PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LEMUEL SIBUMA CONSOLACION (Centro Building, Lingsat, San Fernando City, La Union) -at large-

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-983 Plaintiff, (NPS I.S. NO: XVI-INV-18D- PHILIPPINES, 00077) -versus- For: Violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. Members: RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and FERRER-FLORES,JJ. LEMUEL SIBUMA CONSOLACION Promulgated: at large - APR 2 6 2024 Accused. L /l p X--------------------------------------- �hi� --------------------------~-----~-----~ -----------------X RESOLUTION For resolution is plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated February 22, 2024) flled on March 13, 2024. Previously, the Court issued an October 31, 2023 Resolution, which dismissed the case for lack of probable cause as the facts charged in the Amended Information do not constitute an offense and based on the noted discrepancies between the Amended Information and its supporting documents. Upon plaintiffs motion seeking to amend the Amended Information in order to correct an alleged inadvertence, the Court reconsidered the dismissal and reinstated the case in its January 15, 2024 Resolution. The Resolution gave plaintiff Eve (5) days from notice to make the necessary changes. However, as noted in the Court's February 22, 2024 Resolution, which dismissed the case forfailure to prosecute: � Plaintifffailed to flle an Amended Information within the period provided. Instead , it asked for another five (5) days or until January 29, 2024 to comply.

RESOLUTION CIA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-983 � Second!J, although it was able to file a Second (2"d) Amended Information within the extension it requested, on January 29, 2024, the same wasfiled without the necessary supporting documents. Plaintiff once again asks the Court to reconsider and pleads that the Second (2nd) Amended Information be deemed substantial compliance and, thus, be admitted in the broader interest ofjustice. Further, plaintiff argues that it has, in fact, submitted all the necessary supporting documents. The Court remains unconvinced. First, the documents that were already filed prior to the two dismissals cannot be considered to support the Second (2"d) Amended Information because the Court already found discrepancies in said documents.1 In addition, they were submitted in support of the original and the amended Information that were both struck down when the case was dismissed. Assuming the plaintiff believed that these same documents are still relevant to the Second (2nd) Amended Information, prudence dictates that they should have been ftled with the new information in order to be evaluated by the Court with a fresh perspective. Regrettably, the plaintiff failed to prosecute this case with due attention. Second, the Court has already dismissed the case twice and not simply for any technicality. To reinstate the case anew will not serve the broader interest of justice. In Eloisa Merchandising, Inc. v. Banco de Oro Universal Bank, the Supreme Court noted that despite the trial court's leniency and admonition, the counsels continued to exhibit laxity in attending to their case and, therefore, affirmed the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute.2 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated February 22, 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~. ~ ,.,~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN MARIARO CO~ ~O~ N G. - FER~~ K-F~ L09S Associate Justice 1 Please refer to the October 31, 2023 Resolution, Docket, pp. 84-91. 2 G.R. No. 192716, June 13, 2012.