PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 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 ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE CTA EB CRIM. N0.118 PHILIPPINES, (CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0 -951 ) For: Violation of Section 254 of the Plaintiff-Appellant, National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. Present: - versus - DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN, ZIEGFRIED LOO TIAN, MANAHAN, (No. 1013 , Juan Luna Street, BACORRO-VILLENA, Brgy. 27, Zone 1, Tondo, Manila), MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, Accused-Appellee. CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. Promulgated: OCT 0 3 2025 x----- ------------------------------ -------- ---------------- x RESOLUTION FERRER;_FLORES, J. : For this Court's resolution is plaintiff-appellant's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated August 29, 2024) fi led via registered mail on September 17, 2024,1 with accused-appellee' s Comment/Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration ofthe Decision dated 1 August 29, 2024) filed on October 16, 2024.2 1 Received by the Court on September 24, 2024 ; Rollo, pp. 327 to 342. 2 Rollo, pp. 371 to 387.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfried LaoTian Page 2 of5 In the instant Motion, plaintiff-appellant prays for the Court En Bane to set aside its Decision dated August 29, 2024 (assailed Decision),3 which denied its Verified Petition for Review, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff-appellant's Verified Petition for Review (of the Resolution dated March OJ, 2023) is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Resolutions dated December 5, 2022 and March I, 2023 in CIA Crim. Case No. 0-951 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. In its Motion, plaintiff-appellant maintains that the principles of prescription should apply across all criminal actions, particularly, the rule that the institution of the criminal action before the Department of Justice (DOJ) interrupts the running of the five-year prescriptive period under Section 281 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. Ultimately, plaintiff-appellant reiterates that prescription has not set in as the period of discovery and institution of the judicial proceedings not only triggered the commencement of the prescriptive period, but also triggered the interruption thereof. Accused-appellee, on the other hand, counters that the right of the government to prosecute him had prescribed pursuant to Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Accused-appellee avers that the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Lim vs. Court of Appeals (Lim)4 remains to be the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter of prescription of criminal tax violations. Furthermore, the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), the special provision governing the proceedings in the CTA, provides that the period of prescription is tolled by the filing of the Information before the CTA. Finally, accused-appellee claims that the case must be dismissed for violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases. The instant Motion is bereft of merit. Plaintiff-appellant primarily assails the Decision on the ground that the government's right to prosecute the offense has not prescribed; however, the Court emphasizes that the basis for the denial of the Verified Petition was due to the failure of plaintiff-appellant to timely file a motion for reconsideration against the Court in Division's Resolution dated December 5, 2022 (1'' assailed Resolution). To recall, this Court reckoned the 15-day period to file a motion for reconsideration5 from the DOJ's receipt of the F' assailed~ 3 Rollo. pp. 282 to 293. 4 G.R. No. L-48134-37. October 18. 1990. Section I, Rule 15 of the RRCTA provides that �'[a]ny aggrieved party may seek a reconsideration or new trial of any decision, resolution or order of the Court by filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice of the decision, resolution or order of the Court in question.''

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfried Loo Tion Page 3 of5 Resolution on December 16, 2022 and not from the receipt of Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) National Office -Prosecution Division (NOPD), the alleged deputized special prosecutor, on December 21, 2022. To reiterate, the deputization of the legal officers ofthe BIR as special prosecutors does not, in any way, alter the standing of the DOJ as the principal prosecutor for the plaintiff as provided under Section 5 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended,6 and as adopted by this Court in Section 3 of Rule 9 of the RRCTA. 7 At the risk of sounding repetitive, the Supreme Court has settled that the service oflegal processes to the principal counsel, and not that on the deputized lawyers, is decisive as to the date from which the 15-day period is counted.8 Hence, the Motion for Reconsideration should have been filed within 15 days from the date of receipt ofthe DOJ, as principal prosecutor, on December 16, 2022 or until January 3, 2023.9 As it is, the Motion was belatedly filed on January 5, 2023. Time and again, the Supreme Court has stressed that procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants; the rules were established primarily to provide order to, and enhance the efficiency of, our judicial system. While procedural rules are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. The timeliness of filing a pleading 1s a jurisdictional caveat that even the Supreme Court cannot trifle with. 10 In view of the foregoing, the Court finds it no longer necessary to address the other arguments raised by the plaintiff-appellant. ~ 6 Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions.- All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by infonnation shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of Jack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to the end of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is not available, the offended party, any peace officer, or public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case. This authority shall cease upon actual intervention of the prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court. (Emphasis supplied) 7 SEC. 3. Prosecution of criminal actions.- All criminal actions shall be conducted and prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. In criminal actions involving violation of the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and violations of the Tariff and Customs Code or other laws enforced by the Bureau of Customs, the prosecution may be conducted by their respective duly deputized legal officers. (Emphasis supplied) 8 Baldovino-Torres vs Torres, G.R. No. 248675, July 20, 2022, citing the cases of National Power Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission. G.R. Nos. 90933-61, May 29, 1997 and Commissioner of Customs vs. Courr of Tax Appeals. G.R. No. 132929, March 27. 2000. ' Since the 30'" day fell on December 31, 2022, a holiday, plaintiff-appellant had until January 3, 2023, the next working day, to file a motion for reconsideration. 10 Le Solei/ lnt'l. Logisrics Co.. Inc. vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 199384 (Resolution), September 9, 2015, citing Labao vs. Flores. G.R. No. 187984, November 15,2010.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfried LaoTian Page 4 of5 All told, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to reverse or modify the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff-appellant's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated August 29, 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~wr�.~ COR ON G. FERRER"7FL_9.R.ES Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice @y.~ I - MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~/- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice With e arate Opinion JEAN MARl . BACORRO-VILLENA Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People ofthe Philippines vs. Ziegfried LaoTian Associate Justice r ~ 9i. ~ ,f4,�~ MARIAN.~-~ F. REYiS-FA~ARDO Associate Justice /rrvniMK LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice HENRY ~�GELES Associate Justice

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA EB Crim. No. n8 Petitioner, (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) -versus- Present: DEL ROSARIO, tl, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, Jl. ZIEGFRIED LOO TIAN, Promulgated: Re s p o n d e nt. OCT 0 3 2025 X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X SEPARATE OPINION BACORRO-VILLENA, L.: While I concur that petitioner People of the Philippines' (petitioner's) Motion for Reconsideration1 (MR), which assailed the Second Division's Resolution promulgated on os December 2o222 dismissing the case on the ground of prescription, was filed out of time, I respectfully maintain that the question of whether the offense charged has prescribed remains a fundamental issue that must be resolved. The Court En Bane's Decision promulgated on 29 August 20243 (assailed Decision) - which petitioner now challenges in its present MR4 - squarely addr.e. ssed this issue, as it directly determines the viability of the prosecutions� Rollo, pp. 327-343. 2 Annex �'A' to the Petition for Review, id. , pp. 26-3 1. ld., pp. 282-293. Supra at note I.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried LaoTian Page 2 of24 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Although the procedural lapse - specifically, the belated filing of the MR- may justify the outright dismissal of the petition, there are established jurisprudential precedents where procedural defects were set aside in the interest of substantial justices, particularly when the case involves significant substantive questions. In this instance, addressing the issue of prescription would enable a more comprehensive discussion of the legal principles involved and may serve as persuasive guidance in future cases involving similar circumstances. Accordingly, I am constrained to withdraw my concurrence in the dismissal of the subject criminal action against respondent Ziegfried Loo Tian (respondent) on the ground of prescription of the offense charged. With due respect, after a second hard look at the case records and the parties' opposing arguments, considered alongside relevant and recent jurisprudence on the matter, I respectfully submit that the Court En Bane is now bound to abandon its previous position in Emilio E. Lim, Sr. and Antonia Sun Lim v. Court ofAppeals and People of the Philippines6 (Lim, Sr.), which was understood to have ruled that, in criminal tax cases such as the present one, the prescriptive period is tolled only upon the filing of the Information in court. Nevertheless, I maintain that the case should still be dismissed, albeit on a different ground - the violation of respondent's constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases. PRESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED At the outset, it is undeniable that the Court En Bane's application of the ruling in Lim, Sr. deviates from the general rule on prescription applicable to criminal actions for offenses requiring preliminary investigation - whether under the Revised Penal Code7 (RPC) or special laws - that the prescriptive period is interrupted by the filing of a complaint with the fiscal's office for purposes of preliminary investigation against the accused. Section 2818 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, which governs the prescriptive period for criminal tax action~ See Sue Ann Bounsit-Torrafba v. Joseph B. Torra/ba. G.R. No. 214392. 07 December 2022 [Per J. Gaerlan. Third Division]: Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Lorenia P. De Gu::man. G.R. No. 208261. 08 Decem her 2014 [Per .1. Perlas-Bcrnabe. First Division]: TF.)', lncorporatt:d ,.. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. G.R. No. 166829. 19 April 2010 [Per J. Del Castillo. Second Division]. G.R. Nos. L-48134-37. 18 October 1990 [Per C.J. Fcman. Third Division]. AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS. SEC. 281. Prescription for l'iolations ofany Provision ofthis Code. -All violations of any provision of this Code shall prescribe after five (5) vears.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No. .11Jl (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried Loo Tian x--------------------------------------------------------------------x expressly states that the prescriptive period shall be interrupted when "proceedings are instituted against the guilty persons." A meaningful resolution of the issue at hand requires a clear understanding of what constitutes the "institution of proceedings" sufficient to interrupt the running of the prescriptive period. To this end, it is necessary to refer to established jurisprudence interpreting similar provisions under both the RPC, as amended, and Act No. 33269, as amended, which respectively govern the prescription of felonies and violations of special laws, to wit: RPC, as amended Act No. 3326, as amended ART. 91. Computation of prescription of SEC. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the offenses. - The period of prescription shall day of the commission of the violation of the commence to run from the day on which the law, and if the same be not known at the time, crime is discovered by the offended party, the from the discovery thereof and the institution authorities or their agents, and shall be of judicial proceedings for its investigation and interrupted by the filing ofthe complaint or punishment. information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the The prescription shall be accused being convicted or acquitted, or are interrupted when proceedings are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not instituted against the guilty person, and imputable to him. shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting The term of prescription shall not run jeopardy. (Emphasis supplied) when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago. (Emphasis supplied) Evidently, Section 28110 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, substantially mirrors the prescriptive provisions cited above, particularly Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended. Given that the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is itself a special law, there is no justification for treating it differently from other special laws when determining the point at which the prescriptive period is deemed interrupted. In the 1967 case of People ofthe Philippines, eta/. v. Ascencion P. 0/arten (Olarte), which was later cited in People of the Philippines v. Mateo A. Lee, ]r. 12 (Lee, Jr.) and People of the Philippines v. Ma. Theresa Pangilinan'3 (Pangilinan), the Supreme Court settled divergent views as to the effect of filing a complaint with the Municipal Trial Court for purposes o~ 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. from the discoverv thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS Of PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SIIALL REGIN TO RUN. "' Supra at note 8. II G.R. No. L-22465. 28 February 1967 {Perl J.B.L. Reyes. En Bane}. G.R. No. 234618. \6 September 2019 [Per J. Peralta. Third Division]. G.R. No. 152662. 13 June 2012 [Per J. Perez. Second Division].

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 [CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried Loo Tian Page 4 of24 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x preliminary investigation on the prescriptive period of the offense. The High Court therein held that the filing of the complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation interrupts the period of prescription of criminal responsibility. It explicitly adopted the ordinary sense of the word "instituted", ruling that it includes the initiation of proceedings for preliminary investigation, not just the formal filing of an Information in Court. Then, in the 2004 case of Roberto Brillante v. Court ofAppeals and the People of the Philippines'4 (Brillante), citing the 1983 case of Emiliano A. Francisco and Harry B. Bernardino v. The Honorable Court ofAppeals and the People ofthe Philippines'S (Francisco), the Supreme Court said that the ruling in Francisco amplified the Olarte doctrine when it categorically ruled that the filing ofa complaint with the fiscal's office suspends the running ofthe prescriptive period of a criminal offense. Relevantly, in the 2008 case of Luis Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of justice, et al.'6 (Panaguiton), the Supreme Court had the occasion to discuss the structure of the judicial system during the enactment of Act No. 3326'7, as well as the prevailing jurisprudence at the time, which recognized that the filing of a complaint before the justice of the peace for purposes of preliminary investigation was sufficient to toll the prescriptive period. This conclusion is understandable, given that, during that period, it was the justice of the peace (or municipal judge) who was authorized to conduct the preliminary investigation. Then, as emphasized in the 2012 case of Pangilinan and reiterated in the 2019 case of Lee, Jr., the Supreme Court categorically ruled in Panaguiton that the commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused before the Office of the City Prosecutor effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses charged under Batas Pambansa (BP) Big. 22. This followed the Supreme Court's declaration that there is no longer any distinction between cases prosecuted under the RPC and those covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription, viz: Since BP Big. 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty of I imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one year or by a fine for its violation, it therefor prescribes in four (4) years in accordance G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571. 19 October 2004 [Per .1. Tioga. Second Division]. l~ G.R. No. L-45674. 30 May 1983 [Per J. De Castro. Second Division]. 16 G.R. No. 167571.25 November 2008 [Per J. Tinga. Second Division]. l7 Supra at note 9.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No.l.li! (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried LaoTian X--------------------------------------------------------------------X with the aforecited law. The running of the prescriptive period, however, should be tolled upon the institution of proceedings against the guilty person. In the old but oft-cited case of People v. 0/arte, this Court ruled that the filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation, should, and thus, interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal responsibility, even if the court where the complaint or information is filed cannot try the case on the merits. This ruling was broadened by the Court in the case of Francisco, et a/. v. Court ofAppeals, et a/. when it held that the filing of the complaint with the Fiscal's Office also suspends the running of the prescriptive period of a criminal offense. Respondent's contention that a different rule should be applied to cases involving special laws is bereft of merit. There is no more distinction between cases under the RPC and those covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription. The ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr. is not controlling in special laws. ln Llenes v. Dicdican, Ingco, eta/. v. Sandiganbayan, Brillante v. CA, and San rio Company Limited v. Lim, cases involving special laws, this Court held that the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the accused interrupts the period of prescription. In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Interport Resources Corporation, et a/., the Court even ruled that investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission for violations of the Revised Securities Act and the Securities Regulation Code effectively interrupts the prescription period because it is equivalent to the preliminary investigation conducted by the DO) in criminal cases. In fact, in the case of Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department ofJustice, which is in all fours with the instant case, this Court categorically ruled that commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused before the Office ofthe City Prosecutor effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses they had been charged under BP Big. 22. Aggrieved parties, especially those who do not sleep on their rights and actively pursue their causes, should not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily further simply because of circumstances beyond their control, like the accused's delaying tactics or the delay and inefficiency of the investigating agencies.'8 From the foregoing declarations, it can be inferred that the phrase "when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person", as used in the law, was understood - even then - to include the filing of a complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation, and not merely the filing of an Information before the Court. As such, it is evident that the law intends for ~ the prescriptive period to be interrupted at the very first formal investigativep1 18 People ofthe Philippines v. Ma. Theresa Pangi/inan. supra at note 13: Citations omitted, italics in the original text and emphasis supplied.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No.1.1.ft (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried LaoTian x--------------------------------------------------------------------x step, as preliminary investigation is deemed to partake of the nature of a judicial proceeding that suspends the running of prescription. Furthermore, in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Interport Resources Corporation, et a/. 19 (Interport), the Supreme Court explained that it is a well-settled doctrine that the conduct of a preliminary investigation- which serves as a procedural safeguard to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to charge the accused - interrupts the running of the prescriptive period. It is also worth noting that, in his Concurring Opinion in lnterport, then Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante 0. Tifiga (Ret.) emphasized that any form of investigation instituted against the guilty person which may ultimately lead to prosecution, as provided by law, is sufficient to toll the running of the prescriptive period. Clearly, from the foregoing, in all criminal cases- whether prosecuted under the RPC or special laws - the prescriptive period is interrupted upon the commencement of proceedings for the prosecution of the accused, which is effectively accomplished through the mitJation of a preliminary investigation, the first formal investigative step that marks the institution of criminal proceedings against the accused. Now, if the Court En Bane were to sustain the interpretation in the 1990 case of Lim, Sr. vis-a-vis Section 2 20, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals2 ' (RRCTA) - that it is the filing of an Information with the Court which interrupts the five (s)-year prescriptive period under Section 28122 of the NIRC ofl997, as amended- such a ruling would constitute a clear departure from the established doctrine on prescription applicable to all criminal cases. This would run counter to the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which holds that once a case has been decided a certain way, r any subsequent case involving the same legal issue should be resolved in the.J same manner.23 I' ]9 G.R. No. 135808, 06 October 2008 [Per J. Chico-Nazario. En Bane). 20 Sec. 2. Institution o..fC'riminal Aclions.- 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 R~venue Code and other laws enforced by the Bureau of Intemal Revenue. the Commissiona 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. (Rules (~{Court, Rule 1J(), Sec. 1. par. 2a) (Emphasis supplied) A.M.l\o. 05-11-07-CTA dated 22 November 2005. Supra at note 8. First Planters Pawnshop, Inc. v. Commissioner of internal Revenue. G.R. No. 174134.30 July 1008lPer J. Austria-Martin~z. Third Division]. citing Commissioner of internal Revenue v. Trustworthy Pawnshop. inc., G.R No. 14-9834. 02 May 2006lPer J. Sandovai-Guticrrez. Second Division].

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No.11J! (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951] People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried Loo Tian x--------------------------------------------------------------------x In this regard, to hold that the NIRC of 1997, as amended, should be treated differently simply because it is a special law is unpersuasive. The Supreme Court has consistently held, even in criminal cases involving violations of special laws, that the prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the accused. Specifically, in Pangilinan, the Supreme Court emphasized that the cases of Ingco (involving Republic Act [RAJ No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), San rio (involving RA 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code), and Interport (involving the Revised Securities Act and the Securities Regulation Code) all concerned violations of special laws. Yet, in each of these cases, the Supreme Court consistently ruled that the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the accused interrupts the running of the prescriptive period. As for the finding in the assailed Decision that Lim, Sr. aligns with Section 2, Rule 9 of the RRCTA, it bears emphasizing that an alternative interpretation of the second paragraph of that provision exists-one that harmonizes it with the established doctrine cited above. Instead ofconstruing it solely in relation to the first paragraph, as petitioner correctly argued, it may be read in conjunction with Section r(a) 24, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (RRCP), which provides that for offenses where a preliminary investigation is required, the criminal action shall be instituted by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation. While it is true that the provisions of the RRCP apply only suppletorily to the RRCTA, it is nonetheless important to emphasize that the second paragraph of Section 2 2 5, Rule 9 of the RRCTA (specifically the italicized portion at the end) explicitly references Section r(a), Rule 110 of the RRCP. That provision clearly states that, for offenses requiring preliminary investigation, a criminal action is deemed instituted upon the filing of a complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the required preliminary investigation. On the other hand, the first paragraph of Section 2, Rule 9 of the RRCTA may be construed as referring exclusively to the institution of proceedings before the Court in Division, which is effected solely through the filing of an Information. This must be distinguished from the institution o~ SEC. I. Institution ofCriminal ..-letions.- Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows: (a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to section I of Rule 112, by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation. (Emphasis supplied) Supra at note 20.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951] People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried LaoTian Page 8 of24 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x proceedings against guilty persons-which, under Section 28126 of the NlRC of 1997, as amended, interrupts the running of the prescriptive period-as already settled by the Supreme Court to refer to the filing of a complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation. Moreover, petitioner correctly observed that in Petronila C. Tupaz v. Honorable Benedicta B. Ulep Presiding judge ofRTC Quezon City, Branch 105, and People of the Philippines27 (Tupaz), which involved the offense of willful failure to pay deficiency IT, the Supreme Court held that the offense had not prescribed because the filing of the complaint for preliminary investigation with the Department of Justice (DOJ) constituted the institution of the criminal action within the five (s)-year prescriptive period. This conclusion was reached despite the earlier ruling in Lim, Sr., which held that the prescriptive period continues to run until the filing of the Information in Court. Settling the matter conclusively, the Supreme Court in the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Ulysses Palconit Consebido28 (Consebido) held that the five (s)-year prescriptive period for criminal tax offenses is tolled by the filing of a complaint before the DOJ, not by the filing of an Information before the Court. I submit that this pronouncement in Consebido should be applied retroactively, dating back to the effectivity of the NIRC of 1997. Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, which governs the prescriptive period for criminal tax actions, expressly provides that the five (s)-year prescriptive period "shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty persons" and, according to Consebido, the proper interpretation thereof should be that the filing of the criminal complaint before the DOJ shall toll the running of the prescriptive period. To be clear - and I take this opportunity to stress this to avoid creating further confusion and compounding its consequences - the above ruling in Consebido is not a new doctrine on prescription. In upholding the said interpretation, the Supreme Court merely reaffirmed what should have been the correct construction of the relevant provision from the outset, thereby revealing, by implication, this Court's error in applying the doctrine in Lim, Sr., which was understood to have ruled that, in criminal tax cases such as the present one, the prescriptive period is tolled only upon the filing of the Information in court; Supra at note 8. G.R. No. 127777.01 October 1999 [Per J. Pardo. First Division]. G.R. No. 258563. 02 April2025 [Per J. Inting. En Bane].

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried LaoTian x--------------------------------------------------------------------x I likewise submit that it would be incorrect to assume that Consebido effectively abandoned Lim, Sr., as the doctrines in these cases do not conflict with each other - unlike Consebido vis-a-vis Republic of the Philippines v. The Honorable Aniano A. Desierto as Ombudsman, et al. 2 9 (Desierto) and Pastor Corpus, Jr. y Belmoro v. People of the Philippines3� (Corpus, Jr.), insofar as the tolling of the prescriptive periods for crimes covered by the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts3' (REPFLC) is concerned. In Consebido, the Supreme Court held that the prescriptive period for prosecuting crimes is tolled upon the filing of a complaint with the DOJ - not when the case reaches the court. The High Court specifically clarified that under Section 28132 of the NIRC of 1997, the prescriptive period for criminal tax offenses that are not immediately known starts from the time the violation is discovered and is interrupted once a preliminary investigation begins. This interpretation ensures that the intent of the law- to set a clear time limit for the prosecution of tax violations- is properly applied. To reiterate, for emphasis, the Supreme Court's ruling in Consebido - that the prescriptive period for criminal tax offenses is interrupted by the institution of judicial proceedings, particularly the commencement of preliminary investigation - constitutes the proper and authoritative interpretation of Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997. Thus, as aforesaid, this interpretation must be applied retroactively, i.e., from the time the NIRC of 1997 took effect, as may be inferred from the Supreme Court's discussion quoted below: Notably, Lim, Sr. applied Section 354 of the 1939 NIRC. Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao (Associate Justice Dimaampao) astutely noted that the 1939 NIRC was passed when justices of the peace conducted preliminary investigations. This is no longer the case now, as observed in Panaguiton. Thus, in consideration of the foregoing, the Court clarifies that under Section 281 of the 1997 NIRC, prescription for criminal offenses where the commission of the violation is not known shall begin to run from its discovery. The adoption of the interpretation in Duque is apt in order to harmonize the second and third paragraphs of Section 281 of the 1997 NIRC. The institution of proceedings. specifically the commencement of preliminary by investigation, shall interrupt the prescriptive period for the offens~h This clarification is necessary as a literal interpretation of the law should G.R. No. 136506. 16 .January 2023lPer J. Hernando. First Division!. 30 G.R. No. 255740. 16 August 2023 [Per J. J.Y. Lopez. Second Division]. .11 A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC. 01 March 2022. Supra at note 8.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No.1.1.6. (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried LaoTian Page 10 of24 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X rejected if it would lead to absurd results. Prescription would not run under a literal reading of Section 281 of the 1997 NIRC, as it would both begin and be interrupted by the institution of proceedings. The Court must give effect to the clear intent of the Legislature to set a prescriptive period for violations of the 1997 NIRC. Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo (Chief Justice Gesmundo) judiciously expressed that the prevailing interpretation renders nugatory or lifeless the prescriptive period set by the Legislature itself.33 From the foregoing, it is clear that the ruling in Lim, Sr. - which the CTA had long relied on to hold that preliminary investigation does not toll the running of the prescriptive period -was based on Section 35434 of the NIRC of 1939. That provision was enacted at a time when preliminary investigations were conducted by justices of the peace, a procedural context that no longer applies. Having said that, the Supreme Court clarified that under Section 28135 of the NIRC of 1997, the commencement of preliminary investigation interrupts the prescriptive period for the offense. It bears noting that the latter portion of the decision in Consebido, which states that "[t]his new rule shall apply prospectively", refers only to offenses covered by the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure36 (RRSP), which was supplanted by the REPFLC37 (and thus, not to criminal tax offenses covered by the RRCTA38), viz: [E]ven if the commencement of preliminary investigation interrupted the running of the prescriptive period, the complaint should have been filed with the DOJ within five years from October 25, 2oo8, or not later than October 25, 2013. Thus, the offense had already prescribed as early as when the Joint Complaint-Affidavit dated January 30, 2014, was filed. i In fine, the CTA En Bane did not err in affirming the dismissal of the /1 Complaint. 33 People of the Phihppines v. L'!ysses Pa/conil Consebido. supra at note 28: Citation omitted. italics in the original text. emphasis and underscoring supplied. SEC. 354. Prescription }Or T'iolations of Any Provisions of This Code. -All violations of any provisions of this Code shall prescribe after five years. Prescription shall begin to run from the day ofth..: commission of the violation of the law. and 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 prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings arc 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. 3'i Supra at note 8. Resolution of the Court En Bane 1991. 15 October 1991. Supra at note 3 I. Supra at note 21.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried Loo Tian X--------------------------------------------------------------------X The rule on the tolling of the prescriptive period for offenses As discussed above, the filing of the criminal complaint before the DOJ shall toll the running of the prescriptive period for offenses under the 1997 NIRC, as amended, whether its commission was immediately known or unknown at the time of the violation. Still, the Court deems it necessary to revisit the prevailing jurisprudence on the tolling of offenses covered by the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure as well as the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts. In the recent case of Republic v. Desierto, the Court held that the rule in Panaguiton, Jr., i.e., prescription is tolled by the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation, only applies to special laws that are not covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. For acts covered by special laws where the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure applies, prescription shall only be interrupted by the filing of the Information and not the commencement of preliminary investigation. This is based on Section 11 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure which states that "[t]he filing of criminal cases falling within the scope of this Rule shall be either by complaint or by information: Provided, however, that in Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities, such cases shall be commenced only by information, except when the offense cannot be prosecuted de officio." The ruling in Desierto can be traced back to Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr., which involved a municipal ordinance. The Court held: Under Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, "the complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or prelimina1y investigation." Both parties agree that this provision does not prevent the prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to. However, the case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, whether or not the prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary investigation. This means that the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date before that. Subsequently, the Court pronounced in People v. Pangilinan that the ruling in Zaldivia does not apply to special laws. The Court later clarified in Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. v. Lidua, Sr. that "the doctrine of Pangilinan pertains to violations of special laws but not to ordinances." In People v. Lee, the Court explained that "Jadewell presents a different factual milieu as the issue involved therein was the prescriptive period for violation of a city ordinance, unlike here as well as in [Pangilinan} and [the} other above- mentioned related cases, where the issue refers to prescription of actions pertaining to violation of a special law." Thus, the Court said that Jadewell I did not abandon the doctrine in Pangilinan. The 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure was supplanted by the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts. Rule II, Subsection B, Section 1 thereof states that "[t]he filing of criminal cases

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No.1.1J)_ (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried LaoTian Page 12 of24 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure shall either be by complaint or by information." The DOJ likewise issued Circular No. 028, entitled the "2024 DOJ- NPS Rules on Summary Investigation and Expedited Preliminary Investigation," which applies when the penalty prescribed by the law is imprisonment of one day to six years, fine regardless of the amount, or both. A summary investigation shall be conducted if the prescribed penalty is imprisonment of one day to one year, fine regardless of the amount, or both. The investigating prosecutor must immediately resolve a case subject of summary investigation upon receipt of its records. With this dilemma, the Court takes this opportunity to pronounce that the filing of the complaint before the prosecution office and the conduct of the summary investigation should toll the running of the prescriptive period. While it is ideal that all cases are resolved promptly, the reality is that this is not done at all times, whether for valid reasons or not. The offended party, which is primarily the State, should not be prejudiced by any delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation even for cases covered by summary procedure. The Court reiterates its reasoning in People v. 0/arte that "it is unjust to deprive the injured party ofthe right to obtain vindication on account ofdelays that are not under his control. A/1 that the victim ofthe offense may do on his part to initiate the prosecution is tofile the requisite complaint." In addition, ChiefJustice Gesmundo extensively discussed the history of the pertinent laws and rules on the filing of complaint or information for criminal cases and the conduct of preliminary investigation in his Reflections. Based on an examination of these laws and rules, he aptly surmised: [T]he use of the phrase "complaint or information" in Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, Section n of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, and Rule II, Subsection B, Section 1 of[the]2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts, for purposes of the tolling of the prescriptive period of offenses, must henceforth, be construed to refer to the filing of the complaint or information before the prosecution office." But in line with the time-honored principle that the interpretation that is most favorable to the accused should be adopted with respect to laws on prescription of crimes, this new rule shall apply prospectively. Accordingly, the Court resolves that, henceforth, the filing of the criminal complaint before the DOJ, even if it involves offenses that may be covered by the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts, shall toll the running of the prescriptive period. The ruling in Desierto and the subsequent case of Corpus, Tr. v. People of I the Philippines, insofar as the tolling of the prescriptive period for I crimes covered by the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts is concerned. is deemed abandoned.'9 39 People of the Philippines v. Ulysses Pa/conit Consebido. supra at note 28: Citations omitted. italics in the original text. emphasis and underscoring supplied.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No.118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried Loo Tian Page 13 of24 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x The Supreme Court found it necessary to revisit prior pronouncements on the tolling of prescription for offenses covered by these summary procedures, especially in light of its rulings in Desierto, which held that prescription is interrupted by the institution of preliminary investigation only for special laws not covered by the RRSP, and Corpus, Jr., which held that for light offenses, the timely filing of the information in court is necessary to toll prescription. Clearly, the Supreme Court has now abandoned the pertinent rulings in Desierto and Corpus, Jr., as they are inconsistent with its definitive pronouncement in Consebido- that the filing of a criminal complaint before the DOJ tolls the running of the prescriptive period, even for offenses covered by the REPFLC. The same concept of jurisprudential abandonment cannot be conveniently applied between Consebido, on one hand, and Lim, Sr., on the other, precisely because there is no inconsistency between them. For criminal tax offenses committed under the NIRC of 1939, the doctrine in Lim, Sr. applies, whereas for those committed under the NIRC of 1997, Consebido is the controlling doctrine. Unfortunate as it may be, with due respect, I am of the humble opinion that this Court erred in failing to appreciate this crucial distinction. Accordingly, for criminal tax offenses covered by the RRCTA, and not by the RRSP or the REPFLC, the definitive rule in Consebido must apply retroactively. Furthermore, as stated in Consebido, the Supreme Court recognized that while criminal cases should ideally be resolved promptly, delays are sometimes unavoidable. Therefore, the State, as the offended party, should not be disadvantaged by delays in the DOJ's preliminary investigations. The Supreme Court also reiterated its ruling in the 1967 case of Olarte40, emphasizing that "it is unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not under [their] control. All that the victim of the offense may do on [their] part to initiate the prosecution is to file the requisite complaint." The foregoing reiteration of the ruling in 0/arte, coupled with the fact that the aforesaid prospective application was confined to offenses covered by the REPFLC, reveals the Supreme Court's intent to firmly settle the _ applicable rule on prescription of all criminal tax offenses committed since, :1 the effectivity of the NIRC of 1997. V Supra at note II.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951] People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried Loo Tian X--------------------------------------------------------------------X It is also worth stressing that in Consebido, before the Supreme Court discussed the necessity ofrevisiting the prevailing jurisprudence on the tolling of offenses under the RRSP and the REPFLC, it had already settled the rule applicable to the parties in that case: the commencement of preliminary investigation interrupts the running of the prescriptive period. The Supreme Court upheld the CTA En Bane's dismissal of the complaint not because the Information was filed beyond the five (s)-year prescriptive period, but because the complaint itselfwas filed after the lapse ofsuch period. In fact, the Supreme Court expressly applied the long-settled doctrine in Olarte in resolving the controversy in Consebido, which involved a criminal tax offense. On this score, respectfully, there should be no question that, with respect to criminal tax offenses, the Consebido doctrine applies retroactively. It should also be noted that it was not respondent, but this Court, that relied on the doctrine in Lim, Sr. in finding that the prosecution belatedly filed the subject Information on 26 October 2022 - more than five (5) years after the government's right to institute a criminal action had prescribed on 05 July 2017, reckoned from 05 July 2012, when the Joint Complaint-Affidavit (JCA) of the concerned Revenue Officers was referred to the DOJ for preliminary investigation. Respondent's reliance on the Lim, Sr. doctrine is immaterial because the controlling interpretation of Section 2814' of the NlRC of 1997 rests with the Supreme Court, whose pronouncements form part of the legal system under Article 842 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Even assuming that respondent invoked Lim, Sr. in good faith, such reliance cannot prevail over the Supreme Court's later and definitive construction in Consebido, which clarified that the filing of a complaint before the DOJ interrupts the prescriptive period for criminal tax offenses under the NIRC of 1997. Once the Supreme Court clarifies the interpretation of a law, that ruling applies to all cases still pending43, regardless of the parties' prior position or the lower court's earlier rulings to the contrary. Thus, this Court's consistent reliance, in a long line of cases, on the Lim, Sr. doctrine is of no consequence, as its decisions are not binding precedents. The principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which holds that once a / Supra at note 8. Art. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. See Jonathan r. Dee v. Harvest All Investment Limited, eta/.. G.R. Nos. 224834 & 224871. 15 March 2017 [Per J. Pcrlas-Bernabe. First Division]. citing Jaime Tan. Jr., as Judicial Administrator ofthe Intestate E"'state ofJaime C Tan v. Han. Court ofAppeals (,\'inth Special Div.). eta/.. G.R. No. 136368. 16 January 2002 [Per J. Puno. First Division]: Oriental Assurance Corporation v. So/idbank Corporation. G.R. No. 139882. 16 August 2000 (Per .1. Panganiban. Third Division].

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No.11..!:l (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried Loo Tian X--------------------------------------------------------------------X case has been decided a certain way, any subsequent case involving the same legal issue should be resolved in the same manner44, applies only to decisions promulgated by the Supreme Court. This Court would also err in invoking the time-honored principle on the prescription of crimes, which holds that the interpretation most favorable to the accused should be adopted45, to justify declaring that the better rule is to apply Consebido prospectively on the ground that such application would favor the accused (herein respondent). With due respect, such reasoning misconstrues the essence of this basic principle of criminal law. In the 1949 case of Dominador B. Bustos v. Antonio G. Lucero, Judge of First Instance of Pampanga46, the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between substantive and procedural law, thus: As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished from the procedural law which provides or regulates the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be punished. (22 C. J. S., 49.) Preliminary investigation is eminently and essentially remedial; it is the first step taken in a criminal prosecution. In a separate opmwn penned by the late Chief Justice Renata C. Corona47, it is evident that the pro reo doctrine applies only to ambiguities in the substantive provisions of penal laws, particularly those defining the elements of a crime or the punishment. It does not extend to procedural matters, such as the computation or application of prescriptive periods, viz: The fundamental principle in applying and interpreting criminal laws, including the Indeterminate Sentence Law, is to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused. In dubio pro reo. When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the accused ought to be presumed innocent until and unless his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. First Planters Ptmnshop. Inc. r. Commissioner of Internal Re\'enue. G.R. No. 174134. 30 July 2008 [Per J. Austria-Martinez. Third Division]. citing Commissioner of Interned Revenue v. Trustworthy Pawnshop. Inc.. G.R No. 149834.02 May 2006lPer J. Sandoval-Guticrrez. Second Division]. 4' People of the Philippines v. Arturo F. Pac((icador. G.R. No. 139405. 13 March 2001 [Per J. De Leon. Jr.. Second Division] G.R. No. L�2068 (Resolution). 08 March 1949 [Per J. Tuason. Ei1 Bane]: Emphasis supplied. Se.:: People of the Philippines v. Beth Temporada. G.R. No. 173473. 17 December 2008 [Per J. Ynares� Santiago. En Bane]: Citations omitted. italics in the original text and emphasis supplied.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No.1.1Jl (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried Loo Tian Page 16 of24 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Intimately intertwined with the in dubio pro reo principle is the rule of lenity. It is the doctrine that "a court, in construing an ambiguous criminal statute that sets out multiple or inconsistent punishments, should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the more lenient punishment." Similarly, in Salvador Estipona, Jr. y Asuela v. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, Presiding judge ofthe Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Legazpi City, A/bay, and People ofthe Philippines48, although the case focused on plea bargaining, the Supreme Court reiterated the distinction between substantive and procedural law, emphasizing that procedural rules fall within its exclusive domain and that their interpretation does not call for the application ofpro reo, unless they directly affect substantive rights, to wit: The Supreme Court's sole prerogative to issue, amend, or repeal procedural rules is limited to the preservation of substantive rights, i.e., the former should not diminish, increase or modify the latter. "Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, or which regulates the right and duties which give rise to a cause of action; that part of the law which courts are established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtain redress for their invasions." Fabian v. Han. Desierto laid down the test for determining whether a rule is substantive or procedural in nature. It will be noted that no definitive line can be drawn between those rules or statutes which are procedural, hence within the scope of this Court's rule-making power, and those which are substantive. In fact, a particular rule may be procedural in one context and substantive in another. It is admitted that what is procedural and what is substantive is frequently a question of great difficulty. It is not, however, an insurmountable problem if a rational and pragmatic approach is taken within the context of our own procedural and jurisdictional system. In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right, the test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of implementing an I existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure. 48 G.R. No. 226679. 15 August 2017lPer .1. Peralta. t:n Bane]: Citations omitted. italics in the original text and emphasis supplied.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951] People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried Loo Tian Page 17 of24 x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Relevantly, in Fil-Es tate Properties, Inc. and Fairways and Blue-Waters Resort and Country Club, Inc. v. Hon. Marietta]. Homena- Valencia, in her capacity as Presiding judge of Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Kalibo, Aklan, and Sullian Sy Naval49 (Fil-Estate), the Supreme Court explained the retroactivity of the "fresh period" rule in this wise: The determinative issue is whether the "fresh period" rule announced in Neypes could retroactively apply in cases where the period for appeal had lapsed prior to 14 September 2005 when Neypes was promulgated. That question may be answered with the guidance of the general rule that procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, there being no vested rights in the rules of procedure. Amendments to procedural rules are procedural or remedial in character as they do not create new or remove vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing. Sps. De los Santos reaffirms these principles and categorically warrants that Neypes bears the quested retroactive effect[.] Applying the foregoing, considering that the Consebido doctrine on the interruption of the prescriptive period for criminal tax actions is in the nature of a procedural rule, it may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined upon its promulgation, there being no vested rights in the rules ofprocedure.50 It is thus clear that the pro reo doctrine, also known as the rule of lenity, applies only when there is doubt in construing the substantive provisions of a penal law- particularly those defining the elements of the crime or prescribing its penalty. It does not apply to the interpretation of procedural rules, such as those governing the computation or interruption of prescription, unless such interpretation would directly affect or impair substantive rights. The Consebido doctrine deals with the interpretation of a procedural rule - specifically, when the prescriptive period for criminal tax offenses under the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is interrupted. Jurisprudence consistently holds that procedural rules may be applied retroactively to cases pending and undetermined at the time of their promulgation, there being no 1 vested rights in matters of procedure, as underscored in Fil-Estate. As such,/ G.R. No. 173942 (Resolution). 25 Junl..': 2008 [Per J. Tinga. Special Second Division]: Italics in the original text and emphasis supplied. 50 See Pfi::er Inc.. eta!. v. Edwin J�'. Galan. G.R. No. 143389.25 May 2001 [Per C.J. Davide. Jr.. f-irst Division].

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 [CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried Loo Tian Page 18 of24 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X the interpretation in Consebido does not involve a change in the definition of the crime or its penalties, but rather clarifies the judicial process for enforcing existing substantive rights. Accordingly, the pro reo principle finds no application unless the procedural rule's interpretation would directly impair a substantive right - a circumstance not present in this case. In light of the Supreme Court's categorical declaration in Consebido, which affirmed that the established doctrine on prescription applies to criminal tax cases, I respectfully submit that this Court, sitting En Bane, should thoughtfully reconsider its reliance on Lim, Sr. and align its rulings with the prevailing doctrine. Specifically, when the records clearly show that the prescriptive period was tolled by the filing of a complaint with the DOJ for purposes of preliminary investigation, consistency with Consebido requires that a dismissal grounded on Lim, Sr. be set aside and the criminal tax case remanded for trial. Accordingly, in this case, the five (s)-year prescriptive period began to run upon the discovery of respondent's violation of Section 25451 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, or willful attempt to evade or defeat the payment of value-added tax (VAT) for the 2nd quarter of the taxable year (TY) 2010, and the institution of judicial proceedings for preliminary investigation on 05 July 2012 - when the JCA of the concerned Revenue Officers was referred to the DO). That same act also interrupted or tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Thus, contrary to the Court En Bane's ruling, the right of the government to institute the case against respondent had not yet prescribed when the Information was filed on 26 October 2022. Now, although prescription should no longer be considered a ground for dismissal, I respectfully submit that the Court En Bane must also address the separate issue raised by respondent regarding the alleged violation of his constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases. As this issue is independent of the issue of prescription and may, on its own, justify the dismissal of the case, the Court En Bane remains duty-bound to consider and resolve the matter. RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES � Respondent seeks the dismissal of the case on the ground of inordinate 1/ delay, invoking his constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases under 51 SEc. 254. A/tempt to Evade or Defeat Tax.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No.11Jl. (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951] People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried Loo Tian Page 19 of24 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Section 1652 , Article III 53 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as interpreted in Cesar Matas Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, et a/.54 (Cagang). He argues that the prosecution took over ten (w) years - from the filing of the JCA on os July 2012 to the filing of the Information on 26 October 2022- to file the Information before the CTA, far exceeding the timeframe prescribed under Section 3(f)ss, Rule 112 of the RRCP. Respondent highlights that the DOJ initially resolved the complaint only on 01 September 2014-more than two (2) years after its filing - and further took until u May 2017 to resolve the MR, with the Information being filed over five (s) years thereafter. Citing Francisco 5. Tatad v. The Sandiganbayan, and the Tanodbayan 56 (Tatad) and People ofthe Philippines v. Han. Sandiganbayan, First Division & Third Division, et alY (Sandiganbayan), respondent maintains that delays far shorter than those in the present case were previously deemed inordinate and sufficient to warrant dismissal. He stresses that the delay remains unjustified and unexplained, and asserts that the burden has shifted to the prosecution to prove that such delay was reasonable. Finally, respondent claims that he timely invoked his right to speedy disposition of cases in his "Comment/Opposition"s8 to the present Petition for Review, thus entitling him to relief. Respectfully, I find merit in respondent's arguments. In Cagang, the Supreme Court laid down definitive guidelines in resolving the issue involving the right to speedy disposition of cases, synthesized as follows: [I]nordinate delay in the resolution and termination of a preliminary investigation violates the accused's right to due process and the speedy disposition of cases, and may result in the dismissal of the case against the accused. The burden of proving delay depends on whether delay is alleged within the periods provided by law or procedural rules. If the delay is alleged to have occurred during the given periods, the burden is on the respondent or the accused to prove that the delay was inordinate. If the delay is alleged to have occurred beyond the given periods, the burden shifts to the SEC. \6. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial. quasi-judicial. or administrative bodies. d 53 Bi11of~~ G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458 & 210141-42, 31 July 2018 [Per J. Leon en. En Bane}. ~ SEC. 3. Procedure.- The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner: (f) \Vithin ten (10) days after the investigation. the investigating officer shall dt:terminc \vhether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial. (Emphasis supplied) 56 G.R. Nos. 72335-39.21 March 1988 [Per .1. Yap. En Bane]. G.R. Nos. 188165 & 189063. II December 2013 (Per J. Bersamin. First Division]. 58 Rollo. pp. 259-278.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No.1.1J.! (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried LaoTian x--------------------------------------------------------------------x prosecution to prove that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances and that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay. The determination of whether the delay was inordinate is not through mere mathematical reckoning but through the examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Courts should appraise a reasonable period from the point of view of how much time a competent and independent public officer would need in relation to the complexity of a given case. If there has been delay, the prosecution must be able to satisfactorily explain the reasons for such delay and that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result. The timely invocation of the accused's constitutional rights must also be examined on a case-to-case basis.>9 In line with the "balancing test" adopted from the American case of Barker v. Wingo 60, the Supreme Court in Cagang stressed that courts must consider the following factors when determining the existence of inordinate delay: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reason for delay; (3) the defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his or her right; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay. 6' As regards the burden of proving delay, the Supreme Court held in Cagang that if the alleged delay extends beyond the prescribed periods, the burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances and that accused did not suffer prejudice as a result of such delay, viz: For the court to appreciate a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases, delay must not be attributable to the defense. Certain unreasonable actions by the accused will be taken against them. This includes delaying tactics like failing to appear despite summons, filing needless motions against interlocutory actions, or requesting unnecessary postponements that will prevent courts or tribunals to properly adjudicate the case. When proven, this may constitute a waiver of the right to speedy trial or the right to speedy disposition of cases. Ifit has been alleged that there was delay beyond the given time periods, the burden of proof shifts. The prosecution will now have the burden to prove that there was no violation of the right to speedy trial or the right to speedy disposition of cases. Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan states that "vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays," "unjustified postponements of the trial," or "when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his [or her]/ 59 Supra at note 54: Emphasis supplied. 407 u.s. 51.\ (1972). Supra at note 54.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No.11.l! (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried Loo Tian Page 21 of24 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X case tried" are instances that may be considered as violations of the right to speedy disposition of cases. The prosecution must be able to prove that it followed established procedure in prosecuting the case. It must also prove that any delay incurred was justified, such as the complexity of the cases involved or the vast amount of evidence that must be presented. The prosecution must likewise prove that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.... The consequences of delay, however, do not only affect the accused. The prosecution of the case will also be made difficult the longer the period of time passes.... The consequences of the prosecution's failure to discharge this burden are severe. Rule 119, Section 9 of the Rules of Court requires that the case against the accused be dismissed if there has been a violation of the right to speedy trial[.] Tatad, as qualified by Angchangco, likewise mandates the dismissal of the case if there is a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases. The immediate dismissal of cases is also warranted if it is proven that there was malicious prosecution, if the cases were politically motivated, or other similar instances. Once these circumstances have been proven, there is no need for the defense to discharge its burden to prove that the delay was inordinate. To summarize, inordinate delay in the resolution and termination of a preliminary investigation violates the accused's right to due process and the speedy disposition of cases, and may result in the dismissal of the case against the accused. The burden of proving delay depends on whether delay is alleged within the periods provided by law or procedural rules. If the delay is alleged to have occurred during the given periods, the burden is on the respondent or the accused to prove that the delay was inordinate. If the delay is alleged to have occurred beyond the given periods, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances and that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay. The determination of whether the delay was inordinate is not through mere mathematical reckoning but through the examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Courts should appraise a reasonable period from the point of view of how much time a competent and independent public officer would need in relation to the complexity of a given case. If there has been delay, the prosecution must be able to satisfactorily explain the reasons for such delay and that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result. The timely invocation of the accused's constitutional rights must also be examined on a case-to-case basis 62 62 Supra at note 54: Citations omitted. italics in the original text and emphasis supplied.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried LaoTian Page 22 of24 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Clearly from the foregoing parameters, determining inordinate delay requires a holistic assessment of the circumstances, focusing on three (3) main factors: (1) the reasonableness of the time taken to resolve the case; (2) the complexity of the issues involved, and (3) the timely invocation of the right to speedy disposition of cases. Delay must not be attributed to the defense, as actions like unjustified absences or dilatory motions may constitute a waiver of the right. Importantly, when the delay alleged exceeds the timeframes provided by law or rules, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the delay was justified - such as by case complexity or the volume of evidence - and that no prejudice was suffered by the accused. Failure to discharge this burden may lead to the dismissal of the case. In this case, from the time the JCA was filed on 05 July 2012 until the filing of the Information on 26 October 2022, more than ten (w) years have lapsed. Of this period: (1) it took over two (2) years to resolve the initial complaint (until 01 September 2014); (2) nearly three (3) more years to resolve the motion for reconsideration (until u May 2017); and (3) over five (s) additional years passed before the Information was filed (on 26 October 2022). Such delays were neither sufficiently explained nor justified by petitioner. Following the guidelines in Cagang, the burden shifted to the prosecution to prove that the delay was reasonable and not oppressive. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden. Moreover, respondent timely invoked his right to speedy disposition ofcases in his Comment/Opposition63 to the Petition for Review, and reiterated the same in his Comment/ Opposition64 to the present MR. He was unable to assert this right before the Second Division, understandably so, as the case had already been dismissed on the ground of prescription prior to his arraignment. What underscores the gravity of the delay in this case is the fact that the DOJ had already determined the existence of probable cause to charge respondent as early as 01 September 2014. At that point, the legal and factual issues had been sufficiently addressed, and no further investigation was warranted. Yet, despite this clear finding, the prosecution failed to file the Information for over eight (8) years, offering no satisfactory justification for such inordinate lapse oftime. This prolonged inaction, absent any compelling reason, runs afoul of the constitutional guarantee of a speedy disposition of 1� cases and undermines the fair and efficient administration of justice. 63 Supra at note 58. Rollo. pp. 371-3R7.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried LaoTian Page 23 of24 X--------------------------------------------------------------------X To my mind, such unexplained delay cannot be countenanced. The right to speedy disposition of cases is not a mere technicality-it is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution to prevent oppression and harassment through vexatious legal processes. In the case of Tahira S. Ismael and Aida U. Ajijon v. People of the Philippines6s, the Supreme Court acknowledged that "the silence of the accused during the period of delay cannot be easily construed as a waiver or surrender of the right to speedy disposition of cases. Indeed, the actual intention to relinquish the right must be shown." Considering that nothing in the records indicates that respondent committed any overt act that contributed to the delay in the filing of the Information against him, this Court must indulge every reasonable presumption against the existence and validity of such waiver of his right to speedy disposition of cases.66 Pertinently, as held in Rene C. Figueroa v. Sandiganbayan, Special Third Division, et al. 67 (Figueroa), the burden is not upon the accused to ensure that the wheels of justice continue to turn. Rather, it is for the State to guarantee that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period.68 Thus, as similarly ruled in Figueroa, it is sufficient that herein respondent raised the constitutional violation after the Second Division admitted the Information and prior to his arraignment. 59 At this point, it is worth stressing that the objective of the right to speedy disposition of cases is to spur dispatch in the administration of justice and to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding a criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time. Akin to the right to a speedy trial, its objective is to assure that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of litigation or if otherwise, to have his guilt determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the presentation and consideration of whatever legitimate defense he may raise. This unrest and the tactical disadvantages carried by the passage of time should be weighed against the State and in favor of the individual.7� G.R. Nos. 234435-36,06 February 2023 [Per J. M.V. Lopez. Second Division]. See People of the Philippines v. Ricardo Bodoso y Bolar. G.R. Nos. 149382-149383.05 March 2003 [Per J. Bcllosillo. En Bane]. G.R. Nos. 235965-66. 15 February 2022 (Per J. M.V. Lopez. First Division]. !d. !d. !d .. citing Rq{clel L Coscol!uela v. Sandiganbayan (First Division) and People o.fthe PhilljYpines. G.R. Nos. 191411 & 191871. 15 July 2013 [Per J. Perlas-Bcrnabc. Second Division].

SEPARATE OPINION CTA EB Crim. No. 118 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951) People of the Philippines v. Ziegfried LaoTian X-------------------------------------------------------------------- X In fine, while the criminal action has not yet prescribed, the prolonged and unjustified delay of more than ten (w) years between the filing of the JCA and the subsequent filing of the Information before the Second Division constitutes a violation of respondent's right to speedy disposition of cases, thereby warranting the dismissal of this case. All told, I vote to (1) PARTIALLY GRANT petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated August 29, 2024)'', (2) REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Second Division's assailed Resolutions dated 05 December 2022 and 01 March 2023 in CTA Crim. Case No. 0-951, and (3) instead DISMISS the criminal case on the ground of violation of respondent's right to speedy disposition of cases. JEAN MAR~A..--C~ ORRO-V\ ILLENA ~~~ate Justice