PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL NUGUID NIETO

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) lllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllll llll 19-000117-0012 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-705 PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION MANUEL NUGUID NIETO, Accused. To: PROSECUTOR GENERAL BENEDICTO A. MALCONTENTO SR. DEPUTY STATE PROSECUTOR RICHARD ANTHONY FADULLON SR. ASST. STATE PROSECUTOR JUAN PEDRO C. NAVERA Department of Justice Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila ATTY. PAULYN ANN A. UMIPIG-LABUCAY Bureau of Internal Revenue - Revenue Region No. 7A Legal Division, Room 516, Roof Deck, Fisher Mall Fernando Poe Jr. Avenue comer Quezon Avenue Diliman, Quezon City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on May 14, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, May 15, 2024. AttyE. Mxeacruti~a~~f CFo. uCrht aIIn-Te

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA Crim. Case No. 0-705 PHILIPPINES, Members: Plaintiff, DEL ROSARIO, P.J.) BACORRO-VILLENA, and -versus - CUI-DAVID, JJ. Promulgated: MANUEL NUGUID NIETO, Accused. }C- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION For resolution of this Court is plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (of the R esolution dated February 06) 2024} filed on April 1, 2024. Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration assails the Court's Resolution (assailed Resolution), dated February 6, 2024, dismissing the case on the ground of prescription of the offense charged. It argues that prescription has not set in and that the institution of a criminal action before the Department of Justice (DOJ) for purposes of preliminary investigation effectively tolls the running of the prescriptive period. At the outset, We note that the instant Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time. Section 1, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Ta}C Appeals (RRCTA), as amended, provides: "SECTION 1. Who m ay a nd when to file m otion.- Any aggrieved party may seek a reconsideration or new trial of a n y decision, resolution, or order of the Court by filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from the d a le of receipt o f n o lice of lhe decis ion , resolution o r order of the Court in question." [Emphasis supplied]

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0 -705 People of the Philippines v. Manuel Nuguid Nieto x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x The rule is and has been that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. 1 If no motion for reconsideration is filed on time, the judgment or final order of the court becomes final and executory.2 Records reveal the following dates of receipt: February 12, 2024, by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, National Bureau of Investigation, and Department of Justice; February 13, 2024, by the Chief of the Philippine National Police through the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group; and on February 14, 2024, by the Chief Warrant Section of the Quezon City Police Department. Counting fifteen (15) days from February 12, 2024, the date the Department of Justice received the assailed Resolution, the plaintiff only had until February 27, 2024 to file its Motion for Reconsideration. It only filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration on April 1, 2024 . Hence, We rule that the Motion was belatedly filed and should be dismissed outright. Even if the Motion for Reconsideration is timely filed , it is still dismissible for lack of merit. We quote Section 281 of the National Internal Revenue � Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended: SEC. 28 1. 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. The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines. [Emphasis supplied] 1 Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue and Court ofAppeals. G.R. No. 122472, October 20, 2005. 2 Far East Bank & Trust Company v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 149589, September 15, 2006.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-705 People of th e Philippin es v. Man uel Nuguid Nieto x------------ -- --- ------- ---- ----- ---- ---------------------- ---- ------ ----- ------- ---------x As We have stated in the assailed Resolution, the interpretation of this provision has been settled in the landmark case of Lim v. Court ofAppeals 3 to wit: Ina smuch a s the final n otice a nd d em a nd for paym en t of the d eficiency taxes was served on petitioners on July 3, 1968, it was only t hen tha t the cause of action on the pa rt 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 crimina l information s , h a ving been filed on June 23, 1970, a re well-within th e five-year prescriptive period a nd a re n ot time-ba rred . The Court is in clined to adopt the view of the Solicitor Gen era l. For wh ile th at particula r poin t migh t h ave been raised in th e Ching La k case, th e Court, a t th at tim e, did n ot give a d efinitive r u lin g which would have settled the question once a nd for all. As Section 354 stands in the statute book (and to this day it has remained unchanged) it would indeed seem that tax cases, such as the present ones, are practically imprescriptible for as long as the period from the discovery and institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment, up to the filing of the information in court does not exceed five (5) years. 4 [Emphasis supplied ] We cannot depart from this interpretation of the Supreme Court of Section 354 of the 1939 Tax Code as recodified in Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, for the principle of stare decis is requires that once a ca s e has been decided one way, the rule is settled that any other case involving exactly the same point at issue should be decided in the same manner.5 We quote the assailed Resolution: In th e Joint Complaint-Affid avit, it was a lleged that th e Fina l Ass essm ent Notice (FAN) da ted December 30, 201 0 had becom e fina l, executory, a nd d em andable for th e fa ilure of accu sed to ma ke a tim ely protest a n d t h at on August 8, 2011 , a Fin al Notice Before Seizure was is sued to reiterate t h e dem and fo r paym ent of t h e aforem en tion ed deficien cy taxes. Thus, following th e allegation s of plaintiff, th e assessm en t would have becom e fina l on January 30, 2011. 3 G. R. Nos. 48 134-37, 18 October 1990, 268 SCRA 680-692. 4 Emphasis and underscoring suppli ed; citations omitted. 5 University ofthe East v. Masangkay, G. R. No. 226727, April 25, 201 8.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No . 0 -705 People of the Philippines v. Manuel Nuguid Nieto x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In counting the prescriptive period provided under Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, Lim, as quoted above, is instructive that the filing of the criminal information must fall within the five-year prescript ive period. The Supreme Court enunciated in Lim that tax criminal cases are basically imprescriptible . However, violations shall nevertheless prescribe if more than five (5) years have lapsed from the time of the commission of the offense if known, and as applicable in this case, i.e., the date of finality of the FAN/FLD, up to the date of filing of the Information before the Court. Thus, pursuant to Lim, plaintiff had five (5) years counted from January 30, 201 1, or until January 30, 2016, to file the Information before the Court. The Information dated May 18, 2017, was filed only on March 18, 2019 . Clearly, when the present Information was filed on March 18, 2019, the government's right to institute a criminal action against accused had already prescribed for more than three (3) years. Even if the period is counted from the issuance of the Final Notice Before Seizure, plaintiff would have five (5) years from August 8, 2011 , or until August 8, 2016, to file the Information in Court. Hence, the filing of the Information on March 18, 2019, is beyond the prescriptive period. [Citations omitted.] As such, We find no merit 1n revers1ng the assailed Resolution. WHEREFORE, premises considered , the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for being filed out of time and for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-705 People of the Philippines v. Manuel Nuguid Nieto x------------------------------------- -- ------ --- ------------------------------------------x ( JEANMA LANifiM~~1~ACAU'IJM-DlAVID Associate Justice