G.R. No. 197164, December 04, 2019
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Benedicta Mallari and Chi Wei-Neng, Respondents.
FACTS
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) filed a criminal complaint against respondents Benedicta Mallari and Chi Wei-Neng, President and General Manager of Topsun Int’l., Inc., for violation of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) due to alleged unpaid deficiency taxes. An Information was filed before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division. The CTA First Division, in its October 7, 2009 Resolution, noted discrepancies in the Information (charging “deficiency income tax” instead of “deficiency VAT”) and the lack of the written approval of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) for the criminal prosecution as required by law. The court ordered Assistant City Prosecutor Gideon C. Mendoza to correct the Information and submit the CIR’s written approval, among other documents. Despite submissions, including an Amended Information and a Revenue Delegation Authority Order (RDAO No. 2-2007), the prosecutor failed to submit a certified copy of a specific Memorandum from the CIR authorizing the Regional Director to prosecute. Consequently, the CTA First Division dismissed the case in its December 14, 2009 Resolution for failure to obey a lawful order. The prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CTA Special First Division on March 17, 2010 for being filed out of time. The CTA En Banc and subsequently the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can review the CTA First Division’s December 14, 2009 Resolution dismissing the criminal case, considering the procedural lapse of the late filing of the Motion for Reconsideration which led to the resolution attaining finality.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review. The Court held that the December 14, 2009 Resolution of the CTA First Division had already attained finality due to the prosecution’s failure to timely file a Motion for Reconsideration. The period to file such a motion is 15 days from notice. Records showed the BIR received the resolution on December 17, 2009, making the deadline January 4, 2010. The Motion for Reconsideration was filed only on January 18, 2010, rendering it a mere scrap of paper. The Court emphasized the doctrine of finality of judgment, stating that a decision that has attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified for any reason. This doctrine applies with greater force to criminal cases where the State’s right to prosecute cannot be revived once lost. Thus, the Resolution was beyond the Court’s power to review.
