PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZIEGFRIED LOO TIAN (No. 1013, Juan Luna Street, Brgy. 7, Zone 1, Tondo Manila)

CTA Form No.8 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 22-000524-0005 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-952 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION ZIEGFRIED LOO TIAN, (No. 1013~ Juan Luna Street: Brgy. 1: Tondo~ Manila~ Accused. To: PROSECUTOR GENERAL BENEDICTO A. MALCONTENTO PROSECUTION ATTORNEY. JAYVEE LAURENCE B. BANDONG Department of Justice Padre Faura Street Ennita, Manila 1000 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Thtu: Prosecution Division Bureau ofintemal Revenue BIR National Office Building BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City ATTY. CATHERINE ROSER. TORTOLES ATTY. GRACE E. UNTALAN Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 704, 7th Floor, Prosecution Division BIR National Office Building BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on February 9, 2023, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, February 13, 2023. t AttyE. MxeacuritaivJe ~obu~r.tChaIIn-Te

.. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-952 Plaintiff, (NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-12G-00346) Violation of Section 254 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended -versus- Members: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, MANAHAN, and REYES-FAJARDO, JJ. ZIEGFRIED LOO TIAN, (No. 1013, Juan Luna Street., p r o m u1g at e d�. c s�_------- Brgy. 7, Zone 1, Tondo Man1la), Accused. FEB 0 9 2023 i /1-1/1/1/1 X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- X RESOLUTION On December 15, 2022, the instant case was dismissed due to prescription of the Information. On January 10, 2023, the deputized special prosecutors for the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) filed their Formal Entry ofAppearance with Motion for Reconsideration. Acting on the Formal Entry of Appearance, the same is hereby NOTED. Henceforth, let all copies of all orders and notices in the instant case be furnished to the Deputized Special Prosecutors Catherine RoseR. Tortoles, Jamaica Kay DelaCruz and Grace E. Untalan of the BIR Prosecution Division at: BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE 7TH floor, Room 704 Prosecution Division BIR National Office Building BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City As to plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, plaintiff argues that prescription has not set in on the ground that the period of discovery and the institution of judicial proceedings for the

-� RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-952 violation of Section 254 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended, not only triggers the commencement of the prescriptive period, but at the same time triggers the interruption of the same prescriptive period. The Motion lacks merit. Section 2, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) clearly provides that it is the institution of the criminal action which interrupts the prescriptive period, and, that criminal actions before the CTA are instituted by the filing of an information: SEC. 2. Institution of criminal actions. - All criminal actions before the Court in Division in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be instituted by the filing of an information in the name of the People of the Philippines. In criminal actions involving violations of the National Internal Revenue Code and other laws enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue must approve their filing. In criminal actions involving violations of the Tariff and Customs Code and other laws enforced by the Bureau of Customs, the Commissioner of Customs must approve their filing. The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription. (Underscoring ours) In the instant case, prescription began to run from the discovery and institution of proceedings for its investigation on July 5, 2012. Counting five (5) years from July 5, 2012, the prescriptive period to institute the criminal action lapsed on July 5, 2017. Thus, the right of the government to institute the case against accused had already prescribed when the Information was filed before this Court only on October 26, 2022. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~G. DEE Presiding Justice

�< � RESOLUTI ON CTA Crim. Case No. 0-952 ~~7 CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ~~r.~~.,r~ MARIAN IViJF. REYES-F.A!IJARDO Associate Justice