PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MELAND G. DILODILO, Global Die Cast & Forging Inc. No. 6001-R Tatalon St., Ugong Valenzuela City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA Crim Case No. 0-1035 PHILIPPINES, FOR: VIOL. Of SEC. 255 in rel. to SEC. 253(d) of the NIRC Plaintift Members: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MELAND G. DILODILO, CUI-DAVID, JJ. Global Die Cast & Forging Inc. No 6001-R Tatalon St. , Ugong Valenzuela City (AT LARGE) Promulgated: Accused. AUGt � ~qoAM ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -){ RESOLUTION On July 12, 2023, counsel for the accused filed its Entry of Appearance with Motion to Recall the Order for the Issuance ofAlias Warrant ofArrest. Accused moves to recall the Resolution of the Court dated May 26, 2023, where the Court ordered the issuance of an Alias Warrant ofArrest on account of the fact that the accused cannot be found at the given address despite diligent efforts. Indeed, on June 8 , 2023, plaintiff filed by way of email the bail documents of accused; on June 9, 2023, the Return of Warrant ofArrest dated June 6, 2023 with attached Certificate of Detention, Booking Sheet, Information Report, Warrant of Arrest against accused, and Mug Shots were filed by the Philippine National Police; and on June 9, 2023, the Transmittal Letter was posted by Ginalynn Marriel A. De Torres, Clerk of Court III, National Capital Judicial Region, Metropolitan Trial Court Branch CXXXII (132) , Quezon City, submitting the bail documents pertinent to the instant case.

- RESOLUTION CTA Crim Case No. 0-1035 People of the Philippines vs. Meland G. Dilodilo Page 2 of6 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Considering the above facts, We find merit in the accused 's Motion to Recall the Order for the Issuance of Alias Warrant of Arrest. At this juncture, the Court takes a second hard look at whether the offense charged against the accused has prescribed. Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides: SEC. 281 . 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 a t the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted wh en proceedings a re instituted a gainst the guilty persons a nd 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. [Emphases and underscoring s u p p l ie d .] Clear from the foregoing provision that, first, the period of prescription for the offense charged is five (5) years. Second, the prescription period starts to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, or if the date of commission is unknown, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. Third , prescription shall be tolled when proceedings are instituted against the guilty persons. In the case of Emilio E. Lim, Sr. and Antonia Sun Lim vs. Court of Appeals ("Lim"), 1 the crime of failure to pay tax is committed only a fter receipt of the final notice and demand for payment, coupled with the willful r efusal to pay the taxes due within the allotted period. The Suprem e Court ruled as follows : 1 G. R. Nos. 48 134-37, October 18, 1990, 268 PHIL 680-692.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim Case No. 0-1035 People of the Philippines vs. Meland G. Dilodilo x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Inasmuch as the final notice and demand for payment of the deficiency taxes was served on petitioners on July 3, 1968, it was only then that the cause of action on the part 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 criminal informations, h aving been filed on June 23, 1970, are well-within the five-year prescriptive period and a re n ot time-barred. [Emphasis and underscoring supplied.] In the instant case, the Complaint-Affidavit of Atty. Sheeherazadee A. Labor alleged that the Final Assessment Notice ("FAN") I Formal Letter of Demand ("FLD") issued on April 25, 2014, and due on May 27, 2014, was served on May 5, 2014, to Global Die Cast and Forging, Inc. (GDCFI), of which the accused served as President.2 It was further alleged that respondent GDCFI failed to file any valid protest within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, and the assessments remained unpaid as of July 31, 2014;3 hence, the assessment (as stated in the FAN) issued against it h ad become final , executory and demandable.4 Indeed, the subject FANIFLD became final and executory after the lapse of 30-day period within which to file a Protest, or on June 5, 2014, in accordance with Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. s In counting the prescriptive period provided under Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the Lim case, as quoted above, is instructive that the filing of the criminal information with the court must fall within the five-year prescriptive period. Further, the Supreme Court enunciated in Lim that t ax criminal cases are basically imprescriptible. However , violations shall nevertheless prescribe if more than five (5) years have la psed from the time of commission of the offense, if known, i.e. , the date of finality of the FANI FLD , up to the date of filing of the Information before the Court. 2 Par. 7.5, Jo int Compl aint-A ffi dav it; Docket, p. 15. 3 Preliminary Collection Letter dated July 3 1, 2014 , Docket, p. 41. 4 Par. 7.6, Jo int Complaint-Affidav it; Docket, p. 15. 5 SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment. - When the Commissioner or hi s duly authorized representati ve find s that proper taxes sho uld be assessed, he shall fi rst noti fy the taxpayer of his fi nd ings: Prov ided, however, That a pre-assessment notice shall not be required in the fo llowing cases: 000 S uch assess ment may be protested administratively by filing a request for r econsid eration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulatio ns. Within sixty (60) days fro m til ing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment sha ll beco me final.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim Case No. 0-1035 People of the Philippines vs. Meland G. Dilodilo x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In Lim, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 354 of the 1939 Tax Code (now Section 28 1 of the 1997 NIRC) to resolve the issue of prescription. We compare: Section 354 of the 1939 Tax Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997 Code SECTION 354. Prescription for SECTION 281. Prescription for Violations of Any Provisions of this Violations of any Provision of this Code. - All violations of any Code. - All violations of any provisions of this Code shall provision of this Code shall prescribe after five years. prescribe after five (5) years. Prescription shall begin to run from Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and for its investigation and punishment. punishment. The prescription shall be The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty instituted against the guilty persons and shall begin to run persons and shall begin to run agam if the proceedings are agam if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. constituting jeopardy. The term of prescription shall not The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent run when the offender is absent from the Philippines. from the Philippines. Considering that the wording of Section 354 of the 1939 NIRC was adopted and reproduced in Section 281 of the 1997 NIRC, the legislature is presumed to have adopted the construction placed upon such provision by the Supreme Court in Lim.6 Thus, pursuant to Lim, the plaintiff had five (5) years counted from June 5, 2014, or until June 5, 2019, to file the Information before the Court. The Information, dated March 17, 2021, was filed only on April 13, 2023.7 Clearly, the filing of the Information is already time-barred. In Romualdez v. Marcelo, s the Supreme Court thus discussed: 6 People vs. Castillo, CTA EB Crim. Case No. 053 (C.T.A. Crim Case o. 0-663) (Resolution), June 8, 2021. 7 Docket, pp. 5-6. 8 G.R. Nos. 165510-33 (Resolution), July 28. 2006, 529 PHIL 90-11 9.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim Case No. 0 - 1035 People of the Philippines vs. Meland G. Dilodilo X--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------X Here the State is the grantor, surrendering by act of grace its rights to prosecute, and declaring the offense to be no longer the subject of prosecution. The statute is not a statute of process, to be scantily and grudgingly applied, but an amnesty, declaring that after a certain time oblivion shall be cast over the offense; ...that from henceforth[,] he may cease to preserve the proofs of his innocence, for the proofs of his guilt are blotted out. Hence[,] it is that statutes of limitation are to be liberally construed in favor of the defendant, not only because such liberality of constru ction belongs to all acts of amnesty and grace, but because the very existence of the statute, is a recognition and notification by the legislature of the fact that time, while it gradually wears out proofs of innocence, has assigned to it fixed and positive periods in which it destroys proofs of guilt. Independently of these views, it must be remembered that delay in instituting prosecutions is not only productive of expense to the State, but of peril to public justice in the attenuation and distortion, even by mere n atural lapse of memory, of testimony. It is the policy of the law that prosecutions should be prompt, and that statutes, enforcing such promptitude should be vigorously maintained. They are not merely acts of grace, but checks imposed by the State upon itself, to exact vigilant activity from its subalterns, and to secure for criminal trials the best evidence that can be obtained." Indeed, there is no reason why we should deny petitioner the benefits accruing from the liberal construction of prescriptive laws on criminal statutes. Prescription emanates from the liberality of the State . ...Any doubt on this matter must be resolved in favor of the grantee thereof, the accused. It must be stressed that prescription in criminal cases is a matter of substantive law.9 Although prescription has not been raised as an issue, it is well-settled that if the pleadings or the evidence on record show that the claim is barred by prescription, the Court may motu proprio order its dismissal on the said ground.1o WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to NOTE the following: 1. Entry of Appearance filed on July 12, 2023 by the counsel for the accused. 2. The Transmittal Letter posted on June 9, 2023 by Ginalynn Marriel A. De Torres , Clerk of Court III, �9 Reodica vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125066. July 8. 1998, 354 PHIL 90- 111 . 1 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Nippon Express (Ph ils.) Corp., G. R. No. 21 2920, September 16, 2015, 769 PHIL 861-871

RESOLUTION CTA Crim Case No. 0-1035 People of the Philippines vs. Meland G. Dilodilo Page 6 of6 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x National Capital Judicial Region, Metropolitan Trial Court Branch CXXXII (132), Quezon City, submitting the following bail documents: a) Order dated June 6, 2023; b) Undertaking; c) Jailer's Identification; d) Mugshots; e) Case's Information; f) Barangay Certification dated June 6, 2023; g) Barangay Sketch; h) Accused's Fingerprints; i) Certificate of Detention dated June 6, 2023; j) Photocopy of accused's passport; k) Photocopy of accused's Warrant of Arrest dated April 28, 2023; 1) Official Receipt Nos. 9371622 and 9371623, both dated June 6, 2023; and m) Legal Fees Form; and 3. The Return ofWarrant ofArrest dated June 6, 2023, filed by Police Lieutenant Colonel Olivia A. Sagaysay, Acting Chief of the Detective and Special Operations Unit of National Police Commission, Philippine National Police, Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, with attached copies of Certificate of Detention, Booking Sheet and Information Report, scanned copy of the Warrant of Arrest issued against accused Meland G. Dilodilo dated April 28, 2023, and Booking Mug Shots of accused Meland G. Dilodilo. Further, the Motion to Recall the Order for the Issuance of Alias Warrant of Arrest is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Alias Warrant ofArrest issued is LIFTED and SET ASIDE. Finally, premises considered, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1035 is DISMISSED on the ground of prescription. SO ORDERED. ROMAN G. DEL OSARIO Pr~iding Justice /JM;md11~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice