PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PGU GENERAL MERCHANDISE, INC. FOOK SEONG YONG and ROCELLE FRANCISCO (4F Krisambet Bldg., Zobel Roxas Street Singalong, City of Manila) -at large-

CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) 111111111111 1111111111 1111111111 11111 1111111111111111111111111 11111 1111111111111 23-000383-0005 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-1081 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, - versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION PGU GENERAL MERCHANDISE, INC., FOOK SEONG YONG and ROCELLE FRANCISCO, Accused. To: PROSECUTOR GENERAL BENEDICTO A. MALCONTENTO ASST. STATE PROSECUTOR ROBERT D.G. ONG, JR. Department of Justice DOJ Building, Padre Faura Street Ermita, Mani la COMMISSIONER OF INT ERNAL REVENUE Thru: Prosecution Division Room 704, BlR National Office Buiding BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City ATTY. RAMON B. LOR EN ZO ATTY. ROWELL B. VICENTE Bureau of Intemal Revenue - Revenue Region No. 6 BTR Bldg., I, Solana Street, lntramuros Manila GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on February 27, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, February 28, 2024. Atty. Marg rette Y. Guz an Executiv Clerk of Court I I Page I of I

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1081 PHILIPPINES , For: Violation of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended Plaintiff, -versus- Members: DEL ROSARIO , PJ. , Chairperson, PGU GENERAL BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. MERCHANDISE, INC., ---------------X FOOK SEONG YONG and ROCELLE FRANCISCO, Accused . For the Court's resolution is plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration with Leave of Court and Entry of Appearance (Re: Resolution dated 12 October 2023)" (MR) filed on 05 January 2024, without comment/opposition thereto from all of the accused. The MR assails this Court's Resolution dated 12 October 2023 (assailed Resolution), which dismissed the instant case against the said accused on the ground that the criminal offense charged has already prescribed . In the MR, plaintiff merely argues that its right to prosecute the accused has not yet prescribed as the filing of the complaint for prelimir~ary investigation before the Department of Justice (DOJ) has tolled the running of the prescription period for offenses. We resolve. Indeed, the general rule is that the prescriptive periods for criminal offenses are tolled by the filing of a criminal complaint, or

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1081 People of the Philippines v. PGU General Merchandise, Inc., Fook Seong Yong and Rocelle Francisco Page 2 of3 x------------------- -- ------------------------- ---- ------- ------ ------------x information.1 However, Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),2 in relation to Section 281 3 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, clearly poses an exception to the general rule . As discussed in the assailed Resolution , by virtue of Section 281 , of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the prescription of the offense of willful failure to pay tax is counted from the time of the offense's commission and is interrupted by the institution of judicial proceedings in court for its prosecution as explained in the case of Emilio E. Lim, Sr., et a/. v. Court of Appeals, et ai.4(Lim Sr.). Considering that the application of Lim Sr. to the instant case has already been exhaustively discussed in the assailed Resolution , the Court shall no longer engage in a lengthy disquisition of the same matter. Furthermore, basic is the rule in our jurisdiction that in case of irreconcilability, the provisions of special laws (such as the NIRC of 1997, as amended ) prevail over the provisions of a general statute on a specific subject that they both cover. This is not to say that our tax laws have repealed general provisions of the RPC insofar as criminal tax offenses are concerned but an exception is undoubtedly carved in favor of the former. In Rosario Valera, assisted by her husband, Juan Valera v. Mariano Tuason, Jr. , Justice of the Peace of Lagayan, Abra, eta/. 5, the Supreme Court explained, thusly: Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code. Art. 91. Computation ofprescription ofoffenses. - The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the tiling of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him. The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Phil ippine Arch ipelago. 3 SEC. 281. Prescription for Violations of any Provision of this Code.- All violations of any provision of this Code shall prescri be after fi ve (5) years. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the comm ission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereofand the institution ofj udicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the gui lty 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. G.R. Nos. L-48 134-37, 18 October 1990. G.R. No. L- 1276, 30 Apri l 1948.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1081 People of the Philippines v. PGU General Merchandise, Inc., Fook Seong Yong and Rocelle Francisco Page 3 of3 x------------------------------------------------------ -- -- --- -- -- - -- - ------ x ... [G]ranting then that the two laws cannot be reconciled , in so far as they are inconsistent with each other, [S]ection 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being a specific law, should prevail over, or considered as an exemption to, [S]ection 211 of the Administrative Code, which is a provision of general character. [A] general law is one which embraces a class of subjects or places and does not omit any subject or place naturally belonging to such class, while a special act is one which relates to particular persons or things of a class. Considering that Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and the Supreme Court's ruling in Lim Sr. remain relevant and in effect, the Court is left with no new matter to consider. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration with Leave of Court and Entry of Appearance (Re: Resolution dated 12 October 2023 )" filed on 05 January 2024 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Meanwhile, the ENTRY OF APPEARANCE of Special Prosecutors, Atty. Ramon B. Lorenzo and Atty. Rowell B. Vicente, as plaintiff's counsels is NOTED. Accordingly, let copies of orders, resolutions, judgment and other papers be furnished to Atty. Ramon B. Lorenzo and Atty. Rowell B. Vicente of the Legal Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Revenue Region No. 6, with address at BIR Bldg. I, Solana Street, lntramuros, Manila. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice JEAN MA '~ BACORRO-VILLENA ate Justice ON OFFICIAL BlJ~II'lt55 LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice