PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LILIBETH RAMOS ARAGON On-Line Janitorial Services No. 134 Kamias Road, East Kamias Quezon City (AT-LARGE)

CTJ\ Form o. X( For DCC) llllllll lllll llll llllllllllllllll llllllllllll lllllllllllllllll 22-000204-0016 REPUBLIC OF THE PHI LIP PINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON C ITY Fl RST DIVISlON CTA CRlM. CASE NO. 0-904 PEOPLE OF THE PHlLlPPlNES, Plaintiff, - versus - NOTI CE O F RESOLUTION LILIBETH RAMOS ARAGON, Acc used. To: PROSECUTO R GENERAL R ICH A RD A 'THO 'YD. FAD ULLO ASST. STATE PROSEC TOR MO ISES YAO ACAYA ' Department or Justice Padre Faura Stn:et. Ermita I000 Manila ATTY. PA LYN A ' A. i\IIP IG-LAU CA Y Uureau of Internal ReH~n ue- Revenue Region No. 7A Lc!!al Di\ ision, Room 516. Roof Deck. Fisher Mall Fe~nando Poe Jr., Avenue corner Queton Avenue Quc1.on City GREETINGS: You arc hereby notifi ed by these presents that on April 8, 2025, a Reso lution was rendered in the abo ve-entitled case, copy of whi ch is attached hereto. Q}1ezon City, Philippines, April 10, 2025. Atty. Mar Exccutiv Page I of I

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA Crim. Case No. PHILIPPINES, 0-904 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended (Willful -versus- Failure to Pay Deficiency Value-Added Tax) Members : DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, LILIBETH RAMOS ARAGON, BACORRO-VILLENA, and On-Line Janitorial Services CUI-DAVID, JJ. No. 134 Kamias Road, East Kamias, Quezon City (AT- Promulgated: LARGE), Accused. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - For resolution is plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideratjon (Re: Resolution dated January 08, 2025) filed via e-mail and accredited courier on January 24, 2025. Plaintiff's Motion seeks the reversal of the Court's Resolution dated January 8, 2025, which dismissed the instant criminal case. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-904 is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Alias Warrant of Arrest issued against accused is RECALLED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. In its Motion, plaintiff argues that the Final Assessment Notice with Formal Letter of Demand (FAN/FLD) is valid, asserting that no substantive law imposes the requirement of indicating a due date in the FAN/FLD. Plaintiff also contends

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-904 People of the Philippines v. Lilibeth Ramos Aragon x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x that the FAN/FLD was properly served, citing registry receipts and affidavits of service as proof of delivery. Plaintiff's Motion is bereft of merit. The requirement to specify a definite due date in the FANI FLD has long been established in Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Fitness By Design, Inc. (Fitness by Design}, t and has been consistently upheld by both this Court and the Supreme Court in numerous cases.2 To reiterate: A final assessment notice provides for the amount of tax due with a demand for payment.... The issuance of a valid formal assessment is a substantive prerequisite for collection of taxes. Neither the National Internal Revenue Code nor the revenue regulations provide for a "specific definition or form of an assessment." However, the National Internal Revenue Code defines its explicit functions and effects. An assessment does not only include a computation of tax liabilities; it also includes a demand for payment within a period prescribed. Its main purpose is to determine the amount that a taxpayer is liable to pay. A final assessment is a notice "to the effect that the amount therein stated is due as tax and a demand for payment thereof." This demand for payment signals the time "when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer and enabling the latter to determine his remedies[.]" Thus, it must be "sent to and received by the taxpayer, and must demand payment of the taxes described therein within a specific period." The disputed Final Assessment Notice is not a valid assessment. Contrary to petitioner's view, April 15, 2004 was the reckoning date of accrual of penalties and surcharges and not the due date for payment of tax liabilities. The total amount depended upon when respondent decides to pay. The notice, therefore, did not contain a definite and actual demand to pay. [Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted] G.R. No. 215957, November 9. 2016,799 SCRA 391-420 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]. Republic v. First Gas Power Corporation, G.R. No. 214933, February 15,2022 [Per J. Lopez, 1., First Division]; Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. T Shuttfe Services, Inc, G.R. No. 240729 (Resolution), August 24, 2020 [Per J. Inting, Second Division].

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-904 People of the Philippines v. Lilibeth Ramos Aragon x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Further, as mentioned in the assailed Resolution, the record is bereft of evidence proving that the accused received the FAN/FLD. The prosecution failed to submit the Registry Return Receipt, which serves as conclusive proof that the intended recipient received the mailed FLD/FAN. Merely attaching photocopies of the registry receipt and an affidavit of service is insufficient to establish the taxpayer's receipt of the FAN/FLD. Since the actual receipt of a valid FAN/FLD is indispensable in cases involving willful failure to pay taxes, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse or set aside its prior Resolution. WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated January 08, 2025) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice ' LANEirflsM~vACAlAJI'h-D'A#VI-D Associate Justice