BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ZIEGFRIED LOO TIAN (No. 1013, Juan Luna Street, Brgy. 7, Zone 1, Tondo Manila)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTAEB CRIM. N0.107 Plaintiff Appellant, (CTA Crim Case No. 0-956) -versus- Present: Del Rosario, P.J., Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, Cui-David, F errer-Flores, and A n ge le s , ] ] . ZIEGFRIED LOO TIAN, Accused-Appellee, X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN,J: For resolution is the plaintiff-appellant's " fotion for Reconsideration (of t!Je Decision dated June 18, 2024)"1 received by the Court on J uly 10, 2024, with respondent's "Comment/Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated July 5, 2024 for the Decision dated June18, 2024)"2 flied on August 12, 2024. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Amended Verified Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. / 1 Rollo, CTA EB CRii'd. NO. 107, pp. 579-594 2 Ibid., pp. 600-618.

Page 2 of4 RESOLUTION CLI EB CRI~I. :--:o. 107 SO ORDERED." Plaintiff-appellant mamtmns that the I\lotion for Reconsideration is timely filed on January 5, 2023; that the reckoning point for the counting of the fifteen (15)-day period for filing of motion for reconsideration is on December 21, 2022, the date when the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) received the assailed Resolution dated December 5, 2022; that the Resolution dated December 5, 2022 of the Court in Division has not become final and executory due to the timely filing of the Motion for Reconsideration; that the Court En Bane can exercise appellate jurisdiction; and that prescription has not set in, since the period of discovery and the institution of judicial proceedings for the violation of Section 254 of the Tax Code against accused not only triggers the intenuption of prescriptive period, but at the same time triggers the interruption of the same prescriptive period on July 5, 2012, or the date of filing with the Department ofJustice. Hence, plaintiff-appellant moves that the Court En Bam: (1) set aside the Resolution dated December 5, 2022 dismissing the Information, on the ground of prescription of the offense charged; (2) set aside the Resolution dated February 9, 2023, denying the J\Iotion for Reconsideration; (3) set aside the Decision dated June 18, 2024, denying the ,\mended Verified Petition for Review on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; and (4) issue an Order/Resolution setting the case for Arraignment and Pre-Trial. Conversely, accused-appellee submits that the right of the plaintiff to prosecute accused has prescribed under Section 281 of the Tax Code; that the case must be dismissed for violation of accused's right to speedy disposition of cases; that the prosecution took more than ten (1 0) years from the filing of the complaint to the filing of the Information in Court; and that it is for the prosecution to prove that accused's right to dispooition of cases was not violated. ""\ccused-appcllee prays that that Motion for Reconsideration be dismissed for lack of merit and that the Court En Bane'J decision be affirmed. After consideration, the Court En Bane resolves to denv the "Motion for Reconsideration." The Court En Bane reviewed the grounds relied upon by petitioner in support of its I\Iotion for Reconsideration but finds no cogent reason to grant the same. The Court E11 Bane notes that plaintiff-appellant basically rehashed its arguments which were sufficiently passed upon and discussed by the Court in Division in its Resolution, and in the assailed En Bane Decision, to discuss them anew would only be superfluous. ,\pplying the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Sodai]mtite Sode!)� (S]S) OfficerJ, eta!. v. A!ji-edo S. Lim, et Jeq., 3 it would be a useless formality for the Court EH Bane to reiterate the reasons already set forth in the assailed Decision, /""" ' G.R. 1\io. 187836. :\Iarch 10. 2015 (Resolution on \lotion for Reconsideration), citing Orti.._Wli aud Compa!!J' Limited Par!nenbip t:.]udge Tin�o T'elmw. d a!, el.l"eq., G.R. l\"o. 109645, .\larch 4, 1996 (32-J. Phil. 483).

RESOLCTIO':' CT.\ Ell CREI!. :--;o. 107 it suffices for the Court En BaHt to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration and merely state a legal ground for its denial, thus: "The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on the Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards the issues raised and submitted for decision. This would be a useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, deemed waived because not asserted at the first opportunity. It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and merely state a legal ground for its denial (Sec. 14, ""\rt. VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its judgment, or the basic issues ha\�e already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no substantial argutnent or cogent reason to \van�ant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final order; or the arguments in the motion arc too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc'' (Empba.ri.,� added) In view of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse or modify the Decision promulgated on June 18, 2024. WHEREFORE, plaintiff-appellant's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated June 18, 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~- ~ --1'-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice t-4-w' 7~ ffi-.Jv- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN �\ssociate Justice

Page 4 of4 RESOIXTIO" CL\ EB CRI~L ':'0. 10~ ~ . BACORRO-VILLENA ~~F~-Fai~ MARIAN IWF. REYiiS-FAJARDO 1\ssociate Justice LAN~&ID Associate Jus rice ~v.~~m RES CORAp)N G. 1\ssociate Justic, HENRY itGELES ,-\ssociate Justice