CTA Case No. EB CRIM-90 (Resolution on MR)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE CTA EB CRIM. NO. 090 PHILIPPINES, (CTA Crim Case Nos. 0-800 & 0 -80 1) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN, WINTELECOM, INC. /HUA C. MANAHAN , UYCHIYONG (Treasurer), BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Respondents. REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. Promulgated: OEC 1 g 2023 X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "- - - - - - - - ---X RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J. : This resolves petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 21 June 2023)1 filed on July 10, 2023, with respondent's Opposition thereto filed on July 27, 2023. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision2 promulgated on June 21, 2023 (assailed Decision), the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises con s idered, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of m erit. The Resolutions dated July 23, 202 1 and February 22, 2022 rendered by the Court's First Division in CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0 -800 and 0- 80 1 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. 1 En Bane (�8) Dockrt, pp. 168-1 7 1. 2 � 8 Docket. pp. 150-167.

RESOLUTION People of the Philippines v. Wintelecom,' Jnc.(Hua C. Uychiyong (Treasurer) CTA EB Crim. No. 090 (CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-800 & 0-801) x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Petitioner anchors its Motion for Reconsideration (Motion) on the sole ground, viz.: ... THE HONORABLE COURT EN BANC ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTIONS DATED JULY 23, 2021 AND FEBRUARY 22, 2022 OF THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO WHICH RULED THAT OFFENSE COMMITTED BY RESPONDENTS HAS ALREADY PRESCRIBED. Petitioner maintains that the filing of the complaint before the prosecutor's office tolls the running of the prescriptive period, citing the case People of the Philippines v. Mateo A. Lee, Jr. 3 By way of an Opposition, respondent Hua C. Uychiyong submits that petitioner's Motion has no factual and legal basis; hence, it should be denied. According to respondent, petitioner's argument is a mere rehash of the same argument it raised in its Petitionfor Review dated March 30, 2022, which was already considered, weighed, and squarely passed upon by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. Petitioner's Motion must fail. Clearly, petitioner's argument in its Motion was merely lifted verbatim from its Petition for Review dated March 30, 2022, which the Court already passed upon and discussed at length in the assailed Decision. Nothing significant was added to justify the reconsideration sought. As regards the applicability of the case of People of the Philippines v. Mateo A. Lee, Jr. cited in its Petition for Review and reiterated in the Motion, We find it fit to restate the very apt observation of the Court in Division, viz.:4 There is no merit in the plaintiffs argument that the filing of the complaint before the DOJ suspends the running of the prescriptive period under Section 281 of the NIRC, as amended. The principle invoked by the plaintiff in Lee, Jr., whereby the filing of the complaint before the DOJ suspends the running of the prescriptive period may not be applied in these cases because it refers to the suspension of the 3 G.R. No. 234618, September 16,2019. 4 Annex "B", EB dock<!, pp. 20-24.

RESOLUTION People of the Philippines v. Wintelecom; Inc. j Hua C. Uychiyong (Treasurer) CTA EB Crim. No. 090 (CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0c800 & 0-801) x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x prescriptive period for offenses covered by Republic Act No. 3326. In contrast, the pronouncements in Tierra and Lim, Sr. used in deciding these cases specifically address the suspension of prescriptive period covering offenses punishable under the NIRC under Section 354 (now 2811 of the NIRC, as amended. For this reason, the rulings of the Supreme Court in Tierra and Lim, Sr. are the doctrinal principles which are obtaining in these cases. [Emphasis supplied) Indeed, no compelling reason exists to warrant modification much more reversal of the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 21 June 2023) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. kuMM1~ We Concur: LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice Presiding Justice </'lv. ~,...... - "'- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~�;:~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Assoc,..iate Justice JEAN MAJV-t

RESOLUTION People of the Philippines v. WinteJecom; Inc.jHua C. Uychiyong (Treasurer) CTA EB Crim. No. 090 (CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-800 & 0-801) Page 4 of4 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X ustice ~ f1.w f. ~-Fa,~ MARIAN IVY fJ. REYE~-FAARDo Associate Justice CO~ ~NGy : E ~- 1 Associate Justi e HENRY/ANGELES AssocteAiustice