PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 40 DAGUPAN CITY AND TERESA E. SISON (Formerly A-13)

CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) 1111111111111111111111 11111 111111111111111111111111 11111111111 11111111111111 1111 22-0003 88-0016 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. SCA-0001 PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Petitioner, -versus- REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NOTICE OF RESOLUTION BRANCH 40 DAGUPAN CITY AND TERESA E. SISON, Respondents . To: ATTY. CATHERINE ROSER. TORTOLES ATTY. JAMAICA KAY S. DELACRUZ Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 704, Prosecution Division, BIR National Office Building BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Maka ti City TERESA E. SISON 23 De Guzman Street, Poblacion San Fabian, Pangasinan MARATALAW OFF ICE (Counsel for the Private Respondent Teresa E. Sison) Room 303, 3rd Floor, Del Pilar Place M.H. Del Pilar, Dagupan City RON. MERVIN JOVITO S. SAMADAN Presiding Judge Thru: Branch Clerk of Court First Judicial Region Regional Trial Court Branch 40, Dagupan City Hall of Justice, Bonuan Tondaligan Dagupan City, Pangasinan GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on March 21, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, March 22, 2024. Atty. Mari~ F. Chan-Te Executi~f Court II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA SCA Case No. 0001 PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, Members: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, MANAHAN, and REYES-F~ARDO, JJ. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 40 DAGUPAN CITY Promulgated: AND TERESA E. SISON, Respondents. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUT MANAHAN, J .: For resolu tion is petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated October 24, 2023) posted on November 10, 2023 and received by the Court on November 16, 2023 with private respondent's Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration posted on November 28, 2023 and received by the Court on December 4, 2023. Petitioner seeks the reconsideration of the Decision of the Court promulgated on October 24, 2023 (assailed Decision), the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, m light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner is DISMISSED for lack of merit." Petitioner e){presses its disagreement with the assailed Decision on the ground that pu blic respondent Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 4 0 -Dagupan City committed grave abuse of discretion in acqu itting private respondent of the crime~

RESOLUTION CTA SCA Case No. 0001 charged under Section 255 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, despite its order to pay the Commissioner of Internal Revenue the civil liability arising from said offense. It contends that the evidence submitted by the prosecution clearly showed that private respondent is guilty of violation of willful failure to file the value-added tax return for taxable year 2010 and that the judgement of acquittal due to lack of willfulness on the part of private respondent, is grossly erroneous. Petitioner firmly states that private respondent has the burden of proving the defense of insanity and the prosecution need not offer contrary evidence. As seen from this perspective, petitioner emphasizes that it did not file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to correct only errors of judgment of public respondent but on the acts and circumstances showing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Private respondent counters that petitioner failed to show any grave abuse of discretion committed by public respondent in rendering a judgment of acquittal as the challenged judgment appears to be in accord with the facts and applicable laws and jurisprudence. She also interposes her vehement objection to the filing of the motion by petitioner as it did not raise any new or substantial legitimate grounds to justify the reconsideration of the assailed Decision. RULING OF THE COURT The issues raised in petitioner's Motion for R econsideration have been considered and exhaustively passed upon in the assailed Decision but this Court, for emphasis, will confront and discuss the important point raised by petitioner. Petitioner repeatedly maintains that the Special Civil Action of Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is the proper remedy because public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the judgment of acquittal in favor of private respondent in spite of strong evidence proving the latter's guilt. The argument of petitioner is without merit.~

RESOLUTION CTA SCA Case No. 0001 Without go1ng into the wisdom of the judgment promulgated by the RTC-Branch 40 of Dagupan City in Criminal Case No. 2016-1558-D, the allegations against said judgment made by petitioner mainly involve the public respondent's alleged misapprehension of the evidence submitted by both parties leading to the acquittal of private respondent. It is well-settled that "Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction oferrors ofjurisdiction, not errors ofjudgment. "1 In this same case, the Supreme Court cited its decision in Purefoods Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission,2 and enunciated the rationale for the strict distinction between an ordinary appeal and a special civil action of Certiorari, and we quote: "When a cou rt exercises its jurisdiction , a n error com m itted while so en gaged does n ot deprive it of the juris diction being exercised wh en the error is committed . If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This cannot be a llowed. The administra tion of justice would not survive su ch a rule. Consequently, an error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctable through the original civil action of certiorari." (e mphases supplied) In the instant case, petitioner failed to show that the Judge, in rendering the judgment of a cquittal, acted with grave abuse of discretion or exceeded and/ or acted without jurisdiction. The mis take / s if any, that the Judge may have committed are errors of judgm ent. It must b e emphasized that the ((sp ecial civil action of certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy of las t recourse. "3 Applying the foregoing principles enunciated by the Suprem e Court, we find that public respondent did not a ct with grave a buse of discretion in issuing the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered , p etitioner's Motion f or Recons ideration (of the Decis ion d ated October 24, 2 023) is DENIED for lack of m erit. 1 Madrigal Transport, Inc. vs. L apanday H oldings Corporation, et. al., G .R. No. 156067, August 11, 2004. 2 G.R. No. 7859 1, M arch 2 1, 1989. 3 Editha Medina, et.al. vs. Spouses Nicomed es and Brigida Lozada, G.R. No. 185303, August 1, 2 0 18. ~

RESOLUTION CTA SCA Case No. 0001 The Decision promulgated by the Court on October 24, 2023, is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~�7- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~ ~It~ -frlf~ MARIAN iv�JF. RE~S-FA~ARDO Associate Justice