PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MICAH MOTOR, INC., MAURICE DIZON, JR. and JOY D. FERNANDEZ, (P.M. Guanzon St., Paco (Otis), Manila) All-At-Large

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) 111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 22-000632-0021 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-1009 PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus - NOTICE OF RESOLUTION MICAH MOTOR, INC., MAURICE DIZON, JR. and JOY D. FERNANDEZ, Accused. To: PROSECUTOR GENERAL BENEDICTO A. MALCONTENTO ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR HJALMAR M. QUINTANA, JR. Department ofJustice Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila 1000 ATTY. RAMON B. LORENZO ATTY. ROWELL B. VICENTE ATTY. ERIKA S. DE GUZMAN Bureau oflntemal Revenue - Revenue Region No. 6 5th Floor, BIR Building I Solana Street, Intramuros Manila GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on October 10, 2024, Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, October 11, 2024. Atty. Maria ~ F. Chan-Te Executiv~f Court II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1009 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 255, in relation to Sections 253(d) and 256, of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. -versus- Members: DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. MICAH MOTOR, INC., MAURICE DIZON, JR. and . Pro mulgated ~� ~ / -r: neT ,to_. ; JOY D. FERNANDEZ, ,JiPP} Accused . X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~ - - - - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION For the Court's resolution is plaintiff People of the Philippines' (plaintiff's) "Motion for Reconsideration with Leave of Court and Entry of Appearance (Re: Resolution dated 15 May 2024)"1 (MR), filed on 30 July 2024, sans accused Micah Motor, Inc., Maurice Dizon, Jr. and Joy D. Fernandez's (collectively, accused's) comment as they remain at large. The present MR assails the Court's Resolution dated 15 May 20242 (assailed Resolution), which dismissed the instant case due to prescription . In its MR, plaintiff contends that the prescriptive period for violations of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, being a special law, is interrupted by the filing of the complaint before the Department of Justice (DOJ) for purposes of Division Docket, pp. 125-1 3 1. ld., pp. 11 6-1 24.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1009 People of the Philippines v. Micah Motor, Inc., Maurice Dizon, Jr. and joy D. Fernandez X-----------------------------------------------------------------X preliminary investigation against the accused, citing the ruling of the Supreme Court in People of the Philippines v. Mateo A. Lee, Jr3 (Lee, Jr.). In the case of Lee, Jr., the Supreme Court held that '"(t)here is no more distinction between cases under the RPC (Revised Penal Code) and those covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription and reiterated that the period of prescription is interrupted by the filing of the complaint before the fiscal's office for purposes of preliminary investigation against the accused". Plaintiff thus insists that the five (5)-year prescriptive period was tolled when the Joint Complaint-Affidavit4 was filed with the DOJ on 11 April 2019. 5 Accordingly, the Information was timely filed before this Court on 06 December 2022. We resolve. l f j,. :. At the onset, plaintiff's arguments have already been considered and addressed in the assailed Resolution. Nevertheless, for emphasis, the Court shall revisit the crux of plaintiff's contention, which effectively raises an issue regarding the applicability of the Supreme Court's ruling in Emilio E. Lim, Sr. and Antonia Sun Lim v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines6 (Lim, Sr.) in light of the more recent ruling in Lee, Jr. According to plaintiff, the above recent interpretation of Act No. 33267 provides that filing a complaint with the prosecutor interrupts the running of the prescriptive period. Since the provisions in Section 28 of Act No. 3326 are the same as those in Section 281 9 of the NIRC G.R. No. 134618. 16 September 2019. Division Docket. pp. I4-19. Not on21 February 2019. as erroneously stated in the instant Motion for Reconsideration (MR). G.R. Nos. L-48134-37. 18 October 1990. AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN. SEC. 2. 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, !'rom the discovery thereof and the institution ofjudicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1009 People of the Philippines v. Micah Motor, Inc., Maurice Dizon, Jr. and joy D. Fernandez x~----------------------------------------------------------------x of 1997, as amended, the interpretation in the more recent case of Lee, Jr. should be applied here instead of Lim, Sr. We disagree. It is important to emphasize that Lim, Sr. specifically addresses the prosecution for violations of a tax law {i.e., the NIRC of 1997, as amended), while Lee, Jr., cited by plaintiff, involves the prosecution of violations under special penal laws unrelated to tax. As held in the assailed Resolution, the ruling in Lim, Sr. that the filing of an Information in Court interrupts the running of prescriptive period is consistent with Section 2, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals10 (RRCTA), which reads as follows: 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. 11 The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. ,, SEC. 281. Prescription fin� J 'io/ations (d' (111_,. Prm�ision q( 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 knO\vn at the time. tl�om 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. II> A.M. No. 05-1 1-07-CTA dated 12 November 2005. II Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1009 People of the Philippines v. Micah Motor, Inc., Maurice Dizon, Jr. and joy D. Fernandez x-----------------------------------------------------------------x The RRCTA clearly states that the institution of a criminal action interrupts the running of the prescription period, which occurs upon the filing of the Information with this Court (not by filing the complaint with the DOJ). Thus, in view of Lim, Sr. and the RRCTA, this Court reiterates that the prescriptive period for a tax case begins to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, or if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and institution of proceedings for its investigation and shall only be tolled by the filing of an Information with this Court. To reiterate, herein plaintiff had five (5) years from 21 January 2017 (i.e., the last day for filing a protest against the Formal Letters of Demand 12 [FLDs] with Details of Discrepancies and Assessment Notices13 [ANs]), or until 21 January 2022, within which to file the Information with this Court. Since the subject lnformation14 was filed only on 06 December 2022, five (5) years, eleven (11) months and fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the commission of the violation on 22 January 2017 and the criminal action had already prescribed for ten (10) months and nineteen (19) days reckoned from 21 January 2022 (i.e., the last day of the five [5]-year prescriptive period). Evidently, plaintiff's right to file the subject criminal action has already prescribed. All told, unless and until the Supreme Court modifies or reverses Lim, Sr., this Court shall be bound by the said ruling in cases involving prosecutions for violation of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Accordingly, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the assailed Resolution. 12 Annex ��N�� (attached to the Joint Complaint-Aftldavit dated II April 20 19). Division Docket. pp. 35-39. --r Annexes to--M-- (attached to the Joint Complaint-Affidavit dated II April2019). id., pp. 31- 34. Id.. pp. 5-6.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1009 People of the Philippines v. Micah Motor, Inc., Maurice Dizon, Jr. and joy D. Fernandez Page 5 ofS x-----------------------------------------------------------------x WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, plaintiff People of the Philippines' "Motion for Reconsideration with Leave of Court and Entry of Appearance (Re: Resolution dated 15 May 2024)" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice \ ciate Justice LA~~VID Associate Justice