PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TECHTRENDS CORPORATION, RAYMOND PATRICK ALBERT, DARIUS DELAS ALAS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE CTA EB Crim. No. 166 PHILIPPINES, (CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-1071 & 0-1072) Petitioner, Present: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. Promulgated: TECHTRENDS NOV 06 20~ "", CORPORATION, RAYMOND PATRICK ALBERT, DARIUS DELASALAS, Respondent. x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x RESOLUTION ANGELES, J.: On August 22, 2024, the Court in Division in CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-1071 &0-1072, issued a Resolution1 denying herein petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration, effectively upholding the Court a quo's previous Resolution2 dated May 30, 2024, which granted the Demurrer to Evidence filed by the accused (herein respondent). On August 29, 2024, a Notice ofResolution3was then issued by the Court informing the parties that the Resolution dated August 22, 2024 was rendered by the Court's First Division. Records reveal that 1 EB Docket , pp. 67 to 71. 2 EB Docket, pp. 38 to 64. 3 EB Docket, pp. 65 to 66; Division Docket, pp. 802 to 803.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No. 166 x-----------------------x the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Revenue Region 8A-Makati City, received the same on September 5, 2024 and September 9, 2024, respectively. Subsequently, on September 23, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petitionfor Review4 by registered mail, which was received by the Court on September 27, 2024. In a Minute Resolutions dated October 1, 2024, the Motion for Extension was granted subject to the condition that such motion was filed on time. On October 9, 2024, petitioner filed through registered mail, a Motion to Admit with Attached Petitioner's Petition for Review,6 which the Court received on October 15, 2024. We resolve to deny the Motion to Admit with Attached Petitioner's Petition for Review in view of the belated filing of the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review. As provided in the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA),7 criminal cases decided by the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Division may be elevated to the CTA En Bane by filing a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of the assailed decision or resolution. For good reasons, the Court may likewise extend such period and allow an additional fifteen (15) days within which to file the appeal. The significant provision is reproduced below, to wit: RULE9 Procedure in Criminal Cases SECTION 9. Appeal; Period to Appeal. XXX (b) An appeal to the Court en bane in criminal cases decided by the Court in Division shall be taken by filing a petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the decision or resolution appealed from. The Court may, for good cause, extend the time for filing of the petition for review for an additional period not exceeding fifteen days. In the present case, although the Motion for Extension of Time to File the Petition for Review was granted, it was contingent upon the timely filing of the same. Records reveal that as early as September 5, 4 EB Docket, pp. 1 to 5� s EB Docket, p. 8. ' EB Docket, pp. 10 to 14. 'A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, November 22, 2005.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No. 166 x-----------------------x 2024, respondent, through the DOJ, already received the Resolution dated August 22, 2024, which is the supposed subject of the present appeaLs Counting fifteen (15) days therefrom, respondent had only until September 20, 2024. As likewise provided in the RRCTA, the conduct and the prosecution of all criminal actions shall always be under the direct and control of the public prosecutor. Hence, petitioner is mistaken to reckon the filing of a petition for review, or at least a motion for extension, from the receipt of the deputized special prosecutor of the BIR. The DOJ, as the public prosecutor of this case, retains direct supervision and control over such deputized prosecutors, viz.: RULE9 Procedure in Criminal Cases XXX SECTION 3. Prosecution of Criminal Actions. - All criminal actions shall be conducted and prosecuted 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. Considering that the Motion for Extension of Time was merely filed on September 23, 2024, it failed to effectively extend the filing of a petition for review as prayed for. Hence, there is no basis to grant the present the Motion to Admit with Attached Petitioner's Petition for Review which was filed beyond the prescriptive period. Settled is the rule that the timely filing of an appeal is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional. The failure to do so does not confer jurisdiction to the appellate body confronted therewith. On a final note, it is worthy to emphasize that the Supreme Court, in National Power Corporation vs. Spouses Lorenzo L. Laohoo and Visitacion Lim-Laohoo, et a/.,9 held as follows: "The failure of the petitioner to perfect an appeal within the period fixed by law renders final the decision sought to be appealed. As a result, no court could exercise appellate jurisdiction to review the decision. It is settled that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and 8 As evidenced by the stamped receipt of the DOJ thereof, in the Notice ofResolution dated August 29, 2024- Division Docket- Vol. II, p. 802. 9 G.R. No. 151973, July 23, 2009.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No. 166 x-----------------------x unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even ifthe modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it v.ill be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. Otherwise, there will no end to litigation and this will set to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality. XXX XXX XXX xxx While every litigant must be given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities, the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. It raises a jurisdiction problem. as it deprives the appellate court of its jurisdiction over the appeal. After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the \~inning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case. After all, a denial of a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits. In Peiia v. Government Service Insurance System, 10 We held that there are certain procedural rules that must remain inviolable, like those setting periods for perfecting an appeal, for it is doctrinally entrenched that the right to appeal is a statutory right, and one who seeks to avail oneself of that right must comply with the statute or rules. These rules, particularly the requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law, must be strictly followed, as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for an orderly discharge of judicial business. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Admit with Attached Petitioner's Petitionfor Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The Compliance filed through registered mail on January 31, 2025, and received by the court on February 5, 2025 is NOTED. Accordingly, the instant case is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction in view of petitioner's failure to file its Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review within the fifteen (15)- day reglementary period as provided in the RRCTA. SO ORDERED. HENRY ~~~GELES Associate Justice 10 G.R. No. 159520, September 19, 2006.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No. 166 x-----------------------x WE CONCUR: ~ . ..ic.L ~ 7 '-..... MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~-J.. ~:U.c�..,.._,,~~- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ~~� JEAN 1n..t~LL\ft. BACORRO-VILLENA ~ 9:w r. ~.. Iii~ MARIAN Nvli<. REYif'S_:-FAJARDO Associate Justice LAN~~~AVID Associate Justice c~t. Associate Justi e