ - x 2. Accused's Appellant's Brief, filed via registered mail on 10 March 20252, in partial compliance with this Court's directive in the Minute Resolution dated 30 June 2025 - specifically, the submission of three (3) additional copies3 thereof within five (5) days from notice - but without compliance with the additional directive in the same Minute Resolution to transmit, via electronic mail (email ), a Portable Document Format (PDF ) copy thereof with in twenty-fou r (24) hours from notice. Earlier, in the Resolution dated 20 February 20254 (assailed Resolution ), this Court noted accused 's Notice of Appeal , filed on 23 September 2022, and assigned it a separate docket number, CTA Crim. Case No. A-28 . Whereas, this Court dismissed the appeal of the People of the Philippines, docketed as CTA Crim . Case No. A-15, for having been filed out of time. In the same Resolution , this Court directed the parties to file, within five (5) days from receipt thereof, a Manifestation stating whether they would adopt their previously filed briefs in plaintiff's appeal as their respective briefs in accused's appeal. Should they choose not to adopt their previously filed briefs, they were instructed to submit either a supplemental or an entirely new brief within ten (10) days. In relation to accused's appeal, this Court noted plaintiff's Manifestation dated 03 March 2025, filed via registered mail on 03 March 2025 and transmitted via email on 06 March 2025, stating that it opted not to adopt the previously filed brief and that it will file a new brief and submit the same within ten (10) days from the filing of accused's brief, pursuant to the assailed Resolution. However, accused failed to file a Manifestation in compliance with the directive in the said assailed Resolution as per the Records Verification dated 24 March 2025 in CTA Crim . Case No. A-28 . As regards the dismissal of plaintiff's appeal , this Court found that the records show that plaintiff actually received the Regional Tri"al Court (RTC) Branch 52-Puerto Princesa City's (court a quo's) Order dated 05 September 2022 (assailed Order) on 09 September 2022 (through the Office of the City Prosecution ) and on 16 September 2022 (through the Bureau of Internal Revenue [BIR]), contrary to its bare Rece ived by th e Court on 26 Ma) 2025. o. 2-202 1 dated Pursuant to A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC. in re lation to CTA En Bane Resolution 07 January 2021 . Division Docket, pp. 345-350.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. A-15 and A-28 People of the Philippines v. Agerico L. Banzon Agerico L. Banzon v . People of the Phili ppines x-------- ------- ---------- --------- -x allegation of receiving it on 23 September 2022. Counting fifteen (15) days from the later date, plaintiff had until 03 October 2022 to file an appeal. However, since it filed its Notice of Appeal only on 10 October 2022 , the appeal was filed out of time and must be dismissed as untimely. In the instant MR, plaintiff implores the benevolence of this Court in setting aside the assailed Resolution5 that dismissed its appeal. Plaintiff argues that, contrary to the Court's ruling , its Notice of Appeal dated 07 October 20226 was filed on time or within the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period for perfecting an appeal , as it received the court a quo's assailed Order on 23 September 2022.7 Plaintiff added that the BIR Revenue District Office (ROO) No. 36 - Puerto Princesa City forwarded the assailed Order to the BIR Prosecution Division , National Office Building, Agham Road (now, Senator Miriam P. Defensor- Santiago Avenue) , Diliman, Quezon City (and not when it was received by BIR ROO No. 36 - Puerto Princesa City on 16 September 2022). In support of such claim , plaintiff adduces, for the first time, the following pieces of evidence: 1. A photocopy of the assailed Order with the marking receipt on 16 September 2022 by the BIR ROO No. 36 - Puerto Princesa City;8 2. A photocopy of the Reference Slip dated 16 September 2022 issued by the ARDO of BIR ROO No. 36 - Puerto Princesa City;9 and 3. A photocopy of the 1st Indorsement dated 20 September 2022 of the BIR ROO No. 36- Puerto Princesa City.10 Plaintiff maintains that the counsel of record for the prosecution is the BIR Prosecution Division , located at Room 704, BIR National Office, BIR Road , Diliman, Quezon City. Plaintiff argues that numerous communications, orders, and resolutions issued by the court a quo were previously and consistently sent to the office and/or email address of said counsel of record . Plaintiff, however, offers no explanation as to why the court a quo did not send the assailed Order Supra at note 4. 6 See Notice of Appeal dated 07 October 2022, RTC Records (Crim. Case No. 32803), pp. 642-643. ld., p. 642. Annex " A" to Plaintiff's �'Motion fo r Reconsideration (To the Resolution dated February 20, 2025)". 9 Annex " B" to Plainriffs ..Motion for Reconsideration (To the Resolution dated February 20, 2025)... 10 Annex " C" to Plaintiff's �'Motion for Reconsideration (To the Resolution dated February 20, 2025)"'.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. A-15 a nd A-28 Peo ple of the Phil ippines v. Agerico L. Ba nzon Age rico L. Ba nzon v. People of the Philippines x- ----- - -- - -- ------------------ - - ---x to that office or its email address and instead served it upon the BIR ROO No. 36 - Puerto Princesa City, which plaintiff characterizes as improper service. Plaintiff thus asserts that it had 15 days from receipt of the assailed Order by the BIR Prosecution Division on 23 September 2022, or until 10 October 2022, within which to file its Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff claims that, having filed its Notice of Appeal via registered mail with court a quo on 10 October 2022, as evidenced by the Registry Receipt11 , it has sufficiently established that the filing was timely. Accordingly, plaintiff contends that this Court should not have dismissed its appeal. On the other hand , as earlier noted, accused failed to comment on the instant MR despite due notice. With respect to accused 's Appellant's Brief, records show that on 28 July 2025, accused filed a "Manifestation/Motion" requesting this Court to admit the three (3 ) additional copies of said brief sent by mail and to consider him as having complied with the directive in the Minute Resolution dated 30 June 2025. Accused 's counsel, Atty. Maria Nenette Quicho-Encarnacion, explains that she was unable to comply immediately with the Court's directive upon receiving the said Minute Resolution on 21 July 2025 because several areas in Puerto Princesa City were submerged in floodwater, resulting in the suspension of office operations for the entire week from 21 July 2025 (Monday) to 25 July 2025 (Friday). Upon resumption of work on 28 July 2025 (Monday), she promptly caused the mailing of the three (3) additional copies of accused's Appellant's Brief. Despite this, accused 's counsel still failed to comply with the directive to submit a PDF copy of accused's Appellant's Brief via email within the prescribed period - and continues to be non-compliant to date. As noted in the Records Verification dated 20 August 2025, accused has not emailed the soft copies of his Appellant's Brief and his "Manifestation/Motion". We resolve. II See Affidavit of Service dated I0 October 2022, RTC Records (Crim . Case No. 32803), p. 644.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. A-15 and A-28 People of the Philippines v. Agerico L. Banzon Agerico L. Banzo n v. People of the Philippines x---- - -- ---------------- ----- - -- - ---x PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (MR) OF THIS COURT'S ASSAILED RESOLUTION LACKS MERIT Section 1, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), as amended , provides: SEC. 1. Who may and when to file motion. -Any aggrieved party may seek a reconsideration or new trial of any decision, resolution or order of the Court by filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice of the decision, resolution or order of the Court in question.12 As discussed in the assailed Resolution 13, contrary to plaintiff's bare allegation that it received the court a quo's assailed Order on 23 September 2022 , a review of the court a quo's assailed Order, which forms part of the RTC Records, reveals that plaintiff, through the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) (a constituent office of the Department of Justice [DOJ 's] National Prosecution Service [NPS]) and the BIR, actually received it on 09 September 2022, and 16 September 2022, respectively - as indicated in writing under the "Copy Furnished" portion. Notwithstanding that this Court reckoned the 15-day reglementary period for filing an appeal from the later receiving date of 16 September 2022 (to emphasize that the appeal would still be filed out of time), it is worth noting that the period for the filing of the instant MR should begin upon receipt by the DOJ of the assailed Order since the DOJ 's public prosecutor is the principal prosecutor in this case before the court a quo. Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (RRCP), as amended by A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC14, provides: Sec. 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. - All criminal actions either commenced by. complaint or by information shall be 12 Emphasis supplied. 13 Supra at note 4. 14 RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 5, RULE 110 OF THE REVISED RULES OF CR IM INA L PROCEDU RE.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. A-15 and A-28 People of the Philippines v. Agerico L. Banzon Agerico L. Banzon v. People of the Phili ppines X - - - ----------- --- ---------------- - - X prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to the end of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn . However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is not available, the offended party, any peace officer, or public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case. This authority cease upon actual intervention of the prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court .15 Section 3, Rule 9 of the RRCTA, as amended , provides: SEC. 3. Prosecution of criminal actions. - All criminal actions shall be conducted and persecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. In criminal actions involving violation of the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and violations of the Tariff and Customs Code or other laws enforced by the Bureau of Customs, the Prosecution may be conducted by their respective duly deputized legal officers.16 Based on the foregoing provisions, the reckoning point for the counting of the 15-day period to file a Notice of Appeal is on 09 September 2022, the date when the assailed Order was served upon the OCP of Puerto Princesa City. Plaintiff therefore had until 24 September 2022 within which to file a Notice of Appeal. Since 24 September 2022 fell on a Saturday, the last day for filing was on 26 September 2022, the next working day. Accordingly, when plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal on 10 October 2022, its right to appeal had already lapsed . A party that fails to assail a decision within the prescribed period loses its right to do so, and the decision, as to that party, becomes final and executory. 15 Emphasis supplied. 16 Emphasis supplied.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. A-15 and A-28 People of the Philippines v. Age rico L. Banzo n Agerico L. Ba nzon v. People of the Philippines x------ -- - - -- -- -- -- - ----------- -- ---x It is important to bear in mind that a judgment becomes final by operation of law.17 The finality of a decision becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected or no motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed. The Court need not even pronounce the finality of the decision as the same becomes final by operation of law.18 In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation19, the Supreme Court emphasized that: It has been ruled that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional . The fail ure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and preGiuding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. At the risk of being repetitious, We declare that the right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. Since the court a quo's assailed Order, insofar as plaintiff's appeal is concerned , has become final and executory, this Court no longer has appellate jurisdiction to review it. Accordingly, this Court must deny the instant MR and affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's appeal. ACCUSED 'S NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRED ELECTRONIC TRANSMITTAL OF A PORTABLE DOCUMENT FORMAT (PDF) OF HIS APPELLANT'S BRIEF As to accused's appeal, which assails his conviction , accused was able to submit the three (3) additional copies of his Appellant's Brief but still failed to comply with this Court's directive in the Minute Resolution dated 30 June 2025 to submit a PDF copy thereof via email within the prescri bed period . As noted earlier, as of 20 August 2025 17 Spouses Catalino C. Poblete and Anita 0. Poblete v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, eta/. , G. R. No. 228620, 15 June 2020 [Per J. Lopez, First Division]. IS Johanson V. Disuanco. et a/. v. Miguel Luis R. Villc!fuerte, G.R. No. 24 739 1, 13 July 202 1 [Per J.Y. Lopez, En Bane], citing Barrio Fiesta Restaurant, et a/. v. Helen Beronia, G.R. No. 206690, II July 20 16 [Per J. Brion, Second Division]. 19 G. R. o. 167606, I I August 20 I0 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division] : Em phasis in the original text.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. A-15 and A-28 People of the Philippines v. Agerico L. Banzon Agerico L. Banzon v. People of the Philippines Page 8 oflO x- ------------- ------- - - ---- - - -- ----x and up to the present, accused has not emailed the soft copies of his Appellant's Brief. Section 2, paragraph 2 of En Bane Resolution No. 8-2024, adopting A.M . No. 10-3-7-SC and A.M. 11-9-4-SC, or the Guidelines on the Submission of Electronic Copies of Pleadings and Other Court Submissions Filed Before Lower Courts Pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (eFiling Guidelines), provides that PDF copies of pleadings must be transmitted within 24 hours from the filing of paper cop1es : 2. Manner of transmittal. - The PDF copies must be transmitted by litigants and court users to the official e-mail addresses: When the primary manner of filing is through personal filing , by registered mail , or by accredited courier, in accordance with Rule 13, Section 3(a), 3(b) , or 3(c) of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, ten (10) paper copies for En Bane cases, and six (6) paper copies for initiatory pleadings or fo ur (4) paper copies for subsequent pleadings for Division cases, shall be filed . The PDF copies must be transmitted within twenty-four (24) hours from such filing of paper copies; otherwise, the pleading or court submission shall be deemed as not filed.20 Since accused failed to transmit a PDF copy of his Appellant's Brief within the prescribed period , or even thereafter, this Court must consider the sa id pleading as not filed. In which case, this Court may motu proprio dismiss accused's appeal for failure to file his brief. In appeals of crimina l cases, the appellant's failure to timely file his or her brief is a ground for the dismissal of an appeal. This 1s authorized by Section 8, Rule 124 of the Ru les, which states: Section 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. - The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case , dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the 20 Emphasis in the original text.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. A-15 and A-28 People of the Philippines v. Age rico L. Banzon Agerico L. Banzon v. Peopl e of the Philippines x--- - -------------- - -- -- ------ ---- - -x time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.21 Similarly, Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court (ROC), as amended22, provides: Sec. 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. - An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds: (e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules[.]23 Notably, the dismissal of an appeal based on the foregoing provisions is in accord with the well-settled principle that "the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. A party who seeks to avail of the right must, therefore, comply with the requirements of the rules, failing which the right to appeal is invariably lost". 24 Compliance with procedural rules is mandatory, "since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice".25 Furthermore, in civil cases, Section 326, Rule 1727 of the Rules of Court (ROC), as amended, provides that a case may be dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to comply with any order of the Court. While the instant case involves a criminal action, the rule may be applied 21 Emphasis supplied. 22 20 19 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 19-1 0-20-SC). Emphasis and underscoring suppl ied. 24 Manila Mining Corporation v. Lo wito Amor, et a/., G. R. No. 182800, 20 April 2015 [Per J. Perez, First Division], citing Phi/to:, Inc. and Max Kienle v. National Labor Relations Commission and Patricia Pe1jes, G.R. No. 151854. 03 September 2008 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division]. 25 CMTC International Marketing Corporation v. Bhagis International Trading Corporation, G. R. No. 170488, I0 December 20 12 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division]. 26 Sec. 3. Dismissal due tofaull o.fplainl(ff. - If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his or her evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his or her action for an un reasonable length of time, or to complv with these Rules or anv order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion. without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his or her counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the meri ts, un less otherwise dec lared by the cour1. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 21 DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS.

RESO LUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. A-1 5 and A-28 People of the Philippines v. Agerico L. Banzon Agerico L. Banzon v. People of the Philippines Page 10 oflO X---------------- - ------------- - --- - X suppletorily or by analogy pursuant to Section 428, Rule 129 of the ROC, as amended. Hence, this Court may likewise dismiss accused 's appeal on the ground of accused 's unjustified failure to comply with the Court's lawful order. WHEREFORE , prem ises considered , plaintiff People of the Philippines' "Motion for Reconsideration (To the Resolution dated February 20, 2025 )" in CTA Crim. Case No. A-15, filed on 05 March 2025, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. On the other hand, accused Agerico L. Banzon's Appellant's Brief in CTA Crim. Case No. A-28 , filed via registered mail on 10 March 2025, is DEEMED NOT FILED. Accordingly, accused Agerico L. Banzon's Notice of Appeal , filed on 23 September 2022, is DISMISSED for failure to file an Appellant's Brief and for failure to comply with the Court's directive in the Minute Resolution dated 30 June 2025. SO ORDERED. ... JEAN MA RO-VILLENA AA~ 1 A1AlbJy/ LANlE&'cUI-DAVID Associate Justice 28 Sec. 4 . In what cases not applicable. - T hese Rules sha ll not a p ply to e lection cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, a nd othe r cases not her ein provided fo r , except by a na logy o r in a suppletory character and w heneve r practica ble a nd convenient. (Emphasis a nd underscori ng supplied) 29 GENERAL PROV ISIONS.