PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZIEGFRIED LOO TIAN (No. 1013, Juan Luna Street, Brgy. 7, Zone 1, Tondo Manila)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY Third Division PEOPLE OF THE CTA Crim. Case No. 0-940 (NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-12G- PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, 00346) -versus- For: Violation of Section 254 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended Members: RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and ZIEGFRIED LOO TIAN, FERRER-FLORES, JJ (No. 1013, Juan Luna Street, Brgy. 7, Zone 1, Tondo Manila), Promulgated: -AT LARGE-, Accused. 'APR 05 2023 X ------------------------------------------------------------------------tl-�~-Y-~--4._~-~--=---------------- X RESOLUTION For the Court's resolution is the prosecution's "Manifestation", filed on 19 January 2023. Acting on the same, the Court NOTES the Manifestation. However, upon review of the Information, the Court finds that the instant Case must be dismissed on the ground of prescription. Section 281 ofthe NIRC, which governs the prescriptive period for the filing of criminal actions under said Code, states: "SECTION 281. Prescription for Violations of any 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, and 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.[...)"

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-940 Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled in Emilio E. Lim, Sr., and Antonio Sun Lim v. Court ofAppeals and People ofthe Philippines' ("the Lim Case") as follows: "Not only that. The Solicitor General stresses that Section 354 [of the Tax Code of 1939] speaks not only of discovery of fraud but also institution ofjudicial proceedings. Note the conjunctive word 'and' between the phrases 'the discovery thereof and 'the institution ofjudicial proceedings for its investigation and proceedings.' [sic] In other words, in addition to the fact of discovery, there must be a judicial proceeding for the investigation and punishment of the tax offense before the five-year limiting period begins to run. It was on September I, 1969 that the offenses subject of Criminal Case Nos. 1790 and 1791 were indorsed to the Fiscal's Office for preliminary investigation. Inasmuch as a preliminary investigation is a proceeding for investigation and punishment for a crime, it was only on September 1, 1969 that the prescriptive period commenced." (Emphasis supplied.) Finally, The Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals ("RRCTA''), Rule 9, Sec. 2, paragraph 2 states: Sec. 2. Institution ofcriminal 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, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue must approve their filing. In criminal actions involving violations of the Tariff and Customs Code and other laws enforced by the Bureau of Customs, the Commissioner of Customs must approve their filing. The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription. (Rules ofCourt, Rule 110, sec. I, par. 2a) (Emphasis supplied.) This Court has since followed the construction of the prescriptive period as laid out in the Lim Case and the RRCTA, above, as in People v. Castillo2 ("the Castillo Case"), People v. Consebido,3 People v. Bernardo,4 and People v. Balili.5 We ruled in the Castillo Case in this wise: "For the second mode of prescription, the filing of a Joint Complaint-Affidavit with the DOJ for preliminary investigation, taken together with the finality of the assessment or the point of 'discover,' triggers the commencement of the running of the period of prescription. The period of prescription shall thereafter be interrupted with the institution of criminal action before the CTA through the filing of an information in the name of the People of the Philippines. Necessarily, the information should be filed within the five-year G.R. Nos L-48134-37, 18 October 1990. 2 CTA EB Crim. Case No. 053 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-663), 8 June 2021. 3 CTA Crim. Case No. 0-701,7 May 2019. 4 CTA EB Crim Case No. 079 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-733), 21 July 2022. 5 CTA Crim. Case No. A-8 (Case Nos. R-MKT-20-01449-CR and R-MKT-20-01450-CR), 25 July 2022.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-940 Page3of4 prescriptive period; otherwise, there is nothing to be interrupted as the prescriptive period has already lapsed." (Emphasis supplied.) ocoicittbtutCnpnhhofhohfenfsrfveemoemefeeteaemoincsnwmgtmpsrcousistoperanreiiFmtetevlsigirss,aprsoestestamohicutiinwrintitomroennifeuvtiononfmn-pdtetnCA.ifhacettoeiopjheerofvaunnceemffsueTrdtirsti'rdsisihehtamoftocphaanomeerfdiieevioitradngreeioflii"aNtahgsoLppoflTwtoIdwtirrfipoRihatnooafmnoirfexetsicctCegfsenhpeeepl,rsAnieenrrromeCooptuddtespnh;hsetrpsiiiaplenneeencytsokeusecggareranciDdungrs,siplyro6tndos(etiwfefwbetibvoopevr()iseeriranmrte"nasrhtrrtCinhtivuhtpehndbmemtepeTaefeyvhsiornteNvAeeetieifwinnodtsendfgIh"ftvtdietRh)iiaes'enl.g.sbitc(iColsisTa5nyoegoItfert)ginh,voiinagtgopeJetvhoayuhnbrreRtetvieyfeshtrirdastoiiRaaenieeaftcnrnncoomiCfnrstdle,fiiitaIteTbmniphnpnfitnaeg(Areihffdue"ftseooetnDtstoesporfhahifeirmOufstifeoveclhnfiienataJauetnmfhgit"sntesim(gieoe)to5hnech,vIpan)nsmoetnaeoneritwymrfm"ebredfeonchlneamaitaer(rmiftmhatnamirloeimeosa)oedsirsatsnfnJeafittisontttattfihohohhtaiotiarhtaneneielieysnlsdletr,t CTA. JNaCAoneofidfniutithrd1tea1CUvrcoMiadnmtn,ofaonpwytrolhtahtu2eii0nnact1watsh-tc7,Aoee,l9arfyatfgrta,ieatditasinhancpevh,etihesctttoedtabilvmRylesexeptltahsyshoce,ertleiuDdcdcteOioaoontrmJendtisimfonoynoegfftnthtthtchhheeeeeemdpdDfaeeaitlOrnteietntiJongo,oefdffnostahttaftheeirtdeedhDcefp1oiOrlrJSiednJoses'gicspn.ratrtieArepemCctsieiovbilsmlpeeuertcgppo2hileb0a,fril1ttinehho4.teed7-8 discussed above. RAiAosnesfsfsus1iouedlmSauTaevtiipnhiotRtgenem,emssfCuwoobsorletauurslhtre2itaoin0svnis1neeu4oneob,tcdneetyhseo,'ensandhsfpa1aiolltkeweeSedaeeo,dpvbftithenteehragfm,oet rbttRtehheheearasstta2Joi0ohldtu1iahnt4dseit.aotCnnAefo'i;ossrtmsiisttsyupsieclsuoathafii,nnmbtctteh-hpeeAeeo,nsftJhfsoaifiedibifnloagleetvrdoeCi,vttmooewaermpfnnatepmtsenilroaefniainalnenetltdl'dd-s. right to prosecute this case prescribed on 1 September 2019. 2C0o2m2p, loTavhineert-reAeicgfofhirtdda(s8v)sithy.oeBwaresitnhagaftteotrhvteehreinthlsartteaeenstt(I3pn)ofsoyserimabrlasetidloaanttee,wotahfsethfgieloefvdileionrnngm2o6efntOht'esctJrooibgienhrtt to prosecute this criminal offense has already prescribed. There is thus nothing for the Court to do but to dismiss this case. 6 TopSrefheeessacLrirudeiltpistnteeigrcv,teiidnopantetheriedisoLi5ddieJbmuneltgCyiciana2ssl0et1loaw2i,tdahsRdabetocaowosfnerSddtesho,centpripeoS.neis2c21tsi8-toi21lnl2o;a3fps5tep4heleiocaNaflsbtIohlReeICntTo.vaeAtxhssteCigspouardcteiheso,enonthfDte1ca9ait3nsae9tFe..roHprrmoewt,aeRtivoeecnro,ortdfhsew, whpe.on2rd0th.ineg 7 8 Records, pp. 10-19. 9 Id, pp. 7-9.

RESOLUfiON CTA Crim. Case No. 0-940 Page 4 of4 WHEREFORE, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-940 is hereby DISMISSED on the ground of prescription. SO ORDERED. ~. ~ ...yc..___ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice MARIA PEDRO