PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CESAR R. SANTIAGO JIE Mar Construction 32 Francis, Calumpit, Bulacan (AT LARGE)

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) 111111111111111111111111111 1111111111 11111111111111 111111111111111111111 11111111 17-000078-0014 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-632 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION CESAR R. SANTIAGO JIE Mar Construction, Accused. To: CITY PROSECUTOR FERDINAND U. VALBUENA SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR ISABELITO E. SICAT Department of Justice Office of the City Prosecutor Caloocan City DIRECTOR Thru: General Services Division National Bureau oflnvestigation Building C&D, Filinvest Cyberzone Bay City, Pasay City REGIONAL DIRECTOR Nation Bureau ofinvestigation Bulacan � BULDO NBI Bulacan District Office Capitol Compound, Malolos City Bulacan PNPCHIEF Thru: CIDG National Headquarters, Philippine National Police Camp General Rafael Tagle Crame EDSA, Quezon City CHIEF, WARRANT AND SUBPOENA SECTION Malolos City Police Station Brgy. Poblacion, Malolos City Bulacan CHIEF, WARRANT & SUBPOENA SECTION Calumpit Police Station Purok !-Provincial Road Calumpit, Bulacan Page 1 of2

� GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on May 18, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, May 20, 2026. Atty. Maria Jo~han-Te Executive Cler~rt III Page 2 of2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-632 PHILIPPINES, I.S. Docket No. XV-o2-INV-16G- Plaintiff, 02483 -versus- For: Violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended Members: RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and CESAR R. SANTIAGO ANGELES, JJ. JIE Mar Construction 32 Francis, Calumpit Bulacan Promulgated: (AT LARGE) Accused. ~~Y 18 2.0?.6.; J :55 PM ~ - X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -7 -----------X RESOLUTION Accused Cesar R. Santiago is charged for violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code of1997 (NIRC), as amended. The pertinent portion of the Information is quoted below: "That on or about the 29th day of August, 2011, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of his Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in his capacity as the Proprietor of KIE MAR Construction, with taxpayer Identification Number 148- 654-091-000 registered with the Revenue District No. 25-A- Plaridel, Bulacan and which is under the jurisdiction of Revenue Region No. 5 this City, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail and refuse to pay his tax liabilities for the year 2008, to wit: Tax Type : BasicTax : Interest : Total Amount of Tax Deficiency Income Tax : 2,049,761.30 : 959,083.31 : 3,008 ,884.61 Value-added Tax : 6n,zo8.72 : 1,777,312.23 : 1,570,792.03 Total

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-632 and still fails and refuses to do so until the present, despite receipt of various demands/ notices and despite the finality and incontestability ofthe Final Assessment Notice and Formal Demand dated July 29, 2011, from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue through the BIR Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 5 in Caloocan City. CONTRARYTO LAW." After plaintiffsubmitted to the Court the original or certified true copies ofthe documents attached to the Information,1 the Court issued the Resolution2 dated December 14, 2017 finding the existence of probable cause to hold the accused for trial, and ordering the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest against accused Santiago. Subsequently, a Warrant ofArrestJ commanding the arrest of accused Santiago was issued on January 3, 2018. On September 26, 2018, the Judicial Records Division issued a Records Verification Report4stating that as of even date, no report was made by the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief, Chief of the Warrant and Subpoena Section of Malolos City Police Station, and Regional Director of NBI Bulacan, on why accused Santiago has not yet been apprehended. Thereafter, on April16, 2019, the Executive Clerk of Court III of the Third Division of this Court through a letters of even date, instructed the above-named officials to make a return of the above- mentioned Warrant ofArrest. In the Resolution6 dated July 22, 2019, the Court noted the Return of the Warrant of Arrest stating that the accused cannot be located in the given address. Thus, an Alias Warrant ofArresr was issued on July 29, 2019, to be returned to the Court only upon the arrest of the accused. In the same Resolution, the Court ordered that the instant case be archived.s 1 Manifestation and Compliance dated November 6, 2017, with attachments, Division Docket, pp. 51-81. 2 Division Docket, pp. 83-85. 3 Division Docket, pp. 86. 4 Division Docket, p. 89 . s Division Docket, p. 94� 6 Division Docket, pp. 100-101. 7 Division Docket, pp. 102-103. BJd.

RESOLUTION CfA Crim. Case No. 0-632 Page 3 of s Meanwhile, the number of criminal cases archived due to the failure of authorities to cause the arrest of the accused, as well as the successive dismissal of recent cases on the ground of prescription, among others, prompted this Court to review the archived cases. Section 281 of the NIRC, as amended, provides the period of prescription for violations of any provision of the NIRC, to wit: 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. Prescription shall begin to run from the date 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 shall be interrupted when proceedings are 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. (Emphasis supplied) Further, Section 2, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) provides that the institution of criminal actions shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription, viz.: Section 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 ofan information in the name of the Republic 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 Eureau of Customs, the Commissioner of Customs must approve their filing. The institution ofcriminal actions shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription. (Emphasis supplied) Pursuant to the foregoing provisions, all violations of any provision of NIRC shall prescribe after five (5) years. The running of the s-year prescriptive period shall begin to run from the date of the commission of the violation of the law, and only the institution of criminal actions shall interrupt such period.

RESOLUTION CfA Crim. Case No. 0-632 Page 4 of5 This is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Lim, Sr. v. Court ofAppeals9 where the High Court held that the prescriptive period of tax cases is reckoned from the discovery and institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment, up to the filing of the information in court. Apropos to the instant case, the Court notes that at the time the crime was allegedly committed and at the time the Information was filed in Court, the controlling jurisprudence on the issue ofprescription of violation of Section 255 of the NIRC was the Lim case. To reiterate, the Supreme Court categorically stated therein that the five (5)-year prescriptive period runs up to the filing of the Information in court. While the Court is aware of the Supreme Court's ruling in the 2025 case of People v. Consebido,10 where it was held that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal's office tolls the running of the prescriptive period, We are equally mindful that such ruling shall apply prospectively, 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. Thus, the new doctrine laid down in the Consebido case is inapplicable herein. Applying, therefore, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Lim case, together with the above-cited rules, the Court finds that the instant case has prescribed. Based on the allegations in the Information and Complaint- Affidavit dated July 20, 2016, including their supporting documents, the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) with attached Assessment Notices was issued on July 29, 201111 and served on accused Santiago via registered mail on August 26, 2011.12 Even assuming these factual claims to be true, the subject assessment became final, executory and demandable after the lapse of thirty (30) days from receipt, or on September 27, 2011, the accused having failed to file a valid protest thereto. Accordingly, the cause of action of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) accrued on September 27, 2011. As the offense offailure to pay tax under Section 255 of the NIRC was committed on September 27, 2011, plaintiff had five (5) years from the said date, or until September 27, 2016 within which to file the 9 G.R. Nos. 48134-37, October 18, 1990. 10 G.R. No. 258563, April 2, 2025. 11 Annexes "H" and "I", Complaint-Affidavit dated July 20, 2016, Division Docket, pp. 27-30 . 12 Annex "J ", Registry Return Notice covering Registry No. Billing Reg. # 1390 dated August 26, 2011, Division Docket , p. 31.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-632 Pagesofs Information in Court. In this case, the Information was filed on March 14, 2017. Considering that the five (5) year prescriptive period commenced when the FLD became final, executory and demandable on September 27, 2011, and that the prescriptive period to institute the criminal action lapsed on September 27, 2016, the subject Information filed on March 14, 2017 was clearly beyond the five (5) year prescriptive period. WHEREFORE, premises considered, CTA Crim. Case No. 0- 632 is hereby WITHDRAWN from the archives and DISMISSED due to prescription of the offense charged. Let the Warrant ofArrest issued against accused be RECALLED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. ~.~J- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice (ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS) MARIAN IVYF. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice HENRY ~tGELES Associate Justice