PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIVIC BRIONES, DAVID BANGA & BENJAMIN VALIC

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0- 162 Plaintiff, -versus- Present: CASTANEDA, JR., MARIVIC BRIONES,DAVID BANGA CASANOVA and and BENJAMIN VALI C, MINDARO-GRULLA, JJ. Accused . Promulgated: OCT! ~ RESOLUTION On September 30, 2010, a "JOINT MANIFESTATION AND MOTION FOR PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL" was filed by State Prosecutor Bernardo L. Parico, accused Marivic Briones with her counsels, Atty. Sinforoso M. Sarmiento, Jr. and Atty . Ramil Joselito B. Tamayo and accused Benjamin Valic with counsel Atty. Wilfreda T. Garcia. Prior to the filing of the said "Joint Manifestation and Motion For Provisional Dismissal" , accused Brion es filed a "SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING WITH MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE" and a previous Motion To Quash The Information on the grounds, as follows:

People of the Philippines v. MAR/VIC BRIONES, Page 2 of 4 DA V/0 BANGA and BENJAMIN VALIC CTA Crim Case No. 0-162 RESOLUTION (1) the filing of the information violates the constitutional right of the accused to speedy disposition of cases; and (2) the information was filed without authority of the low and in violation of the clear mandate of Section 2, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court of Tax App eals and Section 3(D), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Accused Briones, in her supplemental pleading with motion for determination of the existence of probable cause, appeals that her previously filed Motion to Quash be treated as a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of violation of her constitutional rights and for wont of probable cause. Accused argues that the prosecutor was confronted by a non-contested controversy consid ering that accused did not file her counter-affidavit since she did not receive a subpoena and for unknown reasons, the prosecution foiled to resolve the case for more than five (5) years. Accused further argues that the Bureau of Customs hod found her innocent of the imputations against her and that there was nothing on record which would substantiate and support the action of the State Prosecutor on the finding of probable cause considering that said State Prosecutor merely relied on photocopied documents in filing the subject information.

People of the Philippines v. MAR/VIC BRIONES, Page 3 of 4 DAVID BANG A and BENJAMIN VA LIC CTA Crim Case No. 0- 162 RESOLUTION Suffice it to say that as early a s Jan uary 5, 2010, this Court's First Division, in its Resolution, found th e existen ce of probable cause for the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest ag ain st the accused and subsequently, this case was transferred to Ihis Courl 's Second Division. Thereafter, on March 24, 2010, accused Benja min Va lic was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. On June 7, 20 10, a ccused Marivic Briones was arraigned and she pleaded no t gu ilty. As it is, the accused and counsels have joined and they interposed no objection to the Motion For Provisional Dismissal. Thus, accused Briones is deem ed lo have abandoned the "Motion for Determination of the Existen ce o f Probabl e Cause." State Prosecutor Paric o a lleg es therein that he is still in the process of "retrieving, collating and securi ng the original copies of the documents which are vital an d necessary in the prosecution of the instant case". As may be g lean e d from 1he records, all the documents submitted by the prosec ution arc mere p ho locopies. In fact, during the Pre-trial in a similar case 1 p endin g before Ihis Court's Third Division, the State Prosecutor himself a dmill e d th o ! he o nly has the photocopies of the documents and that eve n !h e c ouns els o f the Bureau of Customs do not have a copy of the origina l d ocume nts.2 1 CTA Crim Nos. 0-1 57 and 0- 158. 2 Transcript of Stenogra p hic No tes (I SN) o f CTA Cri rn Cose No . 0-157, August 25, 2010.

People of the Philippines v. MAR/VIC BRIO NES, Page 4 of 4 DAVID BANGA and BENJAMIN VALIC CTA Crim Case No. 0-162 RESOLUTION In Torres, Jr. vs. Aguinaldo3, the Supreme Court held that- "There is provisional dismissal when a motion filed expressly for that purpose complies with the following requisites, viz.: (1) It must be with the express consent of the accused; and (2) There must be notice to the offended party." The "JOINT MANIFESTATION AND MOTION FOR PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL" of the case complied with the above m e ntioned requisites. The motion was based on valid ground, without objection and in fact joined by the accused, their counsels and the State Prosecutor. WHEREFORE, premises considered , the "JOINT MANIFESTATION AND MOTION FOR PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL" is GRANTED . Accordingly, the above-captioned case is hereby PROVISIONALLY DISMISSED . SO ORDERED. ~ANITffe:~~tA~: Associate Justice CAESA~SANOVA ~N.M~-~. G~ Associate Justice CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice 3 G.R. No. 164268, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 599 (2005) .