CTA Case No. O-99 (Resolution on MR)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY Second Division PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-099 Plaintiff, (I.S. NO. 06L-23936) -versus- For: VIOL. OF SEC. 255 IN REL. TO SEC. 253 (d) AND 256 NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED Members: RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and Lakebridge Development Corporation, FERRER-FLORES, JJ 2/F Pacific Star Bldg., Sen. Gil J. Puyat Ave. Promulgated: Cor. Makati Avenue, Makati City, OCT 08 zoy Accused. X ---------------------------------------------------------------~iD-J'~-~~--- X RESOLUTION For the Court's resolution is plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated 09 August 2024), filed on August 27, 2024, assailing the Court's dismissal of this case on the ground of prescription. The Motion is bereft of merit. Plaintiff's position, that the filing of the complaint with the Department of Justice suspended the prescriptive period, is based on People v. Lee1 ("Lee"), citing Panaguiton v. Department of Justice2 ("Panaguiton"). Notably, the former involves a violation of Republic Act ("RA") No. 7877 while the latter involves a violation of Batas Pambansa ("BP") Blg. 22. The prescriptive period for the prosecution of said violations is provided by Act 3326, as amended by Act 3763. As observed in Panaguiton, Act 3326 was passed to provide prescriptive periods for violations of special laws which do not provide their own such periods. Here, the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as G.R. No. 234618, September 16, 2019. G.R. No. 167571 , November25 , 2008 .

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-099 Page 2of2 amended ("NIRC'), already provides its own prescriptive period through Section 281. This period is further specific by Rule 9, Section 2 ofthe Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals ("RRCTA"), which has no equivalent for violations of either RA No. 7877 or BP Blg. 22. Given, then, that the prescriptive period here is not governed by Act 3326, as amended, and that the violations covered by the cited Decisions have no equivalent to Rule 9, Section 2 ofthe RRCTA, both Lee and Panaguiton are inapplicable here. The Court must thus follow the prescriptive period as laid down by the NIRC and as specified by the RRCTA. The Motion consequently raises no serious challenge to Our dismissal of this case, which must thus be affirmed. ACCORDINGLY, plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated 09 August 2024) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Resolution, dated August 9, 2024, is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~ ~ ~'--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice MARlAR 0-SANPEDRO ... n Leave) CORAZON G. FERRER-FLORES Associate Justice