PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALMODZRI BASSAL MOHAMMAD, Proprietor of EXPORT AND IMPORT TRADING, (Door 11, Galicana Arcade, A. Bonifacio Street, Davao City 8000 Or Block 15, Lot 15, Fortune Executive Homes, Lanang, Davao City 8000 (-AT LAGRE-)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-1038 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 1401 of Republic Act No. 10863, otherwise known as the -versus- Customs Modernization and Tariff Act ALMODZRI BASSAL MOHAMMAD, Proprietor of Members: EXPORT AND IMPORT TRADING, RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, (Door 11, Galicana Arcade, A. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and Bonifacio Street, Davao City 8000 or FERRER-FLORES, JJ Block 15, Lot 15 Fortune Executive Homes, Lanang, Davao City 8000, Promulgated: (At-Large), APR o4zozy Accused. I j''..wr.)~'"� x-------------------------------------------- -------------x RESOLUTION Before the Court is the prosecution's Omnibus Motion (for Reconsideration with Compliance and Admission of Amended Information) filed on September 22, 2023. At the outset, the Court found that some of the supporting documents attached to the complaint-affidavit were mere photocopies and that the title of the Information indicated that the accused was the owner/proprietor of EXPORT and IMPORT TRADING, but in the body of the Information and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Resolution, the same had been referred to as AMHS EXPORT and IMPORT TRADING. The prosecution, thus, was directed to submit the originals or certified true copies of the said supporting documents and to rectify the said discrepancy. Consequently, the determination of probable cause for the issuance of Warrant of Arrest against the accused was held in abeyance. 1 1 Resolution dated May 9, 2023 , Docket pp. 47 to 49.

RESOLUTION CTA CRJM. CASE NO. 0-1038 Page 2 of3 On August 23, 2023, the Court issued a Resolution stating that, as per Records Verification dated June 22, 2023, the prosecution has not yet complied with the Court's directive despite the lapse of the given period. Accordingly, the Court dismissed without prejudice the instant Information for insufficiency of supporting documents to establish probable cause. 2 Hence, the filing of the instant motion. In the Omnibus Motion (for Reconsideration with Compliance and Admission ofAmended Information), the prosecution moves for the Court to reconsider the dismissal without prejudice of this Information; to admit the submission of the original/certified true copies of the (1) Resolution dated September 7, 2021, (2) Referral Letter dated March 19, 2021, (3) Investigative Data Form with NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-21D-00105, and (4) Complaint-Affidavit of Bureau of Customs Officer Jover U. Umpar with attached annexes; and to admit the Amended Information correcting the above-mentioned discrepancy. The question hinges on whether a dismissal without prejudice may be a subject of a motion for reconsideration. The pronouncement in the case of Banares II vs. Balisint is highly instructive, to wit: A "final order" issued by a court has been defined as one which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court. As distinguished therefrom, an 'interlocutory order' is one which does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be adjudicated upon. This Court has previously held that an order dismissing a case without prejudice is a final order if no motion for reconsideration or appeal therefrom is timely filed . (Emphasis supplied) Corollary thereto, Section 1, Rule 15 of the 2005 Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), as amended, provides: SECTION 1. Who may and when to file motion. - Any aggrieved party may seek a reconsideration or new trial of any decision, resolution or Resolution dated August 23 , 2023 , Docket. G.R. No. 132624, March 13, 2000.

'( RESOLUTION �- CTA CRIM . CASE NO. 0-1038 Page 3 of3 order of the Court by filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial \ within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice of the decision, � resolution or order of the Court in question. (Emphasis supplied) Plainly stated, a party may file a motion for reconsideration against a dismissal without prejudice before the lapse of the fifteen-day reglementary period. 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 or Information. Records show that the Court's Resolution dated August 29, 2023 was received by the DOJ on August 30, 2023.4 Counting fifteen (15) days therefrom, the prosecution had until September 14, 2023 to file a motion for reconsideration. Since the instant motion was filed only on September 22, 2023, it is clear that the same was filed beyond the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prosecution's Omnibus Motion (for Reconsideration with Compliance and Admission of Amended Information) is DENIED for being filed out of time. SO ORDERED. ~.~ ~ '--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice MARIARO 4 Notice of Resolution dated August 29, 2023 .