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 Plain tiff, (?'\PS I.S. NO: XVI-I"'V-18D- PHILIPPINES, 00077) -versus- For: Violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. Members: RINGPIS-LIBAN, Cbairpenon, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and FERRER-FLORES,,U. LEMUEL SIBUMA CONSOLACION Promulgated: at large Acmsed. FEB ZZ2024 f I/~ x----------------------------------------------------------------------~:----------------x RESOLUTION 2o c .... For resolution is plaintiffs Manifestation \'lrith Motion for Extemion of Time filed on January 22, 2024 and Compliance with Submission of Second (2'"~ Amended Information (Re: Resolution dated January 15, 2024) filed on January 29, 2024. To recall the previous proceedings, on December 5, 2022, an In{o1mation dated February 17, 2020, was filed against the accused for violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (1997 NIRC), as amended. Attached to the Information were several documents in support of its allegations. In the Resolutio11 dated February 2, 2023, the Court noted that the Infomtation accused a person named Lemuel Sibula Consolacion, but the supporting documents attached to it refer to Lemuel Sibuma Consolacion. The Court also remarked that the February 10, 2021 and Februarv 17, 2020 Department of Justice (DOJ) Resolutions, which were attached to the Infonnation were mere photocopies. Accordingly, plaintiff was ordered to file (a) an amended information to reflect the comet name of the accused; and, (b) the 01iginal or certified tme copies of the DOJ Resolutions, within five (5) days from notice. In its Compliance ftled on February 17, 2023, plaintiff submitted (a) an Amended Information dated February 16, 2023 charging Lemuel Sibuma

RESOLUTION CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-983 Consolacion with violation of Section 255 of the 1997 NIRC; and, (b) the original or certified true copies of the DOJ Resolutions. The Court noted the Compliance in the ReJOlution dated i\Jarch 16, 2023. However, in the same ReJolution, the Court also observed that the accused's stated address in the Amended Infomzation was "Centro Building, Lingsat, San Fernando City, La Union" whereas the address indicated in the prosecution's Compliance was "No. 1013, Juan Luna Street, Brgy. 27, Zone 1, Tondo, i\Ianila". Accordingly, plaintiff was ordered to provide the Court with the correct address of the accused. Per Records Ve!ification dated July 13, 2023, it was reported that plaintiff failed to comply with the ReJO!ution dated i\Iarch 16, 2023. Thus, in the Resolution dated September 5, 2023, plaintiff was given one last opportunity to comply with the Resolution dated March 16, 2023, within five (5) days from notice, with a warning that another failure to heed the same will merit the dim:issal of the case. On September 18, 2023, the counsels from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) fLied a Formal En!!]� of Appearance witb Compliance (Re: Resolutiofl promulgated on ivlarcb 16, 2023) by registered mail, which manifested that they were Deputized Special Prosecutors from the BIR, under the supervision and control of DO], and attached a Compliance (Re: ReJolution promulgated on Alarcb 16, 2023). The Compliance (Re: Resolution promulgated o1z iVIarcb 16, 2023) informed the Court of the addresses of the accused based on the BIR Integrated Tax System (ITS). On October 31, 2023, the Court issued a Resolution, which dismissed the case without prejudice for lack ofprobable came. Aggrieved, plaintiff fLied an Omnibus Motions (1. For Reconsideration of tbe Resolution dated Ortober 31, 2023; and 2. To Allow Amendment of Information) on December 6, 2023. On January 15, 2024, the Court issued a Resolution, which granted the motions, reversed its October 31, 2023 Resolution, reinstated the case and gave plaintiff five (5) days from notice to file an Amended InfOJmation. Hence, the iVIanifestation with iVIotion for Extension of Time filed by the plaintiff on January 22, 2024 and its Compliance witb Submission of Second (2"') Amended Information (Re: Resolution datedJanuary 15, 2024) filed on January 29, 2024. First, the Court notes that plaintiff received a copy of the January 15, 2024 ReJolution on January 19, 2024 and, therefore, had five (5) days or until January 24, 2024 to comply. However, it jailed to ftle an Amended Injo1mation within the period provided, instead, it asked for another five (5) days or until January 29, 2024 to comply.

RESOLUTION CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-983 Secondly, although plaintiff was able to flle a Second (2'd) Amended Infimnation within its requested extension on January 29, 2024, the same was filed without the necessary Sllpporting doc11ments. More than a year has lapsed since the original Information was ftled on December 5, 2022. Due to certain deficiencies, the Court has already allowed plaintiff to amend the Information without prejudice to the continued prosecution of the case. In fact, it has just reconsidered the dismissal of the case to allow the filing of a second amendment. \V'ithout doubt, the Court has shown leniency by conceding several opportunities for the plaintiff to correct the deficiencies and has expended considerable amount of time and resources in the process. In spite of these, plaintiff has again failed to comply. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the case 1s DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. 1 SO ORDERED. ~ -1-- .t..,.._ _,_ '---- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 1/ IL- I TO-SAN PEDRO snce ~V.~~ COR..WON G. ER S Associate Justice 1 RULE 17 DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS. Section 3. Dismissal due to fault ofplaintiff.- 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 unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any 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 lo prosecute his or het counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.