ULYSSES PALCONET CONSEBIDO v. HON. ANNA LEAH Y. TIONGSON - MENDOZA (Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court Palawan - Branch 164) and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION ULYSSES PALCONET CTA CASE NO. 10357 CONSEBIDO, Members: Petitioner, -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. HON. ANNA LEAHY. TIONGSON-MENDOZA (Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Palawan - Branch 164)and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Promulgated: and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. _ _J_A_N_0_9_20_24_ _ _ __.___ }{- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J. : For resolution is respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s Motion for Reconsideration (ofthe Decision dated June 30, 2023) filed via registered mail on July 28, 2023, without petitioner's comment as per Records Verification dated October 25, 2023. Respondent moves that the Court reverse and set aside its Decision dated June 30, 2023 (assailed Decision), viz.: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED . The assailed Orders dated September 5, 2019, and February 10,2020, in Criminal Case Nos. ROX-19-39155 and ROX-19- 39156 are SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Criminal Case Nos. ROX- 19-39155 and ROX-19-39156, pending with the Regional Trial Court of Palawan- Branch 164, are DISMISSED on the grounds of prescription.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10357 LeahY. Tiongson-Mendoza (Presiding Judge, Ulysses Palconet Consebido v. Hon. Anna 164) and Commissioner of Internal Revenue Regional Trial Court of Palawan - Branch and the People of the Philippines xP-a-g--e--2--o-f--3-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x SO ORDERED. Respondent argues that prescription for violations penalized by special acts and municipal ordinances is governed by Section 21 of Act No. 3326,2 adopted in Section 281 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. Hence, the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 2 of Act No. 3326 in Panaguiton v. Department ofJustice (Panaguiton) 3 and People v. Lee, Jr. (Lee, Jr.) 4 must be applied in this case, i.e., the prescription of the offense is tolled once a complaint is filed for preliminary investigation and shall begin to run again of the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. The instant Motion fails to impress. Contrary to respondent's assertion, the rulings in do not apply to the prese nt case since Panaguiton and Lee, Jr. e prescriptive period for the filing of they do not involve th criminal tax cases but the prescriptive period for instituting cases for violation of special laws, pursuant to Act No. 3326. Meanwhile, Lim, Sr. et al. v. Court of Appeals (Lim)5 deals with the interpretation of the prescriptive period for instituting criminal tax cases under the Tax Code. The factual and legal circumstances of Panaguiton and Lee, Jr. and those of the present case are different. As held by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision: Based on Lim, the proceeding for investigation and i.e., preliminary investigation, punishment of a crime, period and is tolled by filing the commences the prescriptive preliminary period between the court must information in court. The of the information in investigation and the filing not exceed five (5) years. 1 SEC. 2. 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 proceeding for its investigation and punishment. T2aSghAPaeECinCpTrIiAefNstLcOhre.iApp3Ctri3ooT2ncS6ese-AhdAaNinlNlDgbsAeMaCriUenTtNdeTirIsrOCmuIpiPEstAseSedTLdAwOfoBhrReLnDrIeSIpaNHrsooAnPcNesEeCnRdoEiIntOSgcDsoAnSaNsrtOeDitFuinTtPisOntRigtEPujtReSeoCdOpRVaarIgIPdDaTyiEn.IsOtWNtHhFeEOgNuRiPltVRyIEOpSeLCrAsRoTnIPI,OTaNInOdSNsPhESaHNll AAbLLegLIiZnBEtEDoGBrIuNYn TO RUN, December 4, I926. 3 G.R. No. 167571, November 25,2008. 4 G.R. No. 234618, September 16, 2019. 5 G.R. Nos. L-48134-37, October 18,1990.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10357 Ulysses Palconet Consebido v. Hon. Anna Leah Y. Tiongson-Mendoza (Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Palawan - Branch 164) and Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the People of the Philippines X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X As applied in this case, the Joint Complaint-Affidavit against petitioner for purposes of preliminary investigation was filed on January 20, 2014, and the Information was later filed before the RTC Branch 164 on May 20, 2019, or only after five (5) years and four (4) months. As such, the right to prosecute petitioner had already prescribed under Section 281 of the 1997 NIRC. Finally, contrary to public respondent CIR's claim, the ruling in Panaguiton v. Department of Justice does not apply to this case since it does not involve the prescriptive period for the filing of criminal tax cases but the prescriptive period for instituting Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases pursuant to Act No. 3326, which deals with special penal laws not involving tax. On the other hand, Lim deals explicitly with the prosecution for violating the Tax Code. Unless Lim is modified or reversed by the Supreme Court, said doctrine remains binding in a criminal tax case such as this. WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated June 30, 2023) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~hi( LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice !CONCUR: