PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DIEGO G. MARTINEZ (Twinpeaks Shell Service Center, No. 184 Katipunan Road, Blueridge, Quezon City OR Twinwpeaks Shell Service Center I & II, Marcos Highway, Santolan, Pasig City)

CTA Fonn No. 8 (For DCC) llllllllllllll llll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllll 18-000 146-0035 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0 -672 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, NOTICE OF Plaintiff, RESOLUTION -versus- DIEGO G. MARTINEZ, Twinpeaks Shell Service Center, No. 184 Katipunan Road, Blueridge, Quezon City OR Twinpeak Shell Service Center I & II, Marcos Highway, Santolan, Pasig City Accused. To: PROSECUTOR GENERAL BENEDICTO A. MALCONTENTO ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR MARY ANN S. PARONG Department of Justice Padre Faura Street. Malate, Manila ATTY. PAULYN ANI'\ A. UM I PIG-LAB UCAY Bureau of Internal Revenue - Revenue Region No. 7 Room 5 I6. 5th Floor. Legal Division. Fishennall (Roofdeck) Quezon Avenue corner Fernando Poe Jr., Avenue Quezon City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on March 26, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, March 27, 2024. Page I of I

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-672 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 255 of the -versus- National Internal Revenue Code as U' amended DIEGO G. MARTINEZ, Members: Twinpeaks Shell Service Center, DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , Chairperson, No. 184 Katipunan Road , BACORRO-VILLENA, and Blueridge, Quezon City, CUI-DAVID, JJ. OR Twinpeak Shell Service Center I & . q:/5AM II, Marcos Highway, Santolan, Promulgated: Pasig City Accused . X---------------------------------- RESOLUTION This resolves plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated January 25, 2024) filed on March 4, 2024 praying for the Court to reverse and set aside the Resolution promulgated on January 25, 2024 and to issue an Alias Warrant of Arrest against accused . In the assailed Resolution dated January 25, 2024, the Court withdrew the case from the archives, dismissed the same by reason of prescription of the offense charged, and recalled and set aside the Alias Warrant of Arrest against accused . In the present Motion, plaintiff submits that the prescriptive period for violations of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended (NIRC), being a special law, is interrupted by the filing of the complaint before the Department of Justice (DOJ) for purposes of conducting preliminary investigation, citing the case of People of the

RESOLUTION People of the Philippines vs. Diego G. Martinez CTA Crim. Case No. 0-672 Page 2 of3 Philippines vs. Mateo A. Lee, Jr.1 Plaintiff argues that since the Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice became final and executory on January 26, 2010 and that plaintiff had five years counted from such date within which to fil.e a case against accused , the filing of the Joint Complaint-Affidavit before the DOJ on January 30, 2014 effectively tolled the running of the period of prescription . The plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration lacks merit. Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the ruling in Lee, Jr. does not apply in the present case. The doctrine laid down by Lee, Jr., i.e., the filing of the complaint before the DOJ suspends the runn ing of the prescriptive period, applies only when the special law does not provide for a prescriptive period for the offense.2 The present case charges the accused with Willful Failure to Pay Tax under Section 255 of the NIRC. Section 281 of the NIRC sets a prescriptive period of five (5) years for all violations of the provisions of the NIRC, hence, Lee, Jr. does not apply. As discussed in the assailed Resolution dated January 25, 2024, the prescriptive period to file a criminal case for violations of the NIRC is tolled only when the Information is filed before the Court pursuant to Emilio E. Lim, Sr. and Antonia Sun Lim vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines,3 and Section 2, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals. Clearly, plaintiff failed to present cogent reason to justify the reconsideration sought. WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated January 25, 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice 1 G.R. No. 234618, September 16, 2019. . . .. 2 Section 1, Act No. 3326. "Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise prov1ded m such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: xxx." 3 G.R. No. 48134-37, October 18, 1990.

RESOLUTION People of the Philippines vs. Diego G. Martinez CTA Crim. Case No. 0-672 ON LEAVE ltJt#J1111~ JEAN MARIE A. BACORRO-VILLENA LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice Associate Justice