PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDUARDO P. VITERBO, LUIS MANUEL C. BANSON JR., MARIO JONAS D. DE CASTRO and GC Quality Restaurant Group, Inc., (G/F F&M Lopez II Bldg., 109 C. Palanca St., Legaspi Village, Makati City 1229)

CTA Fonn No. 8 (For DCC) 111111111111 1111111111 11111 11111 1111111111 11111111111111111111 111111111111111111 24-000246-0005 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-1146 PEOPLE OF THE PlllLIPPINES, Plaintiff, - versus- EDUARDO P. VITERBO, NOTICE OF RESOLUTION LUIS MANUEL C. BANSON JR., MARIO JONAS D. DE CASTRO and GC QUALITY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Accused. To: CITY PROSECUTOR DINDO G. VENTURANZA DEPUTY CITY PROSECUTOR CHRISTOPHER C. GARVIDA SR. ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR JIMMY B. MORALES Office of the City Prosecutor 16th Floor, Makati City Hall (New Building) JP Rizal, Brgy. Poblacion Makati City ATTY. RAUL SJ. DE GUZMAN Bureau of Internal Revenue- Revenue Region No. 8A 36th Floor, Export Bank Plaza Building Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on August 8, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, August 9, 2024. AttyE. MxeacuritiavJ e ~~ f F. Chan-Te Court II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1146 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 255 -versus- of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, in relation to Sections 253(d) and 256 of the same code. Members: DEL ROSARIO , P.J. , Chairperson , BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID , JJ. EDUARDO P. VITERBO, LUIS MANUEL C. BANSON JR., MARIO JONAS D. DE CASTRO and GC QUALITY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. , Accused . X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~ For the Court's resolution is plaintiff People of the Philippines' (plaintiff's) "Motion for Reconsideration (to Resolution dated June 21 , 2024)"1 (MR) filed via registered mail on 09 July 20242, praying for the reversal of the Resolution dated 21 June 20243 (assailed Resolution) which dismissed the instant case due to prescription. In the MR, plaintiff mainly argues that the institution of the criminal action before the Department of Justice (DOJ) for purposes of preliminary investigation effectively tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Citing People of the Philippines v. Virgilio B. Division Docket, pp. 122-1 29. 2 Received by the Court on 15 July 2024 . Division Docket, pp. I 13- 12 1.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1146 People of the Philippines v. Eduardo P. Viterbo. Luis Manuel C. Banson jr.� Mario jonas D. De Castro and GC Quality Restaurant Group Inc. x------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- -x Castilfo, 4 (People v. Castillo), plaintiff claims that this Court previously stated that the five (5)-year prescriptive period commences to run upon the filing of the complaint with the DOJ. Applying the foregoing, since the Joint Complaint-Affidavit here was only filed on 20 December 2023, the Information filed before this Court on 16 May 2024 is clearly within the prescriptive period. Plaintiff further avers that the filing of the Information before a court is not included in the counting of the five (5)-year period as the Supreme Court had ruled in Petronila C. Tupaz v. Honorable Benedicta B. Ulep Presiding Judge of RTC Quezon City, Branch 105, and People of the Philippines. 5 We resolve. Although the MR was duly filed on time6, an examination of the arguments raised therein does not warrant the modification of the assailed Resolution. First, petitioner cannot rely on the interpretations made in People v. Castillo considering that it is not a binding precedent. As reiterated in Cristine/li S. Fermin v. People of the Philippines7, the principle of stare decisis is only applicable to Supreme Court decisions- The doctrine of stare decisis, embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code, is enunciated, thus: The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of the Supreme Court thereof. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. CTA EB Crim. No. 053, 08 July 2020. G.R. No. 127777,01 October 1999. 6 Public Prosecutor received the assailed Resolution on 25 June 2024. Counting 15 days therefrom, plaintiff had until I0 July 2024 to file an appeal or motion. The Motion for Reconsideration was filed on 09 July 2024 through registered mail. Thus, it was timely filed. G.R. No. 157643,28 March 2008; Citations omitted.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1146 People of the Philippines v. Eduardo P. Viterbo, Luis Manuel C. Sanson Jr., Mario jonas D. De Castro and GC Quality Restaurant Group Inc. x---------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -x Second, as held in the assailed Resolution, We have clearly pointed out that in Emilio E. Lim, Sr. and Antonia Sun Lim v. Court of Appeals and People ofthe Philippines8 , and the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), prescription of criminal offenses shall only be interrupted when the criminal action (or Information) is instituted before a court- In Lim, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 354 of the NIRC of 1939, as amended, (which contains the exact provision as the present Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended) to mean 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, viz: Not only that. The Solicitor General stresses that Section 354 [now, Section 281] 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. 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 [now, Section 281] 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. G.R. Nos. L-48134-37, 18 October 1990.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1146 People of the Philippines v. Eduardo P. Viterbo, Luis Manuel C. Banson Jr., Mario jonas D. De Castro and GC Quality Restaurant Group Inc. x--------------------------------------------------------------------------x Unless amended by the legislature, Section 354 [now, Section 281] stays in the Tax Code as it was written during the days of the Commonwealth. And as it is, must be applied regardless of its apparent one- sidedness in favor of the Government. In criminal cases, statutes of limitations are acts of grace, a surrendering by the sovereign of its right to prosecute. They receive a strict construction in favor of the Government and limitations in such cases will not be presumed in the absence of clear legislation. Relevantly, Section 2, Rule 9 of the RRCTA, as amended, provides: 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. Verily, pursuant to the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Lim and the above-quoted provision of the RRCTA, the prescriptive period to file a criminal case is tolled only when the Information is filed before the Court. In this case, the Information was filed beyond the five (5)-year prescriptive period, thus there is no interruption of said period. To be sure, criminal offenses for violations of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, including known offenses, are not intended to be imprescriptible. However, if the prescriptive period is interrupted once preliminary investigation proceedings are instituted before the DOJ, it suggests that there is no fixed deadline for filing an Information in court. As a result, the offense could indefinitely remain actionable once a complaint reaches the DOJ. This grants the DOJ discretionary power over when to act, potentially allowing the misuse of the rule on prescription as a means to intimidate, harass, and disrupt taxpayers suspected of tax violationsB 9 Citations omitted, italics and emphasis in the original text.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1146 People of the Philippines v. Eduardo P. Viterbo, Luis Manuel C. Banson Jr., Mario jonas D. De Castro and GC Quality Restaurant Group Inc. Page 5 ofS X-------------------------------------------------------------------------- X ACCORDINGLY, plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration (to Resolution dated June 21, 2024)" filed on 09 July 2024 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Associate Justice JEAN MA~~~iA~Ct~ OeRRJuO� st-icVeILLENA LAN~EE ' S. ~DAlVj_ID Associate Justice