PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO Y. DIA and FRITZ and MACZOIL ASIA, INC., (Units 3,4 & 5, 22nd Zuelligh Bldg., Paseo De Roxas cor. Makati Ave., Makati City) (At-Large)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0 -1003 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 255, in relation to Sections 253(d) and 256, of the NIRC of 1997, as amended -versus- Members: REYNALDO Y. DIA and RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, FRITZ and MACZIOL ASIA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and INC., (Units 3, 4 & 5, 22"d Zuellig FERRER-FLORES, JJ. Bldg., Paseo De Roxas cor. Makati Promulgated: Ave., Makati City), (At-Large) Accused. OCT 23 2Jl23 c-..__-. ~:. O'l...~ � - � X- - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - X RESOLUTION Before this Court is prosecution's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated 18 July 2023) fi led via accredited courier' on September 6, 2023 and received by the Court on September 7, 2023 . To recall, despite several opportunities given by the Court to the prosecution to submit the original or certified true copies of the supporting documents attached in the Information,2 the latter failed to do so. Thus, the Court dismissed the Information of the instant case without prejudice on May 4, 2023.3 1 See Office of the C'0urt Admini <:triiiM lirru iM N0 '\4-2021 in relati0n t0 "er 1 of Rule 13 0f the Rules of Court, as amended. 2 Reso lutions dated January 25, 2023 and March 16, 2023, Docket, pp. I02 to I04 and I 13 to 11 5, respectively. 3 Resolution dated May 4, 2023, Docket, pp. 11 8 to 119.

RESOLUTION CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-1003 On June 7, 2023, the prosecution filed a Manifestation with an attached Amended Information. In the Resolution dated July 18, 2023, this Court held that a party may file a motion for reconsideration against a dismissal without prejudice before the lapse of the fifteen-day reglementary period. The Court has likewise cited the ruling in the case of Banares II vs. Balising, 4 stating that after the order of dismissal of a case without prejudice has become final, a party who wishes to reinstate the case has no other remedy but to file a new Complaint/Information. In determining whether the Court can still consider the prosecution's Manifestation and the Amended Information following the dismissal of the Information without prejudice, the Court resolved to consider the same as a positive act of seeking reconsideration on the dismissal of the case. Thereafter, the Court proceeded with the determination of probable cause for the issuance of Warrant of Arrest against the accused. In the course of its examination of the record, the Court found that some of the attached annexes of the Complaint-Affidavit5 were mere photocopies despite the prosecution having been given several opportunities to submit their original or certified true copies. Hence, the Court found that the supporting documents on record were insufficient to establish probable cause. In its motion, the prosecution argues that there is sufficient ground to issue a warrant of arrest as the evidence presented shows a prima facie case against the accused. The prosecution also submits that photocopies are admissible in evidence under the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence and that the dismissal of a case for failure to attach or provide documents of annexes is reparable. The motion must be denied for lack of merit. As observed by the Court in its Resolution dated July 18, 2023, the prosecution received the Court's Resolution dated May 4, 2023 dismissing the instant case without prejudice on May 23, 2023. Counting fifteen (15) days therefrom, the prosecution had until June 7, 2023 within which to file a motion for reconsideration. Instead, the prosecution filed a Manifestation with the Amended Information on June 7, 2023. 4 G.R. No. 132624, March 13,2000. 5 Annex A (pages I and 3 to 8) and the Tax Returns attached in Annex D.

RESOLUTION CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-1003 Nevertheless, the Court gave the prosecution an opportunity to make its case by treating the said Manifestation with the Amended Information as an act seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of the case. Still, the prosecution was unable to convince the Court that the evidence proffered is sufficient to establish a probable cause. Indeed, what the law requires as personal determination on the part of the judge is that he should not rely solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor.6 The judge should consider not only the report ofthe investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit and the documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information. 7 Further, Section 7, Rule 15 of the 2005 Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), as amended, provides: "SECTION 7. No second motion for reconsideration or for new trial. - No party shall be allowed to file a second motion for reconsideration or for new trial of a decision, final resolution or order." (Emphases added.) The Court has already extended leniency with the prosecution and allowed its Manifestation to stand for its motion for reconsideration; as such, it can no longer entertain the instant motion. Since the dismissal is without prejudice, the prosecution still has the available remedy of re-filing the Amended Information with complete and correct supporting documents on which the determination of probable cause will be based. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prosecution's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated 18 July 2023) is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Resolution dated July 18, 2023 dismissing the Amended Information against accused, without prejudice to the re-filing of the same, is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~. ,J..J.c.,_ -t '--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 6 AAA vs. Carbonell, G.R. No. 171465, June 8, 2007. 7 /d., citing Okabe vs. Gutierrez. G.R. No. 150185, May 27, 2004.

RESOLUTION CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-1003 Page 4 of4 ON LEAVE MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice c~tAsso.c;a~~~:sR~~.,E/ S