PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. RONIE ROMANO EUSTAQUIO

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC PEOPLE OF THE CTA EB CRIM. NO. 160 PHILIPPINES, (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807) Petitioner, Present: Ringpis-Liban, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, Cui-David, Ferrer-Flores, and A ngele s, J l - verJuJ - Promulgated: RONIE ROMANO EUSTAQUIO, OCT 30 2025 /A Respondent. i/)1;:;7~ .~ . X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN,.L; This is an appeal, by way ofVerified Petition for Review (of the Resolution dated July 30, 2024),1 flied by petitioner People of the Philippines pursuant to Section 9(b), Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), assailing the Resolutions dated April30, 2024 and July 30, 2024 (collectively, the "Assailed Resolutions") rendered by the First Division of this Court (the "Court in Division") in C f.A Crim. Case No. 0-807. In the first Assailed Resolution, the Court in Division dismissed the Information on the ground o f prescription. In the second Assailed Resolution, the Court denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for having been flied out of time. / 1 Court En Bane's Docket, pp. 1-16.

DECISION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 160 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807) THE FACTS On January 28, 2020, an Information was filed before this Court against the respondent Ronie Romano Eustaquio for willful failure to pay the income tax for the taxable year 2006, in violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended (1997 NIRC). However, the case was dismissed by the Court in Division through its first c\ssailed Resolution, on the ground of prescription. On 1\Iay 24, 2024, petitioner filed a i\Iotion for Reconsideration, which the Court in Division denied through the second Assailed Resolution for having been filed out of time. On ,\ugust 21, 2024, petitioner filed the present Verified Petition for Review via registered mail. In a 1\Iinute Resolution" dated October 30, 2024, the Court En Bane directed petitioner to indicate the address of respondent and to submit proof of service of the Verified Petition for Review upon respondent. On Non~mber 11, 2024, the petitioner filed its ;\Ianifestation with Compliance (Resolution dated October 30, 2024)3 via registered mail. In a Minute Resolution" dated November 25, 2024, the Court En Bane noted petitioner's i\Ianifestation with Compliance (Resolution dated October 30, 2024). In a i\linute Resolution' dated January 31, 2025, the Court En Bane directed respondent to file his comment to the Petition for Review within ten (1 0) dan from notice. Respondent, however, failed to file the required Comment, as evidenced by the Records\' erification issued by the Judicial Records Division of this Court on l'\Iar-ch ?... 4, .7.. 07... J~. 6 In a 1\Iinute Resolution7 dated i\Iay 7, 2025, the present Verified Petition for Review was submitted for decision/ 2 !d., p. 51. 3 !d., pp. 53-55. 4 Id., p. 61. 5 !d., p. 62. 6 !d., p. 63. I frf., p. 64.

DECISION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 160 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0�807) THE ISSUE Petitioner ~eeks the review of the i\ssailed Resolutions issued by the Court in Division, anchored on a sole assignment of error, as follows: "THE CL\ � FIRST DIVISION ERRED WI�IEN IT DJSl\!ISSED THE C\SE ,\GAINST RESPONDENT EUST,\QUIO FOR \'IOL\TION 01' SECTION 255 OR DELIBERXfE L\ILURE TO PAY DEFICEINC:Y T.\X FOR THE "L\X,\BLE YL\R 2006 ON THE GROUND OF BEL\TED FILING OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED l\LW 24, 2024." THE COURT EN BANCS RULING The Verified Petition for Review (of the Resolution dated July 30, 2024) lacks mcrit. Timeliness of the Petition The Court En Bane shall first determine whether the present Verified Petition for Review (of the Resolution dated July 30, 2024) was timely filed. Section 3(b), Rule 8 of the RRCTA. provides: "Rule 8 Procedure in Civil Cases XXX XXX XXX SEC. 3. lf7bo may appeal; period tofile petition. - XXX XXX XXX (b) .\ party adversely affected by a decision or resolution of a Di\rision of the Court on a motion for reconsideration or ne\v trial may appeal to the Court by filing before it a petition for review within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or resolution. xxx" (Emphasis supplied) The record~ show that petitioner received the Assailed Resolution through the Department of Justice (DOJ) on August 2, 2024, and a copy furnished to the Bureau of Internal Revenue BIR) on August 6, 2024. Counting fifteen (1 5) days therefrom, petitioner had until August 17, 2024 within which to file its Petition for Review before the Court En Bam: August 17,2024 fell on a Saturday, while i\ugust 19, 2024 is a non-working holiday in Quezon City. Accordingly, petitioner had until August 20, 2024 within which to flle its Petition for Review. ,/V"

DECISION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 160 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807) In view of the foregoing, the filing of the present Verified Petition for Review (of the Resolution dated July 30, 2024) via registered mail on ,\ugust 21, 2024 was out of time. Even assuming the Petition was timely filed, it is nevertheless dismissible for lack of merit for the reasons stated below. Timeliness of Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration Petitioner contends that the period for filing its J\Iotion for Reconsideration before the Court in Division should be counted from J\Iay 7, 2024 ~ the date when the BIR received a copy of the first Assailed Resolution ~and not from J\Iay 6, 2024, when the DOJ received the same. In support of this position, petitioner argues that: First, as the private complainant in the case, petitioner remains directly affected by its outcome. Invoking Section 1, Rule 15 of the RRCL\, petitioner underscores that it is the aggrieved party who is entitled to file a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed decision, resolution, or order. Second, the lawyers of the BIR National Office- Prosecution Division arc duly deputi;(ed as special prosecutors by the Office of the Prosecutor General through a Deputization Letter specifically issued for the prosecution of tax cases. Unless such authority is expressly revoked or withdrawn, they remain authorized to prosecute the case until its conclusion, even in the absence of a public prosecutor. Third, the DOj's failure to notify the BIR of its receipt of the .-\ssailed Resolutions supports the conclusion that the BIR's deputized special prosecutors arc expected to be directly furnished copies of all court issuances and rulings. It is the deputized lawyers who arc tasked to take the necessary legal action pursuant to the authority granted under the dcputization order. Finally, petitioner likewise invokes the principles of substantial justice and fair play to justify the admission of its belatedly filed Motion for Reconsideration before the Court in Division. Petitioner's arguments are unavailing. The characteri;(ation of the BIR as the private complainant, and the deputization of its lawyers as special prosecutors, bears no relevance to the issue of timeliness of its Motion for Reconsideration/

DECISION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 160 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807) \'>Chen a party is represented by a counsel of record, service of court orders and notices must be made upon such counsel.8 Notice served upon the client or any la�wyer who is not the counsel of record does not constitute valid notice in law-" Furthermore, in cases where a party is represented by two (2) or more counsels of record, the Supreme Court, in Philippine Asset Growth Two, Im: eta!. v. FaJtecb S]!lel;g)' Pbi!ippines, Inc., 111 aptly held that: "It is a long-standing doctrine that where a party is represented by several counsels, notice to one is sufficient, and binds the said party. Notice to any one of the several counsels on record is equivalent to notice to all, and such notice starts the running of the period to appeal notwithstanding that the other counsel on record has not received a copy of the decision or resolution." (Empba.rir .rupplied and undmwrinc~ .rupplied; ,i/alion.r omitted) The records show that the Information was flied by Assistant State Prosecutor Robert D.G. Ong, .Jr. of the DOJ on behalf of petitioner. C:onsequenth�, the DOJ is a counsel of record in this case and is properly entitled to be furnished copies of court orders, notices, and decisions. This also neatly aligns with the rule that criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. 11 Thus, the DO.J's receipt of the first [\ssailed Resolution on May 6, 2024 setves as the reckoning point for computing the rcglcmcntary period for the filing of a motion for reconsideration. Even assuming the petitioner's I\Iotion for Reconsideration was timely filed, the Court in Division's ruling in the first Assailed Resolution remains well- founded and must be upheld. Prescription of the Offense Charged Section 281 of the 1997 NIRC governs the prescriptive period for instituting actions arising from criminal violations thereof. It provides: SEC. 281. Pre.r,riplionfor Vio!ation.r a/any Provi.rion olthi.r Code. -All ,-iolations of any prm-ision of this Code shall prescribe after five (5) years. 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/ 8 Taningco, eta/. v. Fernandez, eta/., G.R. No. 215615, December 9, 2020. 9 Cervantes v. City Semce Corporation, G.R. No. 191616, April 18, 2016 citing Spouses Soriano v. Sonano, 10 G.R. No. 206528, June 28, 2016. 11 Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure; Sec. 3, Rule 9, RRCTA.

DECISION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 160 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807) 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. (Empba.ri.r .wpp!ied) In ruling that the present criminal action has prescribed pursuant to the above provision, the Court in Division drew guidance from the Supreme Court's decisions in Lim v. Collrt ofAppeals'" and Tupaz v. Ulep. 13 It pertinently held: "In this case, the records show that accused received on 07 ;\pril 2()1 (I the l'ormal Letter of Demand (FLD) with attached Details of Discrepancies, together with the },ssessment Notices (ANs) all dated 25 !\larch 2010. The ;\Ns indicated that the deficiency taxes should be paid on or before 26 ,\pril2010. ;\pplying the ruling in Emilio E. Lim, .1'~: and R_MC No. 101-90, upon receipt of the FLD and ,-\N s, the offense will be committed only after accused fails to pay the taxes due on 26 ,\pril 2010, or the due date for the payment. Hence, the prescripti,-e period commences to run on 27 April 2010, or the day after accused willfully refused to pay the taxes despite due notice. Counting five (5) years therefrom, plaintiff had until 27 April 2015 within which to file the subject Information with the Court. Notably, the said Information was filed with this Court only on 28 January 2020. ,\s such, the plaintiffs right to file the subject criminal action has already prescribed. E\Tn if We arc to applv Tupa:::_ and count the prescriptive period from the lapse of the 30-day period to protest or question the assessment, the subject criminal action would still ha,-e prescribed. To elaborate, accused recei\�ed the FLD on 07 A.pril2010, thus counting 30 days from receipt thereof, he had until 07 May 2010 to file his protest or question the assessment. _\s accused failed to file the protest, the FLD became final and unappealable on 08 May 2010. Counting fi,-e (5) years therefrom, plaintiff had until 08 May 2015 to file the subject Information. 1IoweYer, as already noted abm-e, the said Information was filed with this Court only on 28 January 2020, thus the criminal offense has clearly prescribed." I-I (Ci'tatio11J omitted) Considering the pertinent facts and applicable jurisprudence, the Court En Ba11t fully concurs with the conclusion that the present criminal action is already barred by prescription/ 12 G.R. Nos. L-48134-37, October 18, 1990 ("Emilio E. Lim, Sr."). 13 G.R. No. 127777, October 1, 1999 (" Tupai'). "Court En Banes Docket, pp. 33-34.

DECISION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 160 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807) Even so, it is important to note that on ,\pril 2, 2025, the Supreme Court En Bant promulgated its decision in People v. Comebido15 where it clarified that the filing of a criminal complaint before the DOJ tolls the running of the prescriptive period for offenses under the 1997 NIRC:, regardless of whether the commission of the offense was immediately known. The Supreme Court further explained that "[iJn cases where the information, data or records, from which the crime is based could be plainly discovered or were readily available to the public, or when there are reasonable means to be aware of the commission of the offense, the prescriptive period should be reckoned from the date of the commission of the offense." However, Comebido is not applicable to the present case as the Supreme Court explicitly declared that the rules set forth therein shall be applied prospectively "\ccordingly, the present case was correctly resolved in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence prior to Coi!Jebido. Even assuming that Consebido applies, the conclusion remains the same. The offense charged against respondent is deemed to have been committed - and the prescriptive period to have commenced - upon respondent's willful refusal to pay the tax on its due date, i.e., April 26, 2010. The running of the prescriptive period was interrupted only upon the filing of the Joint C:omplaint- .\ffidavit before the DOJ on Aprilll, 2019. _\s more than five (5) years had elapsed between these dates, the criminal action is clearly time-barred. ACCORDINGLY, the present Verified Petition for Review (of the Resolution dated July 30, 2024) is DISMISSED for being filed out of time. SO ORDERED. .L. ~ _, __ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN }~.ssociate Justice !FE CONCUR- {'~�7~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN c\ssociatc J usticc 1s G.R. No. 258563, April 2, 2025 ("Consebidd').

DECISION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 160 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807) ~~t:~-faj~ MARIAN Iv{)F. RE~S-FAJXRDO "-\ssociatc Jus rice ~dfij LANEE S. CUI-DiVID /\ssociatc Justice HENRY //PNGELES Associate Jus rice

DECISION erA EB CRIM. NO. 160 (erA Crim. Case No. 0-807) CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, 1\rticle VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ~. ~ .., '----- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Acting Presiding justice