PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZIEGFRIED LOO TIAN, (No. 113 , Juan Luna Street, Brgy. 27, Zone 1, Tondo, Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE CTA EB CRIM. N0.105 PHILIPPINES, (CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-939) For: Violation of Section 25 5, Petitioner, Paragraph 1, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. Pres ent: -versus - DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JJ ZIEGFRIED LOO TIAN, Promulgated: Respondent. SEP 2 6 2024 X-------------------------------------------- ---- - --------- X DECISION FERRER-FLORES, J.: Before this Court is the Amended Verified Petition for Review (of the Resolution dated February 10, 2023) {Amended Verified Petition for Review) filed on July 10, 2023 via registered mail by the People of the Philippines (petitioner) against Ziegfried Loo Tian (respondent) appealing the Resolution dated December 5, 2022 (1st assailed Resolution), 1 which dismissed the case on the ground of prescription, and the Resolution dated February 10, 2023 (2"d assailed Resolution),2 which denied the motion for I 1 Rollo, pp. 24 to 27. 2 Rollo, pp. 28 to 33.

DECISION CTA EB Crim. No. I05 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-939) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfried LaoTian reconsideration, rendered by the then Second Division3 of this Court (Court in Division). The dispositive portions of the assailed Resolutions read as follows: P' assailed Resolution WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-939 is hereby DISMISSED on the ground of prescription. SO ORDERED. 2nd assailed Resolution WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated December 05, 2022) filed on December 28,2022 is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Resolution dated December 5, 2022 dismissing the instant case on the ground of prescription is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. THE ANTECEDENT FACTS On October 26, 2022, an Information4 was filed against respondent for violation of Section 255, paragraph 1, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, the accusatory portion of which reads: That on April15, 2012, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a Filipino citizen, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously failed to file his Annual Income Tax Return (ITR), for the taxable year 2011, knowing fully well that he is required by the law and by the rules and regulations to file said return and to pay the tax due thereto within a period stated therein, which willful failure to tile his ITR resulted to the damage and prejudice of the Government in the amount of Fifty Two Million Nine Hundred Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Three Pesos and Seventy Nine Centavos (Php 52,942,823.79), exclusive of interests, penalties and surcharges. Thereafter, the Court issued the JSf assailed Resolution on December 5, 2022, dismissing the above Information for failure ofthe prosecution to timely 1 file the Information in Court within the five (5)-year prescriptive period.5 Composed of Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy, Associate Justice Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, and Associate Justice Lanee S. Cui-David. 4 Division Docket, p. 5. 5 Rollo, pp. 24 to 27.

DECISION CTA EB Crim. No. I05 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-939) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfried LaoTian Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration6 which was still denied for lack of merit on February 10, 2023 through the 2nd assailed Resolution issued by the Court in Division.7 Hence, this Petition. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC On March 7, 2023, this Court received petitioner's Verified Petition for Review filed via registered mail on March 1, 2023.8 Petitioner then filed its Manifestation with Motion on March 15, 2023 9 praying that the title ofthe case be corrected from "BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE" to "PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES" as the plaintiff-appellant. On June 23, 2023, this Court directed the petitioner to submit an Amended Petition for Review. 10 In compliance with the Resolution dated June 23, 2023, petitioner filed on July 10, 2023 the instant Amended Verified Petition for Review reflecting the corrected title of the case. 11 Thereafter, the counsel for respondent filed a Notice of Appearance12 on July 12, 2023. In the Minute Resolution dated July 17, 2023, the Court noted the same and directed respondent to file a comment on the Amended Verified Petition for Review.13 On July 27, 2023, respondent filed his Comment/Opposition (Re: Verified Petition for Review ofthe Resolution dated 10 February 2023). 14 The Court noted, on September 26, 2023, the filing of the Amended Verified Petition for Review and respondent's Comment/Opposition (Re: Verified Petition for Review of the Resolution dated 10 February 2023). On even date, the case was submitted for decision. 15 \ 6 Motion for Reconsideration (o[Resolution dated December 05, 2022), Rollo, pp. 228 to 236. 7 Rollo, pp. 28 to 33. 8 Rollo,pp. I to 18. 9 Filed via registered mail on March 15, 2023 and received by the Court on March 21, 2023; Rollo, pp. 239 to 242. 1o Rollo, pp. 246 to 249. 11 Filed via registered mail on July 10,2023 and received by the Court on July 14, 2023; Rollo, pp. 254 to 272. 12 Rollo, pp. 252 to 253. 13 Rollo, p. 496. 14 Rollo, pp. 497 to 515. 15 Minute Resolution dated September 26, 2023, Rollo, p. 517.

DECISION CTA EB Crim. No. I05 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-939) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfried LaoTian THE ISSUE In petitioner's Amended Verified Petition for Review, the sole error raised was that the Court in Division erred when it dismissed the charge against respondent Loo Tian for violation of Section 255 ofthe NIRC of 1997, as amended, or willful failure to file his Annual Income Tax Return (ITR) for taxable year (TY) 20 II. THE ARGUMENTS Petitioner interposes the following arguments in support of its petition: A. Prescription has not set in as the period of discovery and the institution ofjudicial proceedings for violation of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, not only triggers the commencement of the prescriptive period but, at the same time, triggers the interruption of the same prescriptive period, on July 5, 2012, or the date of filing of complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ); and, B. Respondent should be held liable for deliberate failure to file Annual ITR for TY 2011 in violation of Section 255, paragraph 1, of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. On the other hand, respondent counter-argues that: A. The right of the government to prosecute him has prescribed under Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; and, B. The case must be dismissed for violation of the accused's right to speedy disposition of cases as the plaintiff took more than ten (I 0) years from the filing of the complaint to the filing ofthe Information in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). THE RULING OF THE COURT The Amended Verified Petition for Review lacks merit. I

DECISION CTA EB Crim. No. 105 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-939) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfi�ied LaoTian The instant Amended Verified Petition for Review was timely filed. Records show that, on December 13, 2022, 16 petitioner received the 1'1 assailed Resolution dismissing the case on the ground of prescription, to which petitioner moved for reconsideration on December 28, 2022. 17 On February 10, 2023, the Court in Division issued the 2nd assailed Resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, which resolution was received by the latter on February 15, 2023. 18 Section 9(b) of Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) provides: SEC. 9. Appeal: period to appeal. ~ xxx xxx xxx (b) An appeal to the Court en bane in criminal cases decided by the Court in Division shall be taken by filing a petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the decision or resolution appealed from. The Court may, for good cause, extend the time for filing of the petition for review for an additional period not exceeding fifteen days. (Emphasis supplied) Based on the foregoing, petitioner had fifteen (15) days from receipt of the 2nd assailed Resolution on February 15, 2023, or until March 2, 2023, within which to file its Petition for Review. Petitioner, thus, timely filed the instant Verified Petition for Review on March 1, 2023. 19 That having been settled, the Court shall now proceed to the main issue in the present petition. The government's right to prosecute the case has already prescribed. In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged, the following should be considered: (1) the period of prescription for the offense 16 Notice of Resolution dated Decemher). 2022. Division Docket. p. 213. ~ 17 Filed via registered mail on December 28,2022 and received by the Court on January 12, 2023; Formal � Ent1y ofAppearance with Motion for Reconsideration, Division Docket, pp. 218 to 231. 18 Notice ofResolution dated February I0, 2023, Division Docket, p. 236. 19 Filed via registered mail on March I, 2023 and received by the Court on March 7, 2023; Rollo, p. I.

DECISION CTA EB Crim. No. I05 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-939) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfi�ied LaoTian charged; (2) the time the period of prescription starts to run; and, (3) the time the prescriptive period is interrupted. 20 There is no dispute as to the first and second considerations. The issue, however, lies with the third consideration. For an orderly disposition of the issues, the Court will briefly discuss the first and second considerations before proceeding to the third consideration. First: The prescriptive period of subiect violation under the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is five (5) years. The first consideration may be found in Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which provides for the five (5)- year prescriptive period as follows: SEC. 281. Prescription for Violations ofany Provision ofthis 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 at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty persons and 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. (Emphasis supplied) Inasmuch as respondent was charged for violation of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the applicable prescriptive period is five (5) years as provided above. \ 20 Romualdez vs. Marcelo (Resolution), G.R. Nos. 165510-33, July 28, 2006, citing the case of Domingo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 109376, January 20,2000.

DECISION CTA EB Crim. No. 105 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-939) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfried LaoTian Second: The dav ofthe commission of the subject violation is unknown; hence. the prescriptive period began to run upon its discovery and the institution o[ judicial proceedings on July 5, 2012. As to the second consideration (i.e., commencement of the prescriptive period), Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides for two (2) reckoning points from when the period of prescription begins to run: (1) If the day of commission is known, prescription begins to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law; or, (2) If the day of the commission is unknown, from its discovery and the institution ofjudicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. In the assailed Resolutions, the Court in Division applied the second rule which the petitioner likewise avers in its Amended Verified Petition for Review to be applicable. A perusal of the Information shows that the violation alleged therein is that the accused "willfully, unlawfully and feloniously failed to file his Annual Income Tax Return (ITR), for the taxable year 2011 ". Such being an omission on the part ofthe accused, the day of the commission ofthe violation is unknown until the same is discovered. Thus, the Court En Bane agrees with the finding ofthe Court in Division that the commencement ofthe prescriptive period is from the discovery of the commission and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. In Emilio E. Lim, Sr. and Antonia Sun Lim vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines21 (Lim case), the Supreme Court discussed the commencement of the prescriptive period where the day ofthe commission of the violation is not known and what is contemplated by the term "judicial proceedings", to wit: With regard to Criminal Cases Nos. 1790 and 1791 which dealt with petitioners' filing of fraudulent consolidated income tax returns with intent to evade the assessment decreed by law, petitioners contend that the said crimes have likewise prescribed. They advance the view that the five-year period should be counted from the date of discovery of the alleged fraud which, at the latest. should have been October 15, 1964, the date stated by \ 21 G.R. Nos. L-48134-37, October 18, 1990.

DECISION CTA EB Crim. No. 105 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-939) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfried LaoTian the Appellate Court in its resolution of April 4, 1978 as the date the fraudulent nature of the returns was unearthed. On behalf of the Government, the Solicitor General counters that the crime of filing false returns can be considered 'discovered' only after the manner of commission, and the nature and extent of the fraud have been definitely ascertained. It was only on October 10, 1967 when the BIR rendered its final decision holding that there was no ground for the reversal of the assessment and therefore required the petitioners to pay :1'1 ,237,190.55 in deficiency taxes that the tax infractions were discovered. Not only that. The Solicitor General stresses that Section 354 speaks not only of discovery of the fraud but also institution of judicial proceedings. Note the conjunctive word 'and' between the phrases 'the discovery thereof and 'the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and proceedings.' In other words, in addition to the fact of discovery, there must be a judicial proceeding for the investigation and punishment of the tax offense before the five-year limiting period begins to run. It was on September 1,1969 that the offenses subject of Criminal Cases Nos. 1790 and 1791 were indorsed to the Fiscal's Office for preliminary investigation. Inasmuch as a preliminary investigation is a proceeding for investigation and punishment of a crime, it was only on September 1, 1969 that the prescriptive period commenced. XXX The Court is inclined to adopt the view of the Solicitor General. For while that particular point might have been raised in the Ching Lak case, the Court, at that time, did not give a definitive ruling which would have settled the question once and for all. 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 ones, are practically imprescriptible for as long as the period from the discovery 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 supplied.) Based on foregoing discussions, where the day of the commission of the violation of the law is not known, the five (5)-year prescriptive period begins to run from: (1) Discovery; and, (2) Institution ofjudicial proceedings (i.e., offense is indorsed to the Prosecutor's Office for preliminary investigation). In the instant case, by the nature of the violation charged against the accused, the day of the commission of the violation is not known; thus, the prescriptive period begins to run when the violation is discovered and the case was indorsed by the CTR for preliminary investigation to the DOJ on July 5, \ 2012.

DECISION CTA EB Crim. No. 105 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-939) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfried Loo Tian Third: The vrescrzvtzve period was interrupted bv the filing of the InfOrmation with the CTA. The present controversy is with the third consideration, particularly, when the period of prescription is interrupted. Petitioner claims that the discovery and the institution of judicial proceedings not only trigger the commencement ofthe prescriptive period but also trigger the interruption of the same prescriptive period pursuant to Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. It likewise invokes Section 1 ofRule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides: SECTION I. Institution of criminal actions. - Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows: (a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to Section I of Rule 112, by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation; (b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information directly with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters. The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in special laws. As such, petitioner maintains that prescription has not set in as the filing of the complaint with the DOJ for the conduct of preliminary investigation triggered both the commencement and interruption of the running of the prescriptive period. This Court cannot subscribe to such interpretation. As early as 1990, the Supreme Court has held in the Lim case22 that the prescriptive period is interrupted by the filing of Information in Court. Specifically, it was declared therein that tax cases are practically imprescriptible for as long as the period from the discovery 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. \ 22 !d.

DECISION CTA EB Crim. No. I05 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-939) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfried Loa Tian Page10of12 In 2005, the Supreme Court approved A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, otherwise known as the RRCTA, which provides that the prescriptive period for violations of the NIRC of 1997, inter alia, is interrupted by the filing of an Information before the Court, consistent with the pronouncement in the Lim case. 23 Specifically, Section 2 of Rule 9 ofthe RRCTA reads: SEC. 2. Institution 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 criminal actions involving violations of the National Internal Revenue Code and other laws enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue must approve their filing. In criminal actions involving violations of the Tariff and Customs Code and other laws enforced by the Bureau of Customs, the Commissioner of Customs must approve their filing. The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription. (Emphasis supplied) Based on the foregoing, criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division is instituted by the filing of the Information before the said Court. Such institution of the criminal action before the Court shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription. Evidently, petitioner's reliance on Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is misplaced considering that it only applies suppletorily to the RRCTA24 and that the latter specifically provides that criminal actions are instituted by the filing of an Information before the CTA which filing shall interrupt the running of the prescriptive period. In view of the foregoing disquisitions, the running of the prescriptive period is interrupted by the filing of the Information before the Court and not by the filing of the complaint before the DOJ. As correctly found by the Court in Division, the right to prosecute the criminal action herein has prescribed. Counting from the discovery of the violation of the NIRC of 1997 and the institution of the judicial proceeding for preliminary investigation (i.e., CIR's referral of the case to the DOJ) on July 5, 2012, the Information should have been filed before this Court within five (5) years from July 5, 2012, or until July 5, 2017. Clearly, when the instant Information was filed before this\ 23 !d. 24 Section 3 of Rule I of the RRCTA provides that "[t]he Rules of Court in the Philippines shall apply suppletorily to these Rules."

DECISION CTA EB Crim. No. 105 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-939) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfried LaoTian Page II of 12 Court on October 26, 2022, more than five (5) years have passed since the government's right to institute a criminal action prescribed. In fine, the Court En Bane finds no compelling reason to reverse the Court in Division's assailed Resolutions. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Amended Verified Petition for Review (of the Resolution dated February 10, 2023) is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Resolutions dated December 5, 2022 and February 10, 2023 in CTA Crim. Case No. 0-939 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~II'. ES CORAy>NG. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice >4v. ~ ...,. '--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~� 7..A-�� .L.t..-~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice .on Official Business) JEAN MARIE A. BACORRO-VILLENA Associate Justice

DECISION CTA EB Crim. No. l05 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-939) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfried Loa Tian ~ ~ t ~-F~~ MARIAN IVY4J. REYES-~AJARDO Associate Justice (On Official Business) LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice HENRY ~~NGELES Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Presiding Justice