BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FAIVO PASCUAL BARTOLOME, c/o Dashma Computer Systems and Services and Ilocostop Convenience Stores J.P. Rizal corner Llanes Street, Barangay 9, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte or No. 22 M.J. Guerrero Street, Barangay 21 Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, (At large)

CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) 1111111111111111 111111 11111 11111 1111111111 11111111111111111111 111111111111111111 22-000608-00 I7 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-985 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus - NOTICE OF RESOLUTION FAlVO PASCUAL BARTOLOME, Accused. To: PROSEC UTOR GENERAL BENEDICTO A. MALCONTENTO ASST. STATE PROS. MA. RICHELLE Q. OLIVIA Department of Justice Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manil a I000 ATTY. JAMAICA KAY S. DELA CRUZ Bureau of Jntcrnal Revenue Room 704, Prosecution Division, BIR National Ofticc Bldg.. BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City FAlVO BARTOLOME Y PASCUAL No. 22 MJ. Guerrero Street Brgy. 21, Laoag City Tlocos Norte GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on January 12, 2024, a Resolution was rende red in the above-e ntitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, January 15, 2024. Page l of 1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA Crim. Case No. 0 -985 PHILIPPINES, For: Violation of Section 255 of the Plaintiff, NIRC of 1997, as amended Members: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. FAlVO PASCUAL Promulgated: BARTOLOME, JAN 12 2.0 Accused. J{- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION For resolution is the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated August 9, 2023) filed through registered mail on August 30, 2023, without the accused's comment, as per Records Verification dated October 16, 2023. Plaintiff prays that the Court reverse and set aside its Resolution dated August 9, 2023 (assailed Resolution), which disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-985 is DISMISSED on the ground of prescription. SO ORDERED. Plaintiff insists that the criminal action was instituted within the five (5)-year prescriptive period, considering that prescription commenced on February 4, 2016, when the assessment against the accused became final and eJ{ecutory and when the complaint for preliminary investigation was filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on October 23, 2020. Plaintiff disagrees with the Court's ruling that "prescription continues to run until the filing of the Information in Court"

.. RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No . 0 -985 People of the Philippines v. Faivo Pascual Bartolome x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x and cites Tupaz v. Ulep1 and Section 1, Rule 110 on Prosecution of Offenses of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. In dismissing this criminal case, i.e., for the willful failure of the accused to pay deficiency value-added tax (VAT) for taxable year 2012, on the ground of prescription, the Court is guided by Lim, Sr. et al. v. Court ofAppeals, et al.2 (Lim), which similarly involves a taxpayer's refusal to pay deficiency taxes. The material dates, as laid down in Lim, are as follows: Date Incident July 3, 1968 The final notice a nd demand for payment was served September 1, 1969 on petitioners through their daughter-in-law. Since no paym ent was forthcoming from the June 23, 1970 delinquent taxpayers, the BIR referred the matter to the Manila Fiscal's Office for investigation and prosecution. Four (4) separate criminal informations were filed against petition ers in the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI, for violation of Sections 45 and 51 in relation to Section 73 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Further, Lim explained that the prescription for the offense of willful failure to pay taxes commenced only after receipt was coupled with the willful refusal to pay the taxes due within the allotted period and that the filing of information with the Court is material in determining whether the 5-year prescriptive period is met as the same tolls the prescriptive period, viz.: 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 beca use 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 alloted period. The two criminal informations, having been filed on June 23, 1970, are well- within the five-year prescriptive period and are not time- barred. ... As Section 354 stands in the statute book (and to this day it has remained unchanged) it would indeed seem that tax cases, such as the present on es, are practically imprescriptible for as long as the period from the discovery 1 G.R. No. 127777, October I, 1999. 2 G.R. Nos. L-48 134-37, October 18, 1990.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-985 People of t h e Philip pines v. Faivo Pascu al Bartolome Page 3 of4 x-- --- ------ ----------------------------------------------------------- ----- --- ---- -- ------x and institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment, up to the filing of the information in court does not exceed five (5) years. [Emphasis s upplied] This ruling is consistent with Section 2, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) , 3 which provides that the institution of the criminal action (i.e., filing of Information) interrupts the prescriptive period : SEC. 2 . Institu tion of Criminal Actions. -All criminal actions before the Court in Division in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be instituted by the filing of an information in the name of the People of the Philippines. In crimina l action s involvin g violation s of t h e National Internal Reven ue Cod e a nd oth er laws enforced by the Bureau of Intern a l Revenue, the Commis sion er of Internal Revenue must approve th eir filin g. In criminal action s involving viola tions of th e Ta riff a n d Cu stom s Code a nd oth er laws en forced by the Bureau of Custom s , t h e Commiss ion er of Custom s must approve th eir filing. The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription. [Emphasis supplied] Following Lim and the RRCTA, the p eriod of pres cription for a criminal tax case begins to run from th e commission of the violation of the law and, if the same is not known at the time, from the discovery and institution of proceedings for its investigation and shall only be tolled by the filing of information with the Court. Thus, for the a ccused's failure to file a valid protest and/ or pay within thirty (30) d ays from r eceipt of the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD / FAN) on January 5 , 2016, the violation was committed on February 5 , 2016. Thus, the right of the government to institute the case against the a ccused had already prescribed when the Information wa s filed with this Court on December 6 , 2 022, or s ix (6) years and t en (10) months late. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (of the R esolution d ated Augus t 9, 2 023) is DENIED for lack of merit. 3 A. M. No. 05- 11-07-CTA, November 22, 2005.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-985 People of the Philippines v. Faivo Pascual Bartolome x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x SO ORDERED. Presidin g J u stice LLENA ~~ LANEE S . CUI-DAVID Associate J u s tice