CTA Case No. 24 (Resolution on MR)

CTA Form o. ~ ( For DC'C) 1111111111111111111111 11111 111111111111111 111111111111111 11111111111111111111111 24-00033 7-0016 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON C ITY FIRST OIVISlON CTA CRIM. CASE NO. A-24 BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE REGION No.1 Calasiao, Pangasinan, Petitioner, NOTICE OF RESOLUTION - versus - MARILOU AQUINO GO, R e s p o n d e nt. To: ATTY. .VI ARJO MARIE B. SISON-TILDE ATTY. RHONA B. CACAN I N OI 13ur~au of lnh.:rnal R..:vcnuc - Rcvcnu~ R~gi on No. I BI R Building, M e Arthur High way Calasiao. Pangasinan MARl LOU AQUINO CO 22 /\spi ras 1-1 iway. San /\gustin last Agoo. La U nion ATTY. :\-l ARK OLIVER C. ASI S ATTY. 1\�I A . SEVERI NA V. LILACAN-NU i\iEZ ATTY. JEFFREY L . 0 'TA . 'CCO Publi c A tt orn..:y's Orlicc 6th Floor. Justice Ccc.:ilia Mwioz Palma Hall DOJ 13ulidi ng. Quezon C ity llall Compound Dili man. Quezon C ity l-ION. ETHELWOLOA A. .IA RAVATA Pn.:siding Judge Thr u: Bra nch C le rk of C ourt � Regional Trial Cour1 Fir;t .J udicial Region 13ranch 32 1\goo, La U nio n GREETIN GS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on March 25, 2025, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitl ed case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Phi li ppines, Ma rch 27,2025. f/11 Atty. Marg rette Y. G uz1 Executive Clerk of Cou rt II Page I of 1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION BUREAU OF INTERNAL CTA CRIM. CASE NO. A-24 REVENUE REGION NO . 1 , (Criminal Case No. A-9135) Calasiao, Pangasinan, Members: Petitioner, -versu s - DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Cliairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. Promulgated: MARILOU AQUINO GO, Respondent. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - hVJU~~.v- CUI-DAVID, J. : This resolves petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration filed via accredited courier on December 2, 2024, and via electronic mail (e-mail) on January 23, 2025, with re&pondent's Comment/ Opposition (To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 29 November 2024) filed via personal service on December 23, 2024, and via e-mail on January 22, 2025. Petitioner challenges the Decision dated October 31, 2024 (assailed Decision), which disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review ' is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Petitioner maintains that jurisdiction over this case r emains with the Regional Trial Court (court a quo), which has e){clusive original jurisdiction over criminal cases where the imposable penalty of imprisonment e){ceeds s~ (6) years. Petitioner argues that since the imposable penalty fo,r violating Section 255 of theTa){ Code is imprisonment of not less than

RESOUTION CTA Crim. Case No. A-24 Bureau of Internal Revenue Region No. I v. Marilou Aquino Go X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X one (1) year arrd not more tharr ten (10) years, the first-level courts lack the authority to impose penalties more tharr what is allowed under the rules. Respondent contends that Republic Act (RA) No. 9282,1 a special law governing the jurisdiction of courts in tax-related matters, takes precedence over the Tax Code, which is a general law. Thus, respondent maintains that the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction is correct. We resolve. Petitioner received a copy of the assailed Decision on November 8, 2024. 2 Under Section 11 3 of RA No. 9282, petitioner had fifteen (15) days from that date, or until November 25, 2024, 4 to file a motion for reconsideration. However, the motion was filed only on December 2, 2024, beyond the reglementary period. A belatedly filed motion for reconsideration "ipso facto forecloses the right to appeal," 5 rendering the assailed Decision final, executory, arrd "beyond the courts' power to amend or revoke."6 Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction to reconsider a judgment that has attained finality. Even assuming the motion was timely filed, it lacks merit. As discussed in the assailed Decision, the Information charging respondent with failure to pay value-added tax (VAT) in the amount oLP84,026.22, exclusive of charges arrd penalties for the year 2017, falls within the original jurisdiction of first level courts under RA No. 9282, in relation to RA No. 11576 arrd the Supreme Court's ruling in People v. Mendez. 7 Thus, the court a quo lacked jurisdiction, arrd the case was correctly dismissed. AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PCRPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, March 30,2004. Docket, p. 52 (dorsal portion}, LBC Express, Inc. Tracking number 127366740491. !d. at 73, JRS Express Tracking number 127652-924. November 23, 2025, the 15'h day, fell on a Saturday. Spouses Yap-Sumndad, eta!. v. Friday's Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 235586, January 22, 2020 [Per C.J. Peralta, First Division], citing Barrio Fiesta Restaurant, el a!., v. Berunia, G.R. No. 206690, July 11, 2016 [Per J. Brion, Second Division]. Bureau of Internal Revenue v. TJCO Insurance Company, Inc., et at., G.R. No. 204226, Ap~il 18, 2022 fPer J. Hernando, Second Division]. G.R. Nos. 208310-11 & 208662. March 28, 2023 [Per J. M. Lopez, En Bane].

RESOUTION CTA Crim. Case No. A-24 Bureau of Internal Revenue Region No. 1 v. Marilou Aquino Go x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Avt AAAdrfli. LArfWs:cUI-DAVID Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS JEAN MARIE A. BACORRO-VILLENA Associate Justice