MARC G. CUYCO and KEVIN G. CUYCO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPP INES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY En Bane MARC G. CUYCO and KEVIN CTA EB CRIM NO. 156 G. CUYCO, (Criminal Case No. M-MKT-21- 03286-CR) Petitioner, For: V iol ation of Section 266, in relation to Section 253 , ofthe National Interna l Revenue Code, as am ended Members: - versus - RINGPIS-LIBAN, PJ, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, J.J. PEOPLE OF THE Promulgated: PHILIJ>PINES, Respondent. X------------------ - - - --------- ---- - - ----- ----- -----X DECISION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J. : This is an Appeal, by way of Petition for Review ("Petition" ), pursuant to Rule 43 ofthe Rules ofCiv il Procedure, in relation to Section 7 ofRepublic Act ("RA ")No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282, (" the CTA Law" ), of the Resolution dated May 24, 2024 ("J\ssailed Resolution"),1 denying th e Moti on for Reconsideration, and the Decision of Branch 57 of the Regiona l Tri al Court ("RTC") o fMakati City promulgated on February 19, 2024 ("Assaile~ 1 Rollo, p. 239.

llECISIO\ Decision''), 2 in Criminal Case No. M-MKT-21-03286-CR, entitled People of the Philippines v. Marc G. Cu1�co and Kevin G. Cuyco, which denied their appeal and arJirmed the Decision of the Branch 62 of the Metropolitan Trial Court ("MeTC") of Makati City promulgated on February 20, 2023, wherein accused-petitioners were convicted for violation of Section 266, in relation to Section 253, of the National lntema/ Revenue Code, os amended ("the Tax Code'').' The Facts Accused-petitioners Marc G. Cuyco ("Marc") and Kevin G. Cuyco ("Kevin''), in their capacities as President/Chairman and Treasurer/ChicC Financial Oflicer, respectively, of Suplitek Equipment, Incorporated ("Suplitek") were charged of violation of Section 266, in relation to Section 253. olthe Tox Code when Suplitek allegedly willfuly, unlawfully, and feloniously failed and refused to appear and produce its books of accounts and other accounting records despite receipt of subpoena duces tecum ("SDT") for examination by the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR"). The following relevant J~JCts were culled Ji�01n the Assailed Decision. Ava Alora R. Celestino, 131R Revenue Officer. ("RO Celestino") was authorized through Letter of Authority ("LOA") No. 201600034115, 1 dated September 25, 2019, to examine Suplitek's books of accounts and other accounting records for the taxable year 2018. Pursuant to said authority, she served the First Notice J(Jr Presentation of Records' ("First Notice") to Suplitek on October 30, 2019 requiring the submission of the Suplitek's documents. Suplitek, through accused-petitioner Marc, submitted certain records/documents pursuant to the LOA on November 5, 20 19.1' Finding that Suplitek had not substantially presented the required documents J(Jr examination. a Second and Final Notice for Presentation of' Records7 ("Final Notice") was issued and served to it on November 15,2019. Thereafter, Suplitek, through accused-petitioner Kevin, submitted additional documents on February I I, 2020} /d. at :Z 1:Z ro :Z:Z6. or Nature th~: Case. Petition for Revic\\. hi. at :Z. -1 ld at 59. ld at 60. 1 Transmittal Letter dated November -1. ::2019. id at (JI. ' !d at G:2. x Transmiual Letter dated February II. :ZO:?.O. id at (J3.

DECISIO:\ CT A FB CRI\!J l\0. 156 \Criminal Case l'o. M-r-..H.;.T-21-03286-CRJ Both First and Final Notices were served to and received by Suplitek through Cristina B. Ramos ("Ramos"), as its bookkeeper. Ramos had been receiving BIR notices and communicating with RO Celestino on behalf of Suplitek with respect to the latter's examination of its books and records. She was also the Corporate Secretary ofSuplitek, based on its General Information Sheet for 2018. On March 4, 2021, the BIR issued SDT No. RR8B-RD0-53A-2021- 0001359 to accused-petitioners, commanding them to appear before and submit the originals of enlisted documents of Suplitek for taxable year 2018 to the Chief of Legal Division of BIR RR8B-South NCR on March 26, 2021 at 2:00pm. The SDT was served by RO Celestino to and received by Suplitek through Ramos on March 16, 2021 111 because the accused-petitioners were not present at that time in Suplitek's registered address at B-1 L-1 Vista Riva Real Street, Padre Diego Cera Ave., Pulang Lupa Uno, Las Pifias City. Accused-petitioners did not attend the hearing for the SDT on March 26, 2021, and no submission of records was made. Thus, for failure to appear and comply with the SDT, the BIR filed a Letter Recommendation dated May 26, 2021 11 against accused-petitioners, with Swom Affidavit, 12 with the Office of the City Prosecutor ofMakati City, for the investigation and prosecution of accused-petitioners for violation of Section 266, in relation to Section 253. ofthe Tax Code. The Information 13 against accused-petitioners was then filed with the MeTC on September 21, 2021, which, upon finding probable cause, issued a warrant of arrest. 1 ~ Both accused-petitioners were later released after posting bail. 15 The accused-petitioners pleaded not guilty on the offense charged against them. Pre-trial and trial then ensued. After due hearing, the MeTC promulgated its Decision on February 22, 2023, 16 convicting accused- petitioners of violation of Section 266. in relation to Section 253, of the Tax Code. Accused-petitioners then filed a Notice of Appeal, 17 which was given due course by the MeTC. 18 Only accused-petitioners filed their memorandum....--- 9 /d. at 64. 10 !d. at 65. 11 /d. at 66 to 67. " !d. at 68 to 69. 13 !d. at 80 to 82. l.t /d. at 83. 15 !d. at 84 to 85. 16 !d. at 86 to 89. 17 /d. at 89 to 91. 18 /d. at 92.

DECISIO:\ CTA f:B CRJM NO. !56 (Cnminal Case No. i'v1-J'v1KT-2l-032S6-CR) Page-t of 12 On February 19, 2024, the RTC promulgated the Assailed Decision affinning the MeTC' s conviction of accused-petitioners. In particular, the RTC upheld MeTC's ruling that accused-petitioners were duly summoned as they were properly served with the SDT in accordance with Revenue Memorandum Order No. (''RMO ")No. I0-2013, as amended by RMO No. 8- 2014, and that accused-petitioners indeed neglected to comply with the SDT. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the Assailed Decision, which was denied in the Assailed Resolution dated May 24, 2024, a copy of which was allegedly received by accused-petitioners on June 13, 2024. Accused-petitioners then filed their Petition for Review before this Court on July 15, 2024, 19 and in a Minute Resolution dated January 17, 2025, the present Petition was submitted for decision, sans respondent's comment.20 Hence, this Decision. The Assigned Errors Accused-petitioners raise the following errors for resolution of this Court: A. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMI~G THE DECISION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY. AS THERE WAS LACK OF PERSONAL SERVICE OF THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO ACCUSED-[PETITIONERS] AJ\"D THE FAILURE OF THE REVENUE OFFICER TO FAITHFULLY AND STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUSBTITUTED SERVICE. THEREBY INFRINGIJ\"G THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. B. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY. AS THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH ALL ELEMEJ\"TS OF THE CRIME CHARGED AND THERE WAS A SERIOUS DOUBT AS TO THE INTENT OF ACCUSED-[PETITIONERS] TO PERPETRATE OR WILLFULNESS TO COMMIT THE ALLEGED OFFENS~ 19 !d. at I to 53. �2 CTA En Bane Records Verification dated November 5, 2024. ;d. at 244.

DECISIO'\ CTA EB CRIM :.JO. 156 (Criminal Cas..-: "Jo. t\Hvli..::T-21-03286-CRJ c. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY. AS THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS PROBANDI OF ESTABLISHING THE GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF ACCUSED-[PETITIONERS]. THEREBY VIOLATING THEIR RIGHT TO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. 21 Arguments of the Accused-Petitioners Accused-petitioners argue that the prosecution failed to establish all the elements for conviction under Section 266 of the Tax Code. In particular, accused-petitioners assert that they were not duly summoned as the SDT was improperly served to them in accordance with RMO No. 10-2013, as amended by RMO No. 8-2014. Section 266 of the Tax Code penalizes failure to obey summons with fine and imprisonment, as follows: SEC. 266. Failure Ia Obey Summons.- Any person who, being duly summoned to appear to testify, or Ia appear andproduce books ofaccounls, records. memoranda or ofher papers, or to furnish inf01mation as required under the pe11inent provisions ofthis Code, neg/eels lo appear or lo produce such books ofaccounls. records, memoranda or o!her papers. or to furnish such information, shalL upon conviction. be punished by a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5.000) but not more than ten thousand pesos (P 10,000) and sutTer imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more than two (2) y~ars. (Italics, Ours.) Thus, in order to convict accused-petitioners ofthe foregoing violation, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were duly summoned to appear and produce the specified documents, and that despite being duly summoned, they neglected to appear and produce the same. Accused-petitioners argue that they were not duly summoned as they were not properly served with the SDT, relying on RMO No. 10-2013, as amended by RMO No. 8-2014, which provides for the guidelines for service of SDTs, to wit: 3.13 The SDT shall be served lhrough personal service by delivering personally a copy of the SOT /o !he par/y a/ his regislered or known address or wherever he may befinmd. A knmt�n address shall mean a place ofher !han !he regislered address where business aclivilies of the par/yare conduc/ed or his place ofresidence_,__....------ 21 Assignment of Errors, Petition for Review. id. at 15 to 16.

DECISIO:\ CTA CB CRI\11\0. I 56 (Criminal Case No_ r-vt-Mf\.T-21-03286-CRJ a. In case personal service is not practicable. the SDT shall be served by substituted service or by mail. b. Substituted serrice can be resorted to 1rhen the party is not presem at the registered or knmrn address under the following circumstances: i. The SDT may be left at the party �s registered address. with his clerk or 1vith a person having charge thereol ii. !{the knmm address is a place 11�here business activities ofthe party are conducted. the SDT may be lefi 1rith his clerk or with a person having charge thereol iii. If the known address is the place of residence. substituted service can be made by leaving the copy with a person of legal age residing therein. iv. If no person is found in the party's registered or known address. the revenue officers concerned shall bring a barangay ot1icial and two (2) disinterested witnesses to the address so that they may personally observe and attest to such absence. The SDT shall then be given to said barangay official. Such facts shall be contained in the bottom portion of the SDT, as well as the names. otlicial position and signatures of the witnesses. v. Should the party be found at his registered or known address or any other place but refuse to receive the SDT. the revenue officers concerned shall bring a barangay official and two (2) disinterested witnesses in the presence of the party so that they may personally observe and attest to such act of refusal. The SDT shall then be given to said barangay official. Such facts shall be contained in the bottom portion of the SDT. as well as the names. otlicial position and signatures of the witnesses. vi. "Disinterested witnesses" refers to persons of legal age other than employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. c. Service by mail is done by sending a copy of the SDT by registered mail to the registered or known address of the party with instruction to the Postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (I 0) days. if undelivered. A copy of the SDT may also be sent through reputable professional courier service. If no registry or reputable professional courier service is available in the locality of the addressee. service may be done by ordinary mail. The SDT should first be served to the taxpayer's registered address before the same is served to the taxpayer's known address. or simultaneously to the taxpayer's registered address and known address. 3.14 The server shall accomplish the bottom portion of the SDT. He shall also make a ltTilten report under oath befiJre a Notary Public or any person authorized to administer oath under Section 14 of the NIRC. as amended. settingf(Jrth the manner, place and date <~!"service, the name of the person/barangay official/professional courier service company who received the same and such other relevant infimnation. The registry receipt~

DECISIO:'\ CT A F.B CRJ\11!\0_ 156 (Criminal Case No_ l\1-l\.1f\.T-~ 1-0.3286-CR) issued by the post otlice or the o�Iicial receipt issued by the professional courier company containing sutliciently identifiable details of the transaction shall constitute sufficient proof of mailing and shall be attached to the case docket. (Italics, Ours.) Based on the foregoing, accused-petitioners argue that RO Celestino immediately served the SDT to Ramos simply because they were not present at the principal address of Suplitek during her visit. There was no effort on the part of RO Celestino to ask and determine their location and whereabouts at that time, nor to reach them, require them to see her, and meet them to perform personal service. Fmiher, given that the SDT is addressed to the accused-petitioners, they argue that Ramos is not authorized to receive it on their behalf as her authority to receive documents extends only to Suplitek. Neither did RO Celestino execute an affidavit of any effort or attempt to effect personal service of the SDT prior to resorting to substituted service. Lastly, even assuming that they were duly summoned, accused- petitioners assert that the prosecution failed to prove their negligence in complying with the SDT. Accused-petitioners claim that they attempted to submit the required documents but it was the BIR who refused to receive the same For failure of the prosecution to discharge its onus probandi in establishing their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused-petitioners insist that they should not have been convicted of the crime charged. Our Ruling The Petition for Review must be dismissed. The Court has no jurisdiction in this case as the Petition for Review was filed out oftime Section 7(b)(2)(b) ofthe CTA Law empowers the Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA") to exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective jurisdiction,....--

DECISIO' CTA I:.B CR!l'vl NO. \)6 (Cnminal Cas\? No_ \Vv1KT-21-03286-CR) Meanwhile, Section 11 ofthe CTA Law prescribes the period as to when a matter within its jurisdiction must be brought before it and whether a matter should be acted upon by the CTA Division or En Bane, to wit: SEC. II. Who May Appeal: Mode o/Appeal: Effect a/Appeal.- Any party adversely affected by a decision. ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. the Commissioner of Customs. the Secretary of Finance. the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of Agriculture or the Central Board of Assessment Appeals or the Regional Trial Courts mayfile an appeal1rith the CTA 11�ithin thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or afier the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein. Appeal shall be made by filing a petition for review under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the CTA ll'ithin thirty (30) days{i-om the receipt of the decision or ruling or in the case of inaction as herein provided. from the expiration of the period fixed by law to act thereon. A Division of the CTA shall hear the appeal: Provided. however. That ll'ith re.1pect to decisions or rulings (Jfthe Central Board of Assessment Appeals and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of'its appel!atejurisdiction. appeal shall be made by filing a petition fiJr revielJ' under a procedure analogous to that provided for under rule -13 ofthe 1997 Rules ofCivil Procedure ll'ith the CTA, which shall hear the case en bane. All other cases involving rulings. orders or decisions filed with the CTA as provided for in Section 7 shall be raffled to its Divisions. A party adversely affected by a ruling. order or decision of a Division of the CTA may file a motion for reconsideration of new trial before the same Division of the CTA within fifteens (15) days from notice thereof: Provided. however, That in criminal cases. the general rule applicable in regular Courts on matters ofprosecution and appeal shall likewise apply. (Italics, Ours.) The foregoing provisions are echoed in Rule 4, Section 2(h) of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (''RRCTA "),which provides that the Court en bane shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the decisions, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or the Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau oflnternal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs Meanwhile, Rule 9, Section 9(c) ofRRCTA prescribes that an appeal to the Court in criminal cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Comi within 15 days from receipt of a copy of the decision or final order appealed from. The Court en bane shall act on the appeav--------

DLCISIO" CTA EB CRI\11\0. 156 (Crirninnl Case No.l'v1-l\1KT-21-03286-CRJ As such, in order for this Court to acquire jurisdiction in the instant case, the petition for review by the aggrieved pmiy must be filed before the Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of the decision or ruling of the RTC in criminal cases resolved by them in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction. While Rule 9, Section 9(c) ofRRCTA does not authorize any extension of period to file a petition for review, the same may nevertheless be allowed in suppletory reference to Rule 43, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 22 In this case, accused-petitioners allegedly received the RTC's Assailed Resolution on June 13,2024, giving them until June 28,2024 to file a petition for review before this Court. However, accused-petitioners filed their Petition for Review on July 15, 2024, which is I 7 days beyond the 15-day prescriptive period provided by the Rules without moving for an extension of period to file the same. The Petition was consequently filed out of time, divesting this Cowi ofjurisdiction herein. Further, the alleged date of receipt ofthe Assailed Resolution on June 13, 2024 is not supported by evidence or documents on record. Accused- petitioners failed to show proof of the actual date of receipt of the Assailed Resolution. The submitted certified true copy thereof does not indicate any date of receipt by accused-petitioners. As such, even assuming that the Petition was timely filed on its face, the Court has no way of verifying the same sans any proof of actual date of receipt of the Assailed Resolution which shall serve as the reckon point of counting the reglementary period to file the Petition. As such, the Petition is dismissible. Meanwhile, accused-petitioners anchor the timeliness of filing their Petition for Review on Section 11 of the CTA Law, which provides a 30-day period to appeal by way of petition for review with the CTA following the procedures laid down under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. They argue that the former prevails over the latter, considering that it is a statutory provision enacted by the Legislature. Accused-petitioners are mistake~ ~~ SECTION 4. Period (~f.rlppeal.- The appeal shall be taken \Vithin fifteen (15) days from notice of the award. judgment. final order or resolution. or from the date of its last publication. if publication is required by law for ils effectivity. or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the couii or agency a quo. Only one (I) motion for reconsideration shall be allmved. Upon proper motion and the payment qfthefit!/ amount ~(the docket fee before the expiration ofthe reg/ementary period the Court c~(Appea/s may grant an addithmol period offifteen (15) (.k~rs only lrithin u�hich to file the petitionfor revielt'. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (Italics, Ours)

DECISIO:\ CT,\ U3 CRIM :.JO. 1:56 (Criminal Cas<."! No. M-\tlKT-21-03286-CR) Indeed, Section 11 ofthe CTA Law provides for a 30-day period to file appeal an appeal before the CTA on cases within its jurisdiction. However, the same Section 11 specifically provided a qualifying clause "that in criminal cases, the general rule applicable in regular Courts on matters ofprosecution and appeal shall likewise apply." Rule 122, Section 6 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an appeal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation of the judgment orFom notice ofthe final order appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion has been served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins to run. The period to file an appeal based on the foregoing was thus adopted in Rule 9, Section 9 ofRRCTA, which uniformly provides for a 15-day period to appeal all criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the CTA, thus: SECTION 9. Appeal: Period to Appeal.- (a) An appeal to the Court in criminal cases decided by a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal pursuant to Sections 3(a) and 6. Rule 122 of the Rules of Court withinfifteen days from receipt of a copy ofthe decision or final order with the court which rendered the final judgment or order appealed from and by serving a copy upon the adverse party. The Court in Division shall act on the appeal. (b) An appeal to the Com1 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 withinfifieen days from receipt of a copy of the decision or resolution appealed fi�om. The Court may. for good cause. extend the time for filing of the petition for review for an additional period not exceeding fifieen days. (c) An appeal to the Com1 in criminal cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Com1 within .fifieen days fi�om receipt of a copy of the decision or tina! order appealed from. The Court en bane shall act on the appeal. (Italics. Ours.) Clearly, then, the CTA Law and implementing rules provide a uniform 15-day period to file appeal on criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the CTA, as oppose~he 30-day period to appeal which are intended only for civil cases~

DECISIO'" l>ag~ II or I~ Thus, for failure to file a petition Cor review or a motion lor extension of' time to file the same within 15 days from the alleged receipt of the Assailed Resolution on June 13, 2024, or until June 28, 2024, accused-petitioners have now lost their right to appeal the Assailed Decision and Resolution. It is settled that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege and may he exercised only in the matter and in accordance with the provisions of law. A party who seeks to avail or the right must, theref(Jre, comply with the requirements of the rules, failing which the right to appeal is invariably lost. 21 Further, the Court is well aware ofthe j udicialmandate that rules prescribing the time which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, arc absolutely indispensable to the prevention of' needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge or judicial business. 21 With the procedural lapse committed by accused-petitioners, the outright dismissal of instant Petition is thus warranted. ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petilion fiJr Review IS hereby DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction. SO ORDERED. MARIA R WE CONCUR: i-.~ - I - MA. BELEN M. RINGPlS-LlBAN Presiding Justice ' ~ .JEAN MAR . BACORRO-VILLI~NA .-:~ Rudr(\!.ue::::_,. Cuhun,c.on r. Pi.!ufJIL'. G.R. No. :2)7933 (Notice). March J.-.J.. :ZO:Z:Z. 1 Latuy.an 1� People. C.R. No. 238:298. January 22 . .2020. '�

DECISIO~ CTA l.B CRI!'vt NO. 1:'6 (Criminal Case No. \~-\lKT-21-03286-CR) ~~f~-Fq;~ MARIAN I~ F. RE~ES-FAJARDO Associate Justice LAN~VID Associate Justice ~#-~ CORAZpN G. FE~R~R~09S Associate Justice HENRY ~qNGELES Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ~. ~-, ...__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice