PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONDI WILLIAM INDUSTRIAL CORP. / DANIEL Y. CHUA

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111 19-000124-001 5 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-712 PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION CONDI WILLIAM INDUSTRIAL CORP. /DANIEL Y. CHUA, Accused. To: PROSECUTOR GENERAL BENEDICTO A. MALCONTENTO SR. STATE DEPUTY PROS. RICHARD ANTHONY D. FADULLON ASST. STATE PROS. ZENAMAR J.L. MACHACON-CAPARROS Department of Justice Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Thru: Prosecution Division Room 704, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on May 20, 2024, Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, May 21, 2024. Jo~F. Atty. Maria CouCrthaIIn-Te Executive ~

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA Crim. Case No. 0-712 PHILIPPINES, Members: Plaintiff, DEL ROSARIO, P.J.) BACORRO-VILLENA, and -versus- CUI-DAVID, JJ. CONDI WILLIAM INDUSTRIAL CORP. I Promulgated: DANIEL Y. CHUA, Accused. MAY 20 202~ �t(),'():JAlii )C--------------------------- -~ ------- -){ RESOLUTION For resolution of this Court is the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated February 2, 2024) filed on February 23, 2024. The plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration assails the Court's Resolution (assailed Resolution) , dated February 6, 2024, dismissing the case on the ground of prescription. It argues that prescription has not set in and that the institution of a criminal action before the Department of Justice (DOJ) for purposes of preliminary investigation effectively tolls the running of the prescriptive period, consistent with Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. The plaintiff cites Tupaz v. Ulepl and People v. Pangilinan. 2 The plaintiff's arguments do not convince. We quote Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended: SEC. 281. Prescription for Violations of any Provision of this Code. - All violations of any provision of this Code shall prescribe after five (5) years. 1 G.R. No. 127777, October I, 1999. 2 G.R. N o. 152662, June 13, 2012.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-7 12 People of the Philippines v. Condi William Industrial Corp. I Daniel Y. Chua X--------------------------------- ------ -------------------- ------ --------- ---- -- ----------X 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 discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescription sha ll be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against th e 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. [Emphasis supplied] As We have stated in the assailed Resolution, the interpretation of this provision has been settled in the landmark case of Lim3 to wit: Inasmuch as the final notice and demand for payment of the deficiency taxes was served on petitioners on July 3, 1968, it was only then that the cause of action on the part of the BIR accrued. This is so because prior to the receipt of the letter-assessment, no violation has yet been committed by the taxpayers. The offense was committed only after receipt was coupled with the willful refusal to pay the taxes due within the allotted period. The two criminal informations, having been filed on June 23, 1970, are well-within the five-year prescriptive period and are not time-barred. [Emphasis and underscoring supplied] We cannot depart from this interpretation of the Supreme Court of Section 354 of the 1939 Tax Code as recodified in Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, for the principle of stare decisis requires that once a case has been decided one way, the rule is settled that any other case involving exactly the same point at issue should be decided in the same manner.4 We quote the assailed Resolution: In the Joint Complaint-Affidavit, it was alleged that the Final Assessment Notice (FAN) was issued to respondent CONDI WILLIAM INDUSTRIAL CORP. (CONDI WILLIAM) on January 14, 2013; that it was personally received by the taxpayer's a u thorized representative and that on July 12, 2013 , a Preliminary Collection Letter was issued to respondent CONDI WILLIAM for the settlement of deficiency taxes. The FAN would have attained finality upon the lapse of thirty (30) days from receipt of said notice in accordance with 3 G.R. Nos. 481 34-37, 18 October 1990, 268 SCRA 680-692. 4 University ofthe East v. Masangkay, G. R. No. 226727, 25 April 20 18.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-712 People of the Philippines v. Condi William Industrial Corp. / Daniel Y. Chua Page 3 of4 x- -- --- ------ ------------------------- -- ------------------------------- -------- ---------- --x Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Thus, following the allegations of plaintiff, the assessment would have become final on February 14, 2013. In counting the prescriptive period provided under Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, Lim, as quoted above, is instructive that it is the filing of the criminal information that must fall within the five (5)-year prescriptive period. The Supreme Court enunciated in Lim that tax criminal cases are basically imprescriptible. However, violations shall nevertheless prescribe if more than five (5) years have lapsed from the time of the commission of the offense if known, and as applicable in this case, i.e., the date of finality of the FAN/FLD, up to the date of filing of the Information before the Court. Thus, pursuant to Lim, plaintiff had five (5) years counted from February 14, 2013, or until February 14, 2018, to file the Information before the Court. The Information dated December 18, 2018 was filed with this Court only on March 18, 2019. Clearly, when t he present Information was filed on March 18, 2019, the government's right to institute a criminal action against accused had already prescribed for more than one (1) year. Even if the period is counted from the issuance of the Preliminary Collection Notice, plaintiff would have five (5) years from July 12, 2013, or until July 12, 2018, to file the Information in Court. Hence, the filing of the Information on March 18, 2019, is beyond the prescriptive period. As such, We find no merit in reversing the assailed Resolution. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ofthe Resolution dated February 2, 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-712 People of the Philippines v. Condi William Industrial Corp. I Daniel Y. Chua x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x JA-4JAA~'J LANEU"'i.vCUI-& VID Associate Justice