PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONALD PUNAY ROBIN

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA EB CRIM. NO . 205 Petitioner, (CTA Crim. Case No. A-1 9) -versus - Present: RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J., BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, ANGELES, TESTON, and CENTENO-DIJAMCO, JJ. RONALD PUNAY ROBIN, Respondent. X------ - - - - - ---------- ------- -- - --- - RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: On May 19, 2026, petitioner, the People of the Philippines, filed a Petition for Review before the Court En Bane, seeking to nullify the Decision dated August 13, 2025, and the Resolution dated March 17, 2026, both rendered by this Court's Third Division (Court in Division) in CTA Crim . Case No. A-19. However, a perusal of the Petition for Review reveals that the petitioner is represented by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Section 10, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) specifically states, thus : Sec. 10. Solicitor General as counsel for the People and government officials sued in their official capacity. - The Solicitor General shall represent the People of the Philippines and government officials sued in their official capacity in all cases brought to the Court in the exercise of its appellat e jurisdiction. The former may deputize the

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No. 205 (CTA Crim. Case No. A-19) People of the Philippines v. Ronald Punay Robin J{------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)C legal officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in cases brought under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, or the legal officers of the Bureau of Customs in cases brough under the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines or other laws enforced by the Bureau of Customs, to appear in behalf of the officials of said agencies sued in their official capacity: Provided, however, such duly deputized legal officers shall remain at all times under the direct control and supervision of the Solicitor General. Undoubtedly, it is the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that must represent the People of the Philippines in all cases brought before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The above-quoted prov1s10n is consistent with Section 35 of the Administrative Code of 1987,1 which vests in the OSG the power and responsibility to represent the government in all criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and allows the deputization of legal officers of government departments, bureaus, agencies and offices to assist the OSG and to appear or represent the government in cases involving their respective offices, brought before the courts, subject to the OSG's control and supervision over such legal officers. Notably, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory2 and LG Electronics Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 3 the Supreme Court recognized the long-established rule that the OSG must represent the government's interests, as it is primarily responsible for appearing on the government's behalf in appellate proceedings. Likewise, in Carino v. De Castro, 4 the Supreme Court declared in no uncertain terms that the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines in all criminal cases. It must be emphasized that the right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.s Executive Order No. 292. July 25. 1987. G.R. No. 144942, July 4, 2002 [Per J. Vitug, En Bane]. G.R. No. 165451, December 3, 2014 [Per J. Leonen. Second Division]. G.R. No. 176084, April30, 2008 [Per J.Ynares-Santiago. Third Division]. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Fort Bon(facio Development Corporation. G.R. No. 167606. August 11, 2010 [Per J. Mendoza Second Division].

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No. 205 (CTA Crim. Case No. A-19) People of the Philippines v. Ronald Punay Robin }C------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)( Thus, considering that the instant Petition for Review suffers from the basic infirmity of lacking the requisite imprimatur from the OSG, the same is dismissible on that ground.6 Besides, even assuming for the sake of argument that the DOJ has the authority to represent the petitioner in this case, the filing of the instant Petition for Review on May 19, 2026, is likewise dismissible for having been filed out of time. As the records reveal, the DOJ received the assailed Resolution of March 17, 2026 on AprilS, 2026. Counting fifteen (15) days therefrom, the DOJ had until April23, 2026 to file the instant Petition for Review. However, the DOJ only filed the Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on May 11, 2026. Thus, there being nothing more to extend, the filing of the instant Petition for Review on May 19, 2026 is already out of time. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review filed on May 19, 2026, is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. LAN~~KVID Associate Justice WE CONCUR: l.,. --/,. L._ J - MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice JEAN MA1::n~~RRO-VILLENA ..~iate Justice (I MARIARO Republic v. "G" flo/dings, inc., G.R. No. 141241. November 22,2005 [Per J. Corona, Third Division}.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No. 205 (CTA Crim. Case No. A-19) People of the Philippines v. Ronald Punay Robin X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X ~ .<f~ F. ~ -fCI1'~ MARIAN iVflF. RE~S-FASARDO Associate Justice co~ cr��~~~~:.-s Associate Justice HENR#.. ANGELES Associate Justice (No Part) PAOLO S. TESTON Associate Justice (No Part) DEBBIE JEAN CENTENO-DIJAMCO Associate Justice