PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO VALERIANO M. BERNARDO (A.V.M. BERNARDO ENGINEERING) (AT LARGE: Address: No. 604 T. Santiago St., Lingunan, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA EB CRIM. N0.123 Petitioner, (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-931) -versus- Members: DEL ROSARIO, P.J ANTONIO VALERIANO M. RINGPIS-LIBAN, BERNARDO, MANAHAN, (A.V.M. BERNARDO ENGINEERING) BACORRO-VILLENA, (AT LARGE: Address: No. 604 T. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Santiago St., Lingunan, Valenzuela City, REYES-FAJARDO, Metro Manila), CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and Respondent. ANGELES, JJ. Promulgated: x---------------------------------------- ----------x RESOLUTION FERRER-FLORES, J.: For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated April 16, 2024) filed on May 2, 2024, sans respondent's comment as per Records Verification dated July 10, 2024. Petitioner seeks the reversal of the Court's Decision dated April 16, 2024 (assailed Decision), which affirmed the assailed Resolutions dated February 2 1, 2023 and April27, 2023 rendered by the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Second Division in CTA Crim. Case No. 0-931, dismissing the case on the ground of prescription. ~

RESOLUTION People ofthe Philippines vs. Antonio Valeriano M Bernardo CTA EB CRJM. NO. 123 (CTA CR1M. CASE NO. 0-931) Page 2 of4 In its motion, petitioner reiterates that the filing of complaint with the prosecution's office tolls the running of the prescriptive period for actions involving violations of special laws, like the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. Petitioner likewise posits that the mere fact that time has passed should not prejudice the right ofthe government to collect taxes as taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. The arguments of petitioner are untenable. The Court, in a long line of cases 1 and adopting the pronouncement in Lim vs. Court ofAppeals,2 had ruled that the commencement of the five-year prescriptive period in criminal tax cases as provided in Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended,3 commences from the date of the commission of the violation of the law, or 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 period of prescription is only interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty persons and shall run again in the event the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. In this case, the five-year prescnpt1ve period begins to run on February 18, 2016, when the Joint Complaint Affidavit of Revenue Officers Gina D. Floreza and Grace G. Marohomsalic4 was referred to the Secretary of the Department of Justice by then Commissioner oflntemal Revenue Kim S. Jacinto-Henares. The prosecution had until February 18, 2021 to file the requisite Information with the Court. However, the prosecution belatedly filed the subject Information with the Court in Division on September 6, 2022. Clearly, the prescription of criminal action had already set in. While taxes are the lifeblood of the government and should be collected without unnecessary hindrance, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for the government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests 1 of the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved.5 I People ofthe Philippines VS. Ma. Luisa Reyes Angulo, CTA Crim. Case Nos. o\867 and 0-868, October 8, 2024; People ofthe Philippines vs. Zeigfi�ied LaoTian, CTA EB Crim. No. 116 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-944), September 26, 2024; People ofthe Philippines vs. Star Asset Management NPL, Inc., eta/., CTA EB Case No. 129 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-995), April22, 2024; People ofthe Philippines vs. CTA Second Division, eta/., CTA EB Crim. No. 093 (CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-850, 0851, 0-852, and 0-853), August 29, 2023; and People of the Philippines vs. Wintelecom, lnc!Hua C. Uychiyong (Treasurer), CTA EB Crim. No. 090 (CTA Crim Case Nos. 0-800 and 0801), June 21,2023, to name a few. G.R. No. L-48134-37, October 18, 1990. 3 A replica of then Section 354 of the 1939 NIRC. 4 Docket, pp. 22-33. 5 Commissioner o(fllfanul RC'\�enue 1�s. Algue. Inc.. ct. u/.. CJ.R. No. L-28896. 1-chruary 17. 1988.

RESOLUTION People ofthe Philippines vs. Antonio Valeriano M Bernardo CTA EB CRJM. NO. 123 (CTA CRJM. CASE NO. 0-931) In sum, there being no new issues or substantial arguments raised in the instant motion, this Court finds no compelling reason to disturb or overturn the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated April16, 2024) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~.~ _.., '---- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice C-~L-w' 7-~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice

RESOLUTION People ofthe Philippines vs. Antonio Valeriano M Bernardo CTA EB CR!M. NO. !23 (CTA CRJM. CASE NO. 0-93!) Page 4 of 4 .:- , JEAN MARI~~ILLENA ~c~ate Justice /fl~ iGv.iuJwF. F. ~ -f~ MARIAN REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice LAN~~ID Associate Justice ON LEAV� HENRY S. ANGELES Associate Justice