CTA Case No. O-91 (Resolution)

.- .; REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY Second Division PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-091 Plaintiff, (I.S. NO. 08A-05046) -versus- For: VIOLATION OF SECTION 255 IN REL. SECS. 25.3. (d) and 256 TAX CODE OF 1997 AS AMENDED BY RA 8424 Members: RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, FELIX M. JARDELEZA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and Femjar Products, FERRER-FLORES, JJ Unit 214 Dofia Pacita Bldg., 631 Sto. Cristo St., Promulgated: San Nicholas, Manila, AUG 092024 K':O!~- hl1 Accused. X ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESOLUTION The instant Information was filed July 11 , 2008. Since then, the Court has issued a Warrant of Arrest1 against accused. After a review of the records, however, the Court finds that We never properly gained jurisdiction over this Information, as the same was filed beyond the period prescribed by law to do so. Under Section 281 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended ("NIRC'), the government has five years from either the commission of the crime or the date of its discovery within which to prosecute any violation of the NIRC. The period is interrupted when "proceedings are instituted against the guilty persons." In the case of criminal actions heard before the CTA in Division, such as in this case, proceedings are deemed instituted upon the filing of an Infonnation with the CTA, following Rule 9, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended. Rollo, pp. 23.

�~ RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-091 Page 2of2 Finally, following Lim v. Court of Appeals2 and Tupaz v. Ulep, 3 the prescriptive period then started upon the commission of the suspected crime, which the Supreme Court identified with the finality of the assessment, attained after the lapse of 30 days from the taxpayer's receipt of the assessment, coupled with the taxpayer's willful refusal to pay the assessed taxes within the period for doing so. The Information claims that the crime was committed "on or about August 21, 2006." However, the relevant assessment notice here is Assessment Notice No. 29-11-002400-994 ("AN"). While nothing in the records definitively shows when accused received it, said AN was issued on January 24, 2003, making February 24, 2003 the start of the prescriptive period. This gave the prosecution until February 24, 2008 within which to file its Infonnation. The Information was filed on July 11, 2008, however. The government's right to prosecute this case had thus prescribed before the instant Infonnation was filed, and the CTA never truly gained jurisdiction over this case. There is consequently nothing left for this Court to do but to dismiss this case. ACCORDINGLY, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-091 is hereby REVIVED from the archives but also DISMISSED on the ground of prescription. SO ORDERED. av. ~ -~ '----- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ustice C~.~lm~RES Associate Justice / G.R. Nos. L-48134-37, October 18, 1990. G.R. No. 127777, October I, 1999. Rollo, pp. 8-9.