BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ZIEGFRIED LOO TIAN, (No. 1013, Juan Luna Street, Brgy. 27, Zone 1, Tondo, Manila)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTAEB CRIM. N0.112 Petitioner, (CTA Crim. Case No. 0 -957) -versus- For: Violation of Section 254, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended Present: ZIEGFRIED LOO TIAN, DEL ROSARIO, P.J., (No. 1013. Juan Luna Street, RINGPIS-LIBAN, Brgy. 27, Zone 1, Tondo, Manila), MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, Respondent. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JJ Promulgated: JUL 1 6 202~ X -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- X D EC ISION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J. : The Case Before the Court is a Verified Petition for Review (of the Resolution dated February 09, 2023) ("Petition"), fil ed via registered mail on March 6, 2023, with respondent's Comment/Opposition (Re: Verified Petition for Review of the Resolution dated 09 February 2023) ("Comment"), fi led on August 1, 2023 . Petitioner assails the Resolutions, dated December 15, 2022 (" 151 assailed Resolution") and February 9, 2023 ("2nd assailed Resolution"), respectively _/ promulgated by the First Division ("Court in Division") of the Comi of Tax Appeal~

OECISIOi\ CTA �8Crim. Case No. 112 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0~957) Page 2 of7 ("CTA"), which dismissed the Information, 1 filed before it on October 26, 2022, for prescription, then denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration,2 filed on January 10,2023, for lack of merit. The Parties Petitioner is represented by the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR"), the government agency mandated to collect national revenue taxes.3 Respondent is allegedly the sole proprietor of Golden Taste Food Services & General Merchandising, a registered tax payer.4 The Facts On July 5, 2012,5 petitioner filed a Joint Complaint-Affidavit6 ("JCA") with the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). The JCA was executed by Revenue Officers ("RO") Emerita D. Tan, Carine P. Balmeo, Arne! A. Boco, Dominador A. Callangan, and Adelina P. See. The DOJ then issued a Resolution7 on September 1, 2014, recommending the filing oflnfonnation against respondent before the CTA. Sometime after, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the DOJ, but this was denied in a Resolution,8 dated May 11, 20 I 7. Acting on said denial, petitioner filed its Information before the Court in Division. However, this was dismissed for prescription b;' the 1st assailed Resolution. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the Court in Division denied the same for lack of merit through the 2nd assailed Resolution. Still aggrieved, petitioner filed its Petition before the Court En Bane via registered mail on March 6, 2023. It followed this up with a Manifestation with Motion,9 filed via registered mail on March 15, 2023, asking that the Court amend the caption of its Petition. Respondent's counsel then filed a Notice of Appearance 10 on July 12, 2023 and respondent's Comment on August 1, 2023/ Division Records, pp. 5-6. !d. at 222-231. See Petition for Review, p. 2, Rollo, p. 2. !d. See Investigation Data Form, Division Records, p. 20. !d. at 23-37. /d.at!0-19. !d. at 7-9. Rollo, pp. 238-241. 10 !d. at 244-245.

DECISI0:'\1 CTA EB Crim Case No. 112 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-957) Page 3 of7 After granting petitioner's motion to amend the Petition's caption and noting respondent's Comment, the Court submitted this case for Decision, all in a Minute Resolution, 11 dated March 6, 2024. Hence, this Decision. The Assigned Errors Petitioner assigns the following eiTors to the assailed Resolutions ofthe Court in Division: 12 (a) The Court in Division erred in denying the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit; and (b) The Court in Division erred in finding no probable cause to charge respondent with the alleged violations of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended ("NJRC'). The Arguments Petitioner raises the following arguments: (a) As the prescriptive period for prosecuting the alleged violations was interrupted by the filing of the JCA before the DOJ, prescription has not set in�' 13 and (b) Respondent should be held liable for willful attempt to evade or defeat tax. 14 Respondent opposes the above with the following contentions: (a) Contrary to petitioner's argument, the prescriptive period is inten�upted only by the filing of an Information before the CTA, so the government's right to prosecute this case has prescribed; 15 (b) Petitioner violated respondent's right to a speedy disposition of cases as the Information was filed 10 years after the filing of the JCA; 16 and (c) Petition filed its Motion for Reconsideration late, so the 1st assailed Resolution already attained finality.Y II fd. at 269. 12 See Petition for Review, p. 5, id. at 5. 13 See Petition for Review, pp. 6-12, id. at 6-12. 14 See Petition for Review, pp. 12-18, id. at 12-18. 15 See Comment/Opposition, unpaginated, id. at 250-257. 16 See Comment/Opposition, unpaginated, id. at 258-269. 17 See Comment/Opposition, unpaginated, id. at 265-266.

DECISIO'I CTA EB Crim. Case No. 112 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-957) Page4of7 The Ruling ofthe Court The Petition for Review is bereft of merit. The Court En Bane has jurisdiction over the instant Petition for Review Under Rule 4, Section (2) (f) ofthe Revised Rules ofthe Court ofTax Appeals, as amended ("RRCTA"), the Court En Bane has jurisdiction over appeals from decisions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration promulgated by the Court in Division in its exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of the NIRC: SEC. 2. Cases within the jurisdiction ofthe Courl en bane.- The Court en bane shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (f) Decisions, resolutions, or orders on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division in the exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or the Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or Bureau of Customs; Meanwhile, under Rule 8, Section 3(b) of the RRCTA, pariies seeking to protest such a decision or resolution of the Court in Division must file a petition for review before the Court En Bane within 15 days from receipt of said issuance. Petitioner filed its Information before the Court in Division to charge respondent with violating Section 254 ofthe NJRC. The case thus falls under Rule 4, Section (2)(/) ofthe RRCTA. Furthermore, petitioner received the 2"ct assailed Resolution on February 17, 2023, giving it until March 4, 2023 within which to file a Petition before the Court En Bane. Said date fell on a Saturday, so petitioner actually had until March 6, 2023. As it filed the instant Petition via registered mail exactly on March 6, 2023, it filed said Petition on time. Finally, We cannot agree with respondent that petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration late. Under Rule 15, Section I of the RRCTA a pariy can file a Motion for Reconsideration to assail an issuance of the CTA within 15 days from receipt of said issuance. The 5-day period provided by the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases is thus inapplicable here. General rules of procedure only see suppletory application when special rules are insufficient, i.e~

DECISION CTA EB Crim. Case No_ 112 (CTA Crim_ Case No. 0-957) Page 5 of7 when the latter are silent on some relevant issue or procedure_l 8 No such insufficiency or silence on motions for reconsideration can be found in the RRCTA, given that Rule 15, Section 1 of the same exists. Consequently, the 5-day period provided by the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial ofCriminal Cases cannot see suppletory application here, and the 15-day period prevails. This Court En Bane thus has jurisdiction over the case at bar. However, while petitioner may have filed both its Motion for Reconsideration and Petition for Review on time, the same cannot be said of its Information. Petitioner filed its Information late; the government's right to prosecute this case has thus prescribed The Court in Division cited, among other sources, Rule 9, Section 2 of the RRCTA in both its 1st and 2'1(1 assailed Resolutions. 19 Said provision states: 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 ofthe People ofthe 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) The provision is clear. In cases heard before the CTA, it is the filing of an Information before said Court that institutes the criminal action and thus interrupts the relevant prescriptive period. As such, petitioner's main argument, that the prescriptive period both began and was interrupted by the filing of the JCA before the DOJ, fails. Despite the above being quoted in both assailed Resolutions, petitioner has remained and still remains silent on said provision. As the Court in Division's use of the rule remains uncontroverted, the Court En Bane is unconvinced that the former's dismissal ofthe case was in error/ 18 See Government Service Insurance System v. Villavha. G.R. No. 180291, July 27. 201 0; see also Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Gidwani, G.R. No. 234616, June 20, 2018. 19 See Resolution, dated December 15, 2022, pp.3-4, Division Records, pp. 215-216; see also Resolution, dated February 9, 2023, p. 2, id. at 235.

DECISION CTA EBCrim. Case No. 112 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-957) Page 6 of7 Indeed, the instant Petition's arguments regarding the prescriptive period are almost completely a verbatim rehash of its arguments from the Motion for Reconsideration. It thus offers nothing already addressed and refuted by the Court in Division, in either of the latter's assailed Resolutions. The only substantial difference here is petitioner's citation of People v. Lee20 ("Lee"), which quoted People v. Pangilinan21 ("Pangilinan") in saying that the prescriptive period is the same for cases under special laws and those under the Revised Penal Code. However, the reasoning for said pronouncement was the fact that said special laws are, in general, governed by Act 3326, as amended by Act 3763. Said Act was promulgated specifically to provide rules regarding the prescriptive period for violations of special laws that lacked any such rules. Rule 9, Section 2 of the RRCTA exists, however. And as a rule that must be followed by the CTA, the Court before which the instant alleged violation of the NIRC must be prosecuted, it is the controlling rule regarding the prescriptive period here. As stated above, general rules only see suppletory application when the special rules are silent on the relevant issue or procedure. The RRCTA already includes a rule governing the interruption of the prescriptive period for prosecuting violations of the NIRC. As such, the equivalent rules in both the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Act 3326, as amended by Act 3763, are inapplicable here. To review, petitioner filed its JCA with the DOJ on July 5, 2012. It thus had until July 5, 2017 before its right to prosecute the case prescribed, following the five- year period provided by Section 281 of the NIRC. However, it filed its Information before the Court in Division on October 26, 2022, 10 years and 113 days after the filing of the JCA and 5 years and 113 days after the end of the five-year period. The Court En Bane thus sees no reason to depart from the Court in Division's ruling that the Information was filed late. The government's right to prosecute the alleged violation in the case at bar is consequently barred by prescription. Given the foregoing, there is no need to address petitioner's other arguments. ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Verified Petition for Review (of the Resolution dated February 09, 2023), filed via registered mail on March 6, 2023, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Resolutions, dated December 15, 2022 and February 9, 2023, respectively, both rendered by the Court in Division in CTA Crim. Case No. 0-957, are hereby AFFIRMED ..._../ 20 G.R. No. 234618, September 16,2019. " G.R. No. 152662, June 13,2012.

DECISIO~ ()17 CTA EB Crim. Case No. 112 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-957) Page 7 of? SO ORDERED. MARIA ROW WE CONCUR: ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice PJ,._,, ~ ~J .......__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~ 'r.//k~�~~---- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ~~ JEAN MARl . BACORRO-VILLENA ss ciate Justice ~ ~ f~.~~\r41; MARIAN rv& F. REY~S=FAJARDO Associate Justice LANe~ID Associate Justice HENRY jJSGELES 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 Cou ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice