PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAMES CARUNCHO MANIEGO

~, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals f QUEZON CITY �' Second Division PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-635 Plaintiff, (NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-14B- 00055) -versus- For: Violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended (Failure to Pay Value-Added Tax) Members: RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and JAMES CARUNCHO MANIEGO, FERRER-FLORES, JJ No. 830 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City Promulgated: (At-Large), AUG 0 9 2024 Accused X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESOLUTION The instant Information was filed on May 18,2017. Since then, the Court has issued a Warrant of Arrest1 against accused. After a review of the records, however, the Court finds that We never properly gained jurisdiction over this Information, as the same was filed beyond the period prescribed by law to do so. Under Section 281 of the National internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended ("NJRC'), the government has five years from either the commission of the crime or the date of its discovery within which to prosecute any violation of the NJRC. The period is interrupted when "proceedings are instituted against the guilty persons." In the case of criminal actions heard before the CTA in Division, such as in this case, proceedings are deemed instituted upon the filing of an Information with the CTA, following Rule 9, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended. Rollo, pp. 205-206.

� RESOLUTION ~ , CTA Crim. Case No. 0-635 ~ Page 2of2 Finally, following Lim v. Court of Appeals2 and Tupaz v. Ulep,3 the prescriptive period then started upon the commission of the suspected crime, which the Supreme Court identified with the finality of the assessment, attained after the lapse of 30 days from the taxpayer's receipt of the assessment, coupled with the taxpayer's willful refusal to pay the assessed taxes within the period for doing so. The Information claims that the crime was committed "on or about January 2008." However, the relevant assessment notice here is the Final Assessment Notice4 ("FAN"), issued on August 16, 2010. Unfortunately, plaintiff fails to identify the date on which accused received said FAN. We are thus constrained to treat December 16, 2010 as the relevant date and January 16, 2011 as the start of the prescriptive period. This gave the prosecution until January 16, 2015 within which to institute the criminal action against accused before this Court. The Information was filed on May 18,2017, however, nearly two years after the expiration of the prescriptive period. The government's right to prosecute this case had thus prescribed long before the instant Information was filed, and the CTA never truly gained jurisdiction over this case. There is consequently nothing left for this Court to do but to dismiss this case. ACCORDINGLY, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-635 is hereby REVIVED from the archives but DISMISSED on the ground of prescription. SO ORDERED. ~ - ~ /1,/ '--- - MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice C~('f.-~ES Associate Justice G.R. Nos. L-48134-37 , October 18, 1990. G.R. No. 127777, October I, 1999. Rollo, pp. 33-37.