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) 1111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 111111111111111111 22-000205-0011 REPUBLIC OF THE PIDLIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-905 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION MAVIMA GROUP, INC. AND ROMEO B. VINCO, Accused. To: SR. DEPUTY STATE PROS. RICHARD ANTHONY D. FADULLON PROS. ATTY. JANUARY L. TRIA-LLARENA Department of Justice Padre Faura Street, Ennita Manila COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Thru: Prosecution D ivision Room 704, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City DIRECTOR National Bureau of Investigation Taft Avenue, Errnita, Manila PNPCHIEF Thru: CIDG Philippine National Police National Headquarters Camp Rafael Tagle Crame EDSA, Quezon City CHIEF, WARRANT AND SUBPOENA SECTION Quezon City Police District Camp BGen Tomas Karingal Sikaruna Village, Diliman Quezon City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on January 31, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, February 1, 2024. Atty. Maria ~ F. Chan-Te Executive Clerk of Court II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-905 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 P r o m u lg a t e d : ROMEO B. VINCO , Accused. X- ---------------- ---------------- RESOLUTION On May 5, 2022, the prosecution filed an Information charging accused Mavima Group, Inc. and its President, Romeo B. Vinco , for violation of Section 255, in relation to Sections 253(d) and 256 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, allegedly committed as follows: "That on or about July 2012, and thereafter, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Mavima Group, Inc. and Romeo B. Vinco , President of Mavima Group, Inc., registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue with Tax Identification No. 000-406-811- 000, a domestic corporation required by law to pay Income Tax, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly fail to pay basic deficiency Income Tax in the amount of Twenty One Million Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred Three Pesos and 04 / 100 (Php21,047,103.04), exclusive of increments, despite final assessment notice, including prior and post notices and demands to pay and demand before suit issued by BIR in 24 Seplen1.ber 20 18, lo the damage and prejudice of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-905 People of the Philippines vs. Mavima Group, Inc. and Romeo B. Vinco x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x CONTRARY TO LAW." In the Resolution promulgated on May 20, 2022,1 the Court found probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest against accused Romeo B. Vinco and set the bail bond for his provisional liberty at P60,000.00. Despite the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest on May 24, 2022, and the subsequent issuance of an Alias Warrant ofArrest on July 7, 2022, accused remains at large. Thus, in order that this case may not remain pending in the Court's docket for an indefinite period, the Court ordered this case to be archived in the Resolution dated January 20, 2023.2 Meanwhile, the Court noted that several cases have been archived, given the authorities' failure to cause the arrest of the accused. The number of archived cases and the successive dismissal of recent cases on the ground of prescription prompted the Court to review such cases to determine whether they were filed within the prescribed period as provided under Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, governs the prescriptive period for filing criminal actions for violations of the 1997 NIRC , to wit: SEC. 281. Prescription for Violations ofany Provision of this Code. - All violations of any provision of this Code shall prescribe after five (5) years. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, a nd if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty persons and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy . The term of prescription sha ll not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines. (Boldfacing supplied) 1 Docket, pp. 63-66. 2 Docket, p. 87.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-905 People of the Philippines vs. Mavima Group, Inc. and Romeo B. Vinco Page 3 of7 X-------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----- -- --------------X The foregoing provision presents two modes for the commencement of the period of prescription: 1. First Mode: From the day of the commission of the violation of the law; or 2. Second Mode: When the day of the commission is unknown, from the discovery of the commission and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. In the case of Emilio E. Lim, Sr. and Antonia Sun Lim v. Court ofAppeals and People ofthe Philippines3 (Lim case), the Supreme Court elucidated the point when prescription for criminal violation of the provisions of the NIRC, involving taxpayer's refusal to pay the deficiency income taxes due, commences, vrz.: "Relative to Criminal Case Nos. 1788 and 1789 which involved petitioners' refusal to pay the deficiency income taxes due, again both parties are in accord that by their nature, the violations as charged could only be committed after service of notice and demand for payment of the deficiency taxes upon the taxpayers. Petitioners maintain that the five- year period of limitation under Section 354 should be reckoned from April 7, 1965, the date of the original assessment while the Government insists that it should be counted from July 3, 1968 when the final notice and demand was served on petitioners' daughter-in-law. We hold for the Government. Section 51 (b) of the Tax Code provides: '(b) Assessment and payment of deficiency tax. - After the return is filed, the Commissioner of internal Revenue shall examine it and assess the correct amount of the tax. The tax or deficiency in tax so discovered shall be paid upon notice and demand from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.' (Emphasis supplied) Inasmuch as the final notice and demand for payment of the deficiency taxes was served on petitioners on July 3, 1968, it was only then that the cause of action on the part of the BIR accrued. This is so because prior to the receipt of the letter-assessment, no violation has yet been committed by the taxpayers. The offense was committed only after receipt was coupled with the willful refusal to pay the taxes due within the allotted period. The two criminal informations, 3 G.R. Nos. L-48134-37, October 18, 1990.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-905 People of the Philippines vs. Mavima Group, Inc. and Romeo B. Vinca Page 4 of7 X------------------------------------------- -------- -- ------ ------- --- ---- ----- ------------X having been filed on June 23, 1970, are well-within the five- year prescriptive period and are not time-barred." (Boldfacing supplied) The foregoing pronouncement was even circularized through the issuance of Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 101-90,4 which stated: For the information and guidance of all concerned, the following are the salient features of the decision promulgated by the Supreme Court on October 19, 1990 in the case entitled "Emilio E. Lim, Sr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. ", G.R. Nos. L-48134-37. 1. When cause ofaction for willful failure to pay deficiency tax occurs. The cause of action for willful failure to pay deficiency tax occurs when the final notice a nd demand for the payment thereof is served on the taxpayer. Prior thereto, n o violation is committed. The offense is committed only after receipt is coupled with refusal to pay the tax within the allotted period. 2. Prescription under Section 280 of the Tax Code. (a} The 5-year prescriptive period in an offense or willful failure to pay a deficiency tax assessment commences to run only after the receipt of the final notice and de:mand by the taxpayer and he refuses to pay. (Boldfacing supplied) XXX XXX XXX As to what interrupts prescription, Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides that it is "when proceedings are instituted against the guilty persons." This is explained in Lim, Sr. et al. v. Court ofAppeals and People (Lim)s to mean the time when the information is filed with the Court. Relevantly, the Supreme Court approved A.M. No. 05-11- 07-CTA, otherwise known as the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), declaring that the institution of criminal action is done by filing an information with the Court, which, in turn, interrupts the prescriptive period: 4 SUBJECT: Determination of When Cause ofAction for Willful Failure to Pay Deficiency Tax Occurs; and Prescription under Section 280 ofthe Tax Code. 5 Supra, Note 3.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-905 People of the Philippines vs. Mavima Group, Inc. and Romeo B. Vinco Page 5 of7 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x RULE9 PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES SEC. 2 . Institution of criminal actions. -All criminal actions before the Court in Division in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be instituted by the filing of an information in the name of the People of the Philippines. In criminal actions involving violations of the National Internal Revenue Code and other laws enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, th e Commissioner of Internal Revenue must approve their filing. In criminal actions involving violations of the Tariff and Customs Code a nd other laws enforced by the Bureau of Customs, th e Commissioner of Customs must approve their filing. The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription. [Emphasis supplied] Clearly, when the offense charged involves a taxpayer's refusal to pay the taxes due , the date of commission of which is known, the five (5)-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date the assessment notices became final and executory and continues to run until the filing of the Information in Court. In the Joint Complaint-Affidavit6 filed by revenue officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue before the Department of Justice, it was alleged that the Formal Letter of Demand with Details of Discrepancies and Assessment Notices No. 040-B241-12, all dated January 15, 2016, assessing Mavima Group, Inc. of deficiency Income Tax (IT) , Value-Added Tax (VAT), and Expanded Withholding Tax (EWT) were served via registered mail at accused's registered address as evidenced by Registry Receipt No . 837, dated January 25, 2016. Pursuant to Section 2287 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, Mavima Group, Inc. had thirty (30) days from January 25, 2016, 6 Docket, pp. 16-23. 7 SEC. 228. Protesting ofAssessment. - When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall fi rst noti fy the taxpayer of his findi ngs: Provided, however, That a preassessment notice shall not be required in the following cases: XXX XXX XXX The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the fac ts on wh ich the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the tax payer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on his fi ndings.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim . Case No . 0 -905 People of the Philippines vs. Mavima Group, Inc. and Romeo B. Vinco x----- --------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------------- --------x or until February 24, 2016, to file its protest. Allegedly, Mavima Group, Inc. failed to file its protest s Thus, the assessments issued against it became final and executory on February 25, 2016. On June 23, 2016, a Preliminary Collection Letter was issued to respondent Mavima Group, Inc., to demand the settlement of the deficiency taxes.9 Based on the foregoing and following the ruling in Lim, the five (5)-year prescriptive period to indict accused for failure to pay tax lapsed on February 25, 2021. Thus, the right of the government to institute the case against the accused had already prescribed when the Information was filed before this Court only on May 5, 2022. Even if the period is counted from the issuance of the Preliminary Collection Notice, plaintiff would have five (5) years from June 23, 2016, or until June 23, 2021 , to file the Information in Court. Hence, the filing of the Information on May 5, 2022, is beyond the prescriptive period. Indeed, the failure of the prosecution to timely file the Information in Court within the five-year (5) prescriptive period as provided under Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is fatal to its cause. WHEREFORE, premises considered, CTA Crim. Case No. 0- 905 is hereby WITHDRAWN from the archives and accordingly DISMISSED by reason of prescription of the offense charged. The Alias Warrant of Arrest issued against the accused is hereby RECALLED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice Such I'IS~es~ment m11y he prote~ted 11dmini~tmtively hy filin g !1 reqnest for reconsider!ltion or reinve~ti g11tion wi thin thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such fo rm and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations. xxx 8 Paragraph 13, Joint Complaint�Affidavit, Docket, pp. 16-23. 9 Paragraph 14, Joint Complaint-Affidavit, Docket, pp. 16-23.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-905 People of the Philippines vs. Mavima Group, Inc. and Romeo B. Vinco Page 7 of7 X------- ------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------X ( JEAN MAR~I~�i~~~ eCJuOsRtRicOe-VILLENA /lm;mdlnl LANEE S. CUI~DAVID Associate Justice