CTA Case No. EB CRIM-98 (Resolution on MR)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE CTA EB Crim No. 098 PHILIPPINES, (CTA Crim Case Nos. 0-739 & 0-740) Petitioner, Members: -versus- DEL ROSARIO , P.J ., RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, B A C O R R O -VILLENA , MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. ROBUST SECURITY CORP., Promulgated: VILMA M. MABILANGAN, SHARLYN FUENTES, EDUARDO DELA MEJIA and RUDILYN OLENDO, Respondents. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: For resolution by the Court En Bane (Court) are the following: 1. Respondent Sharlyn Fuentes' Ex Parte Motion to Release Cash Bond, filed on April 8, 2024; 2. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 26 March 2024), filed on April 17, 2024, with �respondent Sharlyn Fuentes' Comment/ Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration filed on June 18, 2024; and

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim No. 098 (CTA Crim Case Nos. 0-739 & 0-740) People of the Philippines v. Robust Security Corp., Vilma M. Mabilangan, Sharlyn Fuentes, Eduardo Dela Mejia and Rudilyn Olendo X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X , 3. Certification issued by the Office of the Postmaster of the Philippine Postal Corporation dated September 26, 2024 posted on October 1, 2024. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration seeks the reversal of the Court's Decision dated March 26, 2024, which denied petitioner's Petition for Review for lack of merit. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The Resolutions dated August 5, 2022 and October 25, 2022, rendered by the Court's First Division in CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-739 and 0-740 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner argues that the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) and Final Assessment Notice (FAN) were duly transmitted to the Post Office for mailing. Petitioner contends that when mail matter is sent by registered mail, there exists a presumption that it was received in the regular course of mail. Petitioner further claims that it has proven respondent Fuentes' position as the treasurer of respondent corporation by submitting its General Information Sheet (GIS) for taxable year 2007. Assailing the finding of prescription, petitioner argues that the Complaint was filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) within five (5) years from the issuance of the FAN. In her Comment, respondent Fuentes counters that petitioner failed to prove receipt of the PAN and FAN, as it did not present the registry receipt and the affidavit of the person who mailed the documents. She also argues that the criminal case has prescribed, as the Information was filed with the Court more than five (5) years after the issuance of the FAN. We resolve. At the onset, the Court notes that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration merely reiterates arguments that have already been thoroughly considered, resolved, and addressed in the assailed Decision.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim No. 098 (CTA Crim Case Nos. 0-739 & 0-740) People of the Philippines v. Robust Security Corp., Vilma M. Mabilangan, Sharlyn Fuentes, Eduardo Dela Mejia and Rudilyn Olendo x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x It 1s well-settled that a motion for reconsideration containing mere reiterations or rehashes of grounds and arguments previously considered, weighed, and resolved by the court before the Decision sought to be reconsidered is rendered, does not require a new judicial determination. 1 Thus, there is no necessity to discuss and rule again on this ground since "this would be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant."2 In Shangri-La International Hotel Management v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., 3 the Supreme Court emphasized that it is incumbent upon the movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions are contrary to law, as follows: The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. Considering that the grounds presently raised have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought. It is already settled that if the issues raised in a motion for reconsideration are mere reiterations of those already passed upon and adjudged unmeritorious by the Court, these cannot be regarded as substantial and do not reqmre further People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751 (Resolution), January 7. 2013 [Per J. Del Castillo, Special First Division] citing People v. Larraiiaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75. July 21,2005 [Per Curiam, En Bane]; Madeleine Mendoza-Ong v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, eta!., G.R. Nos. 146368-69 (Resolution), October 18,2004 [Per J. Quisumbing, Special Second DiYision]. People v. Agacer. G.R. No. 177751 (Resolution), January 7, 2013 [Per J. Del Castillo, Special First Division] citing People v. Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, July 21, 2005 [Per Curiam, En Bane] and Ortigas Land Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco, G.R. No. 109645 (Resolution), March 4, 1996 [Per J. Narvasa, Third Division]. G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22. 2007 [Per J. Garcia, First Division].

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim No. 098 (CTA Crim Case Nos. 0-739 & 0-740) People of the Philippines v. Robust Security Corp., Vilma M. Mabilangan, Sharlyn Fuentes, Eduardo Dela Mejia and Rudilyn Olendo X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X discussion. Any additional discourse would be unnecessary and repetitive.4 Accordingly, the Court affirms its ruling in the assailed Decision that petitioner failed to prove the service and receipt of the PAN and FAN by respondent corporation or any of its responsible officers. This failure negates the presence of willfulness, an essential element of the crime charged. The Court likewise reaffirms its consistent ruling that the institution of the criminal action - i.e., the filing of the information with the Court - interrupts the prescriptive period. In this case, the government's right to institute a criminal action against respondents had already prescribed for more than two years when the Informations were filed on June 19, 20 19. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 26 March 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. Further, respondent Sharlyn Fuentes' Ex Parte Motion to Release Cash Bond is GRANTED pursuant to Section 22, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. s Accordingly, the cash bail bond posted by the accused is hereby CANCELLED and ordered RELEASED to the accused upon presentation of proper documents, in accordance with usual accounting rules and regulations. Finally, the Certification issued by the Office of the Postmaster of the Philippine Postal Corporation 1s hereby NOTED. SO ORDERED. /ltrf;fn t?n X LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice Socia/JusticeSociety(SJS) Officersv. Lim, G.R. Nos. 187836 & 187916 (Resolution). March 10,2015,755 PHIL 323-335 [Per J. Perez, En Bane]. SECTION 22. Cancellation of Bail.- Upon application of the bondsmen. with due notice to the_ prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death. � The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused. dismissal of the case, or execution of the judgment of conviction. In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability on the baiL

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim No. 098 (CTA Crim Case Nos. 0-739 & 0-740) People of the Philippines v. Robust Security Corp., Vilma M. Mabilangan, Sharlyn Fuentes, Eduardo DeJa Mejia and Rudilyn Olendo x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~. ~-; '-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice CAt--t. 7- fll-cL-- cATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ON LEAVE MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice a: C~OvN- Associate Justic HENRY j[{NGELES Associate Justice