PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAVIMA GROUP, INC. and ROMEO B. VINCO, (Room 302 Medalla Building 596 EDSA, Cubao Quezon City)

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111 11111 1111111111111 22-000206-00 14 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-906 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION MAVIMA GROUP, INC. AND ROMEO B. VINCO, Accused. To: PROSECUTOR GENERAL BENEDICTO A. MALCONTENTO SR. DEPUTY STATE PROS. RICHARD ANTHONY D. FADULLON PROSECUTION ATTY. JANUARY L. TRIA-LLARENA Department of Justice Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila ATTY. PAULYN ANN A. UMIPIG-LABUCAY Bureau oflntemal Revenue - Revenue Region No. 7A Legal Division, Room 516, Roof Deck, Fisher Mall Fernando Poe Jr., Avenue comer Quezon Avenue Quezon City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on May 6, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, May 7, 2024. AttyE. xMeacruitiav~ ~~o.uCrthaIIn-Te

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-906 PHILIPPINES, For: Violation of Section 255, in relation to Sections 253 and 256 Plaintiff; of the National Internal Revenue � Code of 1997, as amended. -versus- Members: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. MAVIMA GROUP, INC. and Promulgated: ROMEO B. VINCO, Accused. X------------------------------ RESOLUTION Before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated February 02, 2024)1 filed by plaintiff on April 1, 2024, assailing the Resolution promulgated on February 2, 2024,2 the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-906 is hereby WITHDRAWN from the a rchives and accordingly DISMISSED by reason of prescription of the offense charged. The Alias Warrant ofArrest issued against the accused is hereby RECALLED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. 1 Docket, pp. I0 1-1 04. 2 Docket, pp. 94-1 00.

RESOLUTION CTA Cr im . Case No. 0-906 People of th e Philippines v. Mavima Group, Inc. and Romeo B. Vinca x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In seeking reconsideration, plaintiff maintains that the prescriptive period for violations of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), being a special law, is interrupted by the filing of the complaint before the Department of Justice (DOJ) for purposes of preliminary investigation against the accused, citing the ruling of the Supreme Court in People of the Philippines v. Mateo A. Lee, Jr.3 As such, plaintiff had five (5) years from February 25, 2016, or until February 25, 2021, to file a case against the accused. Plaintiff's motion must fail. Item III (2) (c) of the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases4 provides: III. Procedure XXX XXX XXX 2 . Motions XXX XXX XXX (c) Meritorious Motions. Motions that allege plausible grounds supported by relevant documents and/ or competent evidence, except those that are already covered by the Revised Guidelines, are meritorious motions, x x x: XXX XXX XXX The motion for reconsideration of the resolution of a meritorious motion shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) calendar days from receipt of such resolution, x x x. Motions that do not conform to the requirements stated above shall be considered unmeritorious and shall be denied outright. [Emphasis supplied] It is clear as day that the party aggrieved by the Court's resolution is conferred a non-extendible period ofjive (5) calendar days , reckoned from receipt thereof, within which to file a motion for reconsideration, lest the same be denied. 3 G.R. No. 23 46 18, September 16, 20 19. 4 A.M . No. 15-06-1 0-SC.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No . 0 -906 People of the Philippines v. Mavima Group, Inc. a nd Romeo B. Vin ca x------- ---------------------------- -------- -- --- ---------- -------- ------- -- ---- -----------x In the instant case, the record reveals that plaintiff received the assailed Resolution dated February 2, 2024, dismissing the present case on the ground of prescription on February 12, 2024. Consistent with the above rule, plaintiff had a non-extendible period of five (5) days from February 12 , 2024 , or until February 17, 2024, to seek reconsideration of the adverse ruling. Having belatedly filed its Motion for Reconsideration on April 1, 2024, forty-nine (49) days from receipt of the assailed Resolution, the Court is left with no other recourse but to deny it. Nonetheless, even if the instant Motion for Reconsideration was seasonably filed, the Court finds that the arguments raised therein had already been amply discussed, passed upon, and considered by the Court in the Resolution sought to be reconsidered. Pages 2 to 6 of the assailed Resolution contain a comprehensive discussion on why the failure of the prosecution to timely file the Information in Court within the five (5)-year prescriptive as provided under Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is fatal to its cause. In fine, this Court finds no compelling reason to disturb or overturn its ruling in the assailed Resolution. WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated February 02, 2024) is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Presidring Justice ~t/41t( LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice