PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICHELLE SORIANO LEONARDO (At Large), No.28 Masalipit Street, San Miguel, Meycauayan, Bulacan, and or No.6 Fatima Street, Maryville Townhomes, Saluysoy, Meycauayan, Bulacan
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA Criminal Case No. 0-300 Pl ain tiff, (1.5. No. XVI-INV-llK-00449) PHILIPPINES, For: Violation of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. -versus- RICHELLE SORIANO Members: LEONARDO MANAHAN, Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and (At Large), ANGELES,JL No. 28 Masalipit Street, San Miguel Meycauayan, Bulacan, and/ or No. 6 Fatima Street, Maryville Townhomes, Saluysoy, Meycauayan Promul~ted : Bulacan Accused. JAN 1 I 2025 ' ?- - - .- ----- -1-1;- -c.-;o- O- t-� )( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _- .-. . - -)( - RESOLUTION On September 17, 2024, the Court issued a Resolution, dismissing the case in the following fashion: WHEREFORE, CTA Criminal Case No. 0-300 is withdrawn from the archives and accordingly DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. On October 4, 2024, the prosecution filed an Omnibus Motion (1. For Reconsideration of the Resolution dated September 17, 2024; and 2. To Allow Amendment of the Information) . In its motion, the prosecution alleged that it has fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
RESOLUTION CTA Criminal Case No. 0-300 Page 2 of3 Resolution, or until October 4, 2024, to file a Motion for Reconsideration. The instant Motion must be denied. Item III (2)(c) of the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases provides: III. Procedure XXX XXX XXX 2. Motions XXX XXX XXX (c) Meritorious Motions. - Motions that allege plausible grounds supported by relevant documents and/ or competent evidence, except those that are already covered by the Revised Guidelines, are meritorious motions, xxx: XXX XXX XXX The motion for reconsideration of the resolution of a meritorious motion shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) calendar days from receipt of such resolution, xxx. Motions that do not conform to the requirements stated above shall be considered unmeritorious and shall be denied outright. (emphasis supplied) From the foregoing, the party aggrieved by the Resolution of the Court is conferred a non-extendible period of five (5) calendar days, reckoned from receipt thereof, within which to file a motion for reconsideration, lest the same shall be denied. As admitted,1 the prosecution received the Resolution dated September 17, 2024, dismissing the present case, on September 19, 2024. Consistent with the above rule, the prosecution had a non- extendible period of five (5) calendar days from September 19, 2024 or until September 24, 2024 to seek reconsideration of the adverse ruling. The prosecution's 1\tfotion for Reconsideration having been 1 Page 2, Paragraph No.7, Prosecution's O mnibus Motion.
RESOLUTION CTA Criminal Case No. 0 -300 belatedly filed only on October 4, 2024, the Court is left with no other recourse but to deny the same. WHEREFORE, the Omnibus Motion (1. For Reconsideration of the Resolution dated September 17, 2024; and 2. To Allow Amendment of the Information) filed on October 4, 2024 is DENIED. SO ORDERED. C,4.-,./-;. ,4L,.~~~t..A...~.t.-- cATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ~ ~ f"~--fa1~ MARIAN I~ F. REYES~FA(ARDO Associate Justice HENRY '~NGELES Associate Justice
More in CTA Resolutions
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DAEWOO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LTD.(CTA Case No. EB 1799)
- HEIRS OF SPOUSES EDUARDO M. FRANCO and CELIA C. FRANCO namely, Maria Isabel C. Franco-Ignacio, Ferdinand C. Franco, Maria Cecilia C. Franco-Cruz, and the Heirs of Eduardo C. Franco, Jr. namely, Nancy A. Franco, Ivy Christine A. Franco, Franchesca Mae A. Franco-Lukban, Junile Emancel A. Franco, Marian Edylene A. Franco and Eduardo Angelo A. Franco v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF VALENZUELA CITY (formerly CTA Case No. 11003)(CTA Case No. SCA-0002)
- CTA Case No. 3992 (Resolution)(CTA Case No. 3992)
- CARMEN COPPER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 9659)
- PHILIPPINE VENDING CORPORATION, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 9785)
- PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(CTA Case No. 8495)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FIRST TELECOM PHILIPPINES, INC.(CTA Case No. EB 3079)
- LICA MANAGEMENT, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 11898)
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.