PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARC ANTHONY B. GERONIMO (In his capacity as Partner/General Manager of DENHART INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, (AT LARGE)

CTA Fom1 No. 8 (For DCC) 111111111111 1111111111 11111 11111 111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111 11111111 23-000134-00 12 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY DFIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-1031 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, - versus- MARC ANTHONY B. NOTICE OF RESOLUTION GERONIMO, in his capacity as Partner/General Manager of DENHART INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, Accused. To: CITY PROSECUTOR FEDINAND U. VALBUENA ASST. STATE PROS. SHEILA CINDY DC. MASANGQUE Department of Justi ce Offi ce or the City Prosecutor 3rd Floor, Judicial Complex IOth Avenue, Caloocan City ATTY. ANVARI F. ARGUELL ES ATTY. ROGELIO D. SAGUINSIN Ill Bureau of Internal Revenue - Revenue Region No.5 Legal Di vision, 9th Floor. BIR Building No. 140 Bo. Kalaanan, Brgy. !l6 EDSA, Caloocan City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on January 9, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, January 10, 2024.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-1031 PHILIPPINES, For: Violation of Section 255, in relation to Sections 253(d) and Plaintiff, 256 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as -versus- amended. MARC ANTHONY B. Members: GERONIMO, in his capacity as DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and PartnerI General Manager CUI-DAVID, JJ. of DENHART Promulgated: INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, Accused. X------------------------------ This resolves plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated September 11 , 2023), 1 filed on October 26, 2023. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's Resolution2 issued on September 11, 2023 (Assailed Resolution) , the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-1031 is hereby DISMISSED b ecause of the prescription of the offense charged. The Warrant ofArrest and Alias Warrant ofArrest dated April 28, 2023 and June 13, 2023, respectively issued against accused MARC ANTHONY B. GERONIMO, are RECALLED and SET ASIDE. 1 Docket, pp. I02-108. 2 Docket, pp. 94-10 I.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim Case No. 0- 1031 People of the Philippines vs. Marc Anthony B. Geronimo, in his capacity as Partner1Gen eral Manager of Denhart Internat ional Company x-------------- -- ------------- ----- ----- -------------------- ------ ----- -- -- --- ---- -------- -x The Letter filed by Police Lieu tena n t Colonel David A. Toctocan Jr., Officer in Charge , Detective and Special Opera tions Unit, National Police Commission , Philippine National Police, Criminal Investigation and Detection Group on August 23, 2023, is NOTED. SO ORDERED. In asking for a reconsideration, plaintiff avers that it received a copy of the Assailed Resolution on October 11, 2023. However, the record3 reveals that the plaintiff received a copy of the same through the Prosecution Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Office of the City Prosecutor - Department ofJustice Caloocan City on September 13, 2023 and September 21 , 2023, respectively. Section 1, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), as amended, provides: "SECTION 1. Who may and when to file motion. - Any 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 n ew tria l within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice of the decision , resolution or order of the Court in question ." (Emphas is supplied) The rule is and has been that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible.4 If no motion for reconsideration is filed on time, the judgment or final order of the court b ecomes final and executory.s As the record reveals, plaintiff received a copy of the Assailed Resolution on September 13, 2023. Hence, counting fifteen (15) days therefrom , plaintiff had until September 28 , 2023 to file its motion for r econsideration. But for reasons only known to it, plaintiff only filed its Motion on October 26, 2023, beyond the 15-day r eglementary p eriod to appeal. For the sake of argument, assuming that the receipt of the plaintiff through the Office of the City Prosecutor on September 2 1, 20 23 is to b e considered , th e filing of its m otion for r econsider ation on October 26, 2023 would still be out of time. 3 Notice ofResolution, Docket, p. 92. 4 Apex Mining Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue and Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 122472, October 20, 2005. 5 Far East Bank & Trust Company vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G. R. No. 149589, September 15, 2006.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim Case No. 0- 103 1 People of the Philippines vs. Marc Anthony B. Geronimo, in his capacity as Partner/ General Man age r of Denhart International Company Pa ge 3 of 5 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Further, even assuming that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is timely filed, the same would still be denied for lack of merit. In asking for a reconsideration, plaintiff, citing the case of Susan V. Llenes v. Han. Isaias P. Dicdican,6 asserts that the filing of the criminal complaint before the Prosecutor's Office suspends the running of the prescriptive period. Hen ce, for the plaintiff, the instant case is not barred by prescription as the filing of the complaint for preliminary investigation against the accused on July 24, 2014, is well within the five-year prescriptive r eckoned from the finality of the assessment on February 6, 2010. The Court is not convinced. It bears to emphasize that the case of Emilio E. Lim, Sr. and Antonia Sun Lim v. Court ofAppeals and People of the Philippines7 (Lim) deals explicitly with the prescription for criminal violation of the Tax Code, while the case cited by the plaintiff deals with the prosecution of an offense not involving criminal violation of the Tax Code. The ruling in Lim that the filing of Information in court interrupts the running of the prescriptive period is consistent with Section 2, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) , which reads: "SEC. 2. Ins titution of criminal actions. - All criminal actions before t h e Court in Division in the exercise of its original jurisdiction sha ll be instituted by the filin g of an information in the n am e of the People of th e Philippines. In criminal actions involving violation s of the Nation al Intern a l Revenu e Cod e an d oth er laws enforced by the Bu reau of Interna l Revenue , t h e Commis sioner oflntern al Revenue must approve their filing. In criminal actions in volving violation s of the ta riff a nd Customs Code and oth er laws enforced by th e Bureau of Customs, the Commissioner of Customs must approve their filing. The institution ofthe criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription." (Boldfacing supplied) Thus, in view of Lim and the RRCTA, the Court reiterates that the period of prescription for criminal violation of the Tax Code begins to run from the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same is not known a t the time, from the discovery 6 G.R. No. 122274, July 31 , 1996. 7 G.R. Nos. L-48 134-37, October 18, 1990.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim Case No. 0- 103 1 People of the Philip pines vs. Marc Anthony B. Geronimo, in his capacity a s Partner/ General Manager of Denha rt Internation a l Company x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x and institution of proceedings for its investigation and shall only be tolled by the filing of an Information with the court. In the case at bar, the Assessment Notices/ Formal Letters of Demand assessing DENHART INTERNATIONAL COMPANY were issued on December 15, 2009, and DENHART INTERNATIONAL COMPANY received the same on January 6, 2010. Under Section 2288 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended , DENHART INTERNATIONAL COMPANY had thirty (30) days from January 6, 2010 or until February 5 , 2010 , within which to file its protest. Allegedly, DENHART INTERNATIONAL COMPANY failed to file the administrative protest s et forth under Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Thus, the assessments issued against DENHART INTERNATIONAL COMPANY became final and executory on February 5, 2010. Considering the foregoing and following the ruling in Lim, the five (5)-year prescriptive period to indict accused for failure to pay tax lapsed on February 5, 2015. Thus, the right of the government to institute the case a gainst the a ccused h ad already prescribed when the Information was filed before this Court on April 13, 2023. WHEREFORE, premises consider ed , plaintiff's Motion f or Reconsideration (Re: Res olution dated 0 9 August 2023) filed on October 26 , 2023, is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice 8 SEC. 228. Protesting ofAssessment.- When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: Provided, however, That a preassessment notice shall not be required in the following cases: XXX XXX XXX The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Comm issioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on his findings. Such assessment may be protested adm inistratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations. xxx

RESOLUTION CTA Crim Case No. 0-1031 People of the Philippines vs. Marc Anthony B. Geronimo, in his capacity as PartnerI General Manager of Denhart International Company x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x MAAM'dn~ LArliEvs.' cui-DAVID Associate Justice