PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MTO INTERNATIONAL PRODUCT MOBILIZER, INC., and EDMUNDO T. ONGSIAKO JR., No. 88 New York Street corner Cambridge Street, Cubao, Quezon City (at large)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA Crirn. Case No. 0-833 PHILIPPINES, (NPS Docket No. :XVI-INV-171- Plaintiff, 00269) -versus- For: Violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, in relation to Sections 253(d) and 256 thereof Members: MTO INTERNATIONAL MANAHAN, Chairperson, PRODUCT MOBILIZER, REYES-FAJARDO, and INC., and EDMUNDO T. ANGELES, JJ. ONGSIAKO JR., No. 88 New York Street corner Cambridge Promulgated: Street, Cubao, Quezon City (At Large) JAN 2 0 2025 Accused. )C- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )C RESOLUTION This resolves the plaintiffs Motionfor Reconsideration filed on September 16, 2024, praying for the reversal of the Resolution dated August 2, 2024 which dismissed the present case due to prescription of the offense charged. The plaintiff mainly argues that the Court erred in ruling that the right to institute the criminal action has prescribed. Citing the case of Disini v. Sandiganbayan1, and CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-728, 0-730, 0- 732 and 0-734, the plaintiff maintains that it is the filing of the complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) that effectively tolls the running of the prescriptive period to institute a criminal action against the accused. � G.R. Nos. 169823-24 & 174764-65, September 11, 2013.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-833 In the present case, as the complaint was filed with the DOJ on September 28, 2017, or before February 8, 2019 which is the last day of the five-year prescriptive period of the offense charged, the plaintiff insists that the prescriptive period to institute the criminal action against the accused was tolled. The plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is denied for lack of merit. First, the plaintiff failed to comply with En Bane Resolution No. 8-20242 which provides the guidelines to be followed when the primary manner of filing of pleadings or other court submissions is through personal filing, by registered mail, or by accredited courier. The pertinent portion of the said Resolution reads: 2. Manner oftransmittal.- The PDF copies must be transmitted by litigants and court users to the official e-mai l addresses: XXX XXX XXX When the primary manner of filing is through personal fi ling, by registered mail, or by accredited courier, in accordance with Rule 13, Section 3(a), 3(b), or 3( c) of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, ten ( I0) paper copies for En Bane cases, and six (6) paper copies for initiatory pleadings or four ( 4) paper copies for subsequent pleadings for Division cases, shall be filed. The PDF copies must be transmitted within twenty-four (24) hours from such filing of paper copies; otherwise, the pleading or court submission shall be deemed as not filed. (Emphasis supplied) In this case, based on the Records Verification Report dated September 19, 2024, the plaintiff failed to transmit the instant Motion for Reconsideration through e-mail within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing of its paper copies in this Court. Applying the foregoing provision, the said Motion is deemed as not filed. Second, the plaintifffailed to show that the BIR legal officers who prepared and signed the said Motion were duly deputized by the DOJ for purposes of prosecuting the instant case. Under Section 3, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court ofTax Appeals (RRCTA), all criminal actions shall be conducted and prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. For cases involving violations of any provision of the National Internal 2 Guidelines on Submission of Electronic Copies of Plead ings and Other Court Submissions Before the Court of Tax Appeals Pursuant to A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC and A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-833 Revenue Code of 1997 (Tax Code), such as this case, the prosecution may be conducted by duly deputized legal officers. A perusal of the plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration shows that the same was prepared, signed, verified and certified by BIR legal officers. However, no document was attached to prove that the said BIR legal officers were duly deputized by the public prosecutor or DOJ. Hence, the said BIR legal officers had no authority to prepare, sign, verify and certify the instant Motion, in accordance with Section 3, Rule 9 of the RRCTA. Lastly, even if this Court looks past the foregoing defects in the filing of the instant Motion, the plaintiffs arguments are untenable. Under Section 281 of the Tax Code, as amended, the five-year prescriptive period for violations of any provision of the Tax Code, including Section 255 thereof, is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty persons. In relation thereto, Section 2 , Rule 9 of the RRCTA provides that all criminal actions before the Court in Division in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be instituted by the filing of an information, and that the institution of criminal actions shall interrupt the running ofthe period ofprescription. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that all criminal actions brought before the CTA in Division are instituted by the filing of an information before the Court. It is the institution ofthe criminal action before the Court that interrupts the running of the prescriptive period of the offense charged, and not the filing of the compliant with the DOJ as argued by the plaintiff. This is consistent with the ruling ofthe Supreme Court in the case of Lim, Sr. v. Court of Appeals3 where the Cour held that the prescriptive period of tax cases is reckoned from the discovery and institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment, up to the filing of the information in court. Considering the foregoing, there being no cogent reason for the Court to reverse or modify the Resolution dated August 2 , 2024, the same shall be upheld. 3 G.R. Nos. 48134-37, October 18, 1990.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-833 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration filed on September 16, 2024 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. C~/..~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ~ ~r. ~--F~M MARIAN IViJF. REYif's~FAJl\RDO Associate Justice HENRY ~~GELES Associate Justice