PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. RONIE ROMANO EUSTAQUIO, (No. Unit 4, Solid Gold Bldg., National Highway, Brgy. Macabling, Sta. Rosa City, Laguna) -at large-

CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) 1111111111111111111111 11111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 20-000027-0011 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM CASE NO. 0-807 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION RONIE ROMANO EUSTAQUIO, Accused. To: PROSECUTOR GENERAL BENEDICTO A. MALCONTENTO ASST. STATE PROS. ROBERT D.G. ONG, JR. Deparrrnent of Justice Padre Faura Street, Ermita 1000 Manila COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Thru: Prosecution Division Room 704, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City DIRECTOR National Bureau of Investigation Taft Avenue, Ermita, Manila PNP CIDEF Thru: CIDG Philippine National Police N ational Headquarters Camp General Rafael Tagle Crame EDSA , Quezon City CHIEF, WARRANT AND SUBPOENA SECTION Sta. Rosa City Police Station Brgy. Tagapo, Sta. R osa City Laguna GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on April 30, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, May 2, 2024. AttyE. Mxaerica uT~ tiv. ~ ~ouCrthaIIn-Te

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended -versus- Members: DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. RONIE ROMANO EUSTAQUIO, Accused . X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4AV~~#/O On 28 January 2020, the plaintiff filed an lnformation1 against herein accused RONIE ROMANO EUSTAQUIO (accused/Eustaquio), for violation of Section 2552 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, allegedly committed as follows: That [on] September 2, 2010 and thereafter, in the City of Manila[,] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused RONIE ROMANO EUSTAQUIO, a registered taxpayer of BIR Revenue District Office No. 57-West Laguna, Bifian City, with Tax Identification Number 219-620-759-000, with obligation under the law to file and pay the corresponding Income Tax for taxable year/period 01 January to 31 December 2006, did then and there, willfully and knowingly fail to pay the correct Income Tax with the Bureau of Internal Revenue for said taxable year in the amount of TWENTY-THREE MILLION NINE HUNDRED TWELVE Division Docket, pp. 5-6. SEC. 255. Failure to File Return, Supply Correct and Accurate Information, Pay Tax Withhold and Remit Tax and Refund Excess Taxes Withheld on Compensation. - . ..

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807 People ofthe Philippines v. Ronie Romano Eustaquio Page 2 of8 x-----------------------------------------x THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY[-]FIVE PESOS AND FIFTEEN CENTAVOS (Php23,912,165.15), exclusive of surcharges and interest, despite final assessment notice, including prior and post notices and formal demands to pay the last being in the nature of final notice for the accused to pay the said tax, to the damage and prejudice of the Government. CONTRARY TO LAW. The plaintiff attached the following supporting documents to the Information: 1) Certified True Copy of the Resolution dated 30 June 2019, signed by Assistant State Prosecutor (ASP) Roberto D.G. Ong , Jr. , with recommending approval of Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Miguel F. Gudio, Jr., and approved by Prosecutor General Benedicta A. Malcontento;3 2) Certified True Copy of the National Prosecution Service Investigation Data Form dated 11 April 2019;4 3) Certified True Copy of the Referral Letter dated 04 April 2019 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Caesar R. Dulay, addressed to Secretary of Justice Menardo I. Guevarra5; and, 4) Certified True Copy of the Joint Complaint-Affidavit of Revenue Officers (ROs) Jimmy Belen, Jr. (Belen ), Joseph Galicia (Galicia), Herbert M. Ordiz (Ordiz), Ryan D. Florendo (Fiorendo) and Nimrod John M. Dequito (Dequito), with attached Annexes "A" to "1", inclusive of sub-markings.6 In a Resolution dated 11 February 20207, the Second Division found probable cause and ordered the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest8 against accused Eustaquio. It also fixed the bail bond for his provisional liberty in the amount of ~60,000.00. Divis ion Docket, pp. 7- 12. ld ., p. 17. ld., pp. 18-19. 6 ld ., pp. 20-61 . ld ., pp. 63-64. ld., p. 65.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807 People of the Philippines v. Ronie Romano Eustaquio Page 3 of8 X--- - -- - --- -- -- - --------------------------X As accused Eustaquio was not apprehended after the lapse of more than ten (10) months, the Second Division issued an Alias Warrant of Arrest on 06 January 2021 .9 Even after a considerable period , accused remained at large. Hence, the instant case was archived, subject to revival upon the arrest of accused .10 In the meantime, following the reorganization of the different divisions of the Court, the case was transferred to the First Division.11 In an effort to speedily dispose the cases and to de-clog court dockets, an inventory of the archived cases was made thereafter. As a result and upon a second hard look and evaluation of the allegations in the lnformation12 and the supporting documents13 submitted, this Court finds that the right to institute the criminal action has indeed already prescribed. In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged , the following should be considered : (1) the period of prescription for the offense charged ; (2) the time the period of prescription starts to run; and , (3) the time the prescriptive period was interrupted .14 Relevantly, Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended , which governs the prescriptive period for criminal tax actions, provides: 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 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 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. 9 See Resolution dated 04 January 202 1, id., p. 68 ; Alias Warrant of Arrest, id., p. 69. 10 See Reso lution dated I0 November 202 1, id., p. 80. II See Notice dated 29 May 2023. 12 Supra at note I . 13 Supra at note 6. 14 Benjamin ("Kokoy") T Romualdez v. Hon. Simeon V. Marcelo, in his official capacity as the Ombudsman, et a/. , G .R. Nos. 1655 10-33, 28 Ju ly 2006, citing Panfllo 0. Domingo v. The Sandiganbayan (Second Division), eta/., G.R. No. I09376, 20 January 2000.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807 People of the Philippines v. Ronie Romano Eustaquio Page 4 of8 x - - - --- - - ---- - -- - - - - -- - -- - - -- - ------ - - - ---x The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines .15 The above provision is clear that the period of prescription for the offense charged is five (5) years. Relative thereto, the period of prescription commences to run from the day of the perpetration of the offense, and if not known, from its discovery and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. It shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the offender and shall run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. The prescriptive period shall not run when the offender is not in the country. In construing when the prescriptive period for crimes punishable under the NIRC of 1997, as amended , is suspended, it is proper to interpret the provision with reference to its context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. 16 The second paragraph of Section 281 speaks of "judicial proceedings", which means that the "proceedings" referred to in the third paragraph likewise pertains to proceedings which are judicial in nature, i.e., the filing of criminal information with the court. In the case of Emilio E. Lim, Sr. , eta/. v. Court of Appeals, et a/.17 (Emilio E. Lim, Sr.), the Supreme Court explained that in criminal cases involving refusal to pay, the commission of the offense will only happen after the taxpayer was notified of his or her obligation to pay and the latter refused to do so, viz: Relative to Criminal Cases Nos. 1788 and 1789 wh ich involved petitioners' refusal to pay the deficiency income taxes due, again both parties are in accord that by their nature, the violations as charged could only be committed after service of notice and demand for payment of the deficiency taxes upon the taxpayers. Petitioners maintain that the five-year period of limitation under Section 354 should be reckoned from April 7, 1965, the date of the original assessment while the Government insists that it should be counted from July 3, 1968 when the final notice and demand was served on petitioners' daughter-in-law. 15 Emphas is supplied a nd ita lics in the orig ina l text. 16 Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit, G. R. No. 1835 17, 22 June 20 10. 17 G.R. Nos. L-48 134-37, 18 October 1990; Emphasis supp lied and ita lics in the orig inal text.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807 People of the Philippines v. Ronie Romano Eustaquio Page 5 of8 x----- ------------ -- ---------------- -- - --- x We hold for the Government. Section 51 (b) of the Tax Code provides: "(b) Assessment and payment of deficiency tax. - After the return is filed , the Commissioner of [l]nternal Revenue shall examine it and assess the correct amount of the tax. The tax or deficiency in tax so discovered shall be paid upon notice and demand from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue." 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 allot[t]ed 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. Following the pronouncement in Emilio E. Lim, Sr. , the BIR issued Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 101-9018 reiterating the above: 1. When cause of action for willful failure to pay deficiency tax occurs. The cause of action for willful failure to pay deficiency tax occurs when the final notice and demand for the payment thereof is served on the taxpayer. Prior thereto, no violation is committed. The offense is committed only after receipt is coupled with refusal to pay the tax within the allotted period. 2. Prescription under Section 280 of the Ta x Code. a) The 5-year prescriptive period in an offense or willful failure to pay a deficiency tax assessment commences to run only after the receipt of the final notice and demand by the taxpayer and he refuses to pay. b) [A] protested assessment, the 5-year period starts from the service of the final notice and demand disposing of the protest, and not from the date of the original assessment.19 18 Determ ination of When Cause of Action for Willful Failure to Pay Deficiency Tax Occurs; and Prescription under Section 280 of the Tax Code. 19 Underscoring supplied and italics in the original text.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807 People of the Philipp in es v. Ronie Romano Eustaqu io x-- -- - - -- - - -- - - --- - - --- -- ----- - ------- - -- -x The above-mentioned principle was affirmed in Petronila C. Tupaz v. Honorable Benedicta B. Ulep, Presiding Judge of RTC Quezon City, Branch 105, et al.20 (Tupaz), where the Supreme Court explained that failure to pay deficiency tax may only be committed when , after the finality of the assessment, taxpayer refused to pay the taxes within the allotted period , and/or protest or question the assessment within thirty (30) days from receipt therefrom. The relevant portions state: We agree with the Solicitor General that the offense has not prescribed . Petitioner was charged with failure to pay deficiency income tax after repeated demands by the taxing authority. In Lim, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, we stated that by its nature the violation could only be committed after service of notice and demand for payment of the deficiency taxes upon the taxpayer. Hence, it cannot be said that the offense has been committed as early as 1980, upon filing of the income tax return. This is so because prior to the finality of the assessment, the taxpayer has not committed any violation for nonpayment of the tax. The offense was committed only after the finality of the assessment coupled with taxpayer's willful refusal to pay the taxes within the allotted period. In this case, when the notice of assessment was issued on July 16, 1984, the taxpayer still had thirty (30) days from receipt thereof to protest or question the assessment. Otherwise, the assessment would become final and unappealable. As he did not protest, the assessment became final and unappealable on August 16, 1984. Consequently, when the complaint for preliminary investigation was filed with the Department of Justice on June 8, 1989, the criminal action was instituted within the five (5) year prescriptive period.21 In this case, the records show that accused received on 07 April 201022 the Formal Letter of Demand23 (FLO) with attached Details of Discrepancies24, together with the Assessment Notices25 (ANs) all dated 25 March 2010. The ANs indicated that the deficiency taxes should be paid on or before 26 April 2010. Applying the ruling in Emilio E. Lim, Sr. and RMC No. 101-90, upon receipt of the FLO and ANs, the offense will be committed only after accused fails to pay the taxes due on 26 April 2010, or the due 20 G.R. No. 127777, 01 October 1999. 21 Citations om itted, emphasis suppl ied and italics in the original text. 22 Registry Return Card marked as Annex " C-3", id., p. 36. 23 Annex " C", Division Docket, pp. 31-32 . 24 ld., p. 33. 25 Annexes "C- 1" to " C-2"., id., pp. 34-35.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0 -807 People of the Philipp ines v. Ronie Romano Eustaqu io Page 7 of8 X------- -- - --- --------- -- - - ----- -- - - -- -- - - X date for the payment. Hence, the prescriptive 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. As such , the plaintiff's right to file the subject criminal action has already prescribed. Even if We are to apply Tupaz 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 have prescribed. To elaborate, accused received the FLO on 07 April 2010, thus counting 30 days from receipt thereof, he had until 07 May 2010 to file his protest or question the assessment. As accused failed to file the protest, the FLO became final and unappealable on 08 May 2010. Counting five (5) years therefrom , plaintiff had until 08 May 2015 to file the subject Information. However, as already noted above, the said Information was filed with this Court only on 28 January 2020, thus the criminal offense has clearly prescribed. In sum, the right of the government to institute the case against accused RONIE ROMAN EUSTAQUIO had already clearly prescribed when the Information was filed , perforce justifying the dismissal of the present case. It is settled that the waiver or loss of the right to prosecute the offender is automatic and by operation of law.26 Evidently, in this case , prescription has automatically set in when the plaintiff failed to file the present Information within the five (5)-year prescriptive period provided under Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, CTA Criminal Case No. 0-807 is hereby RETRIEVED from the archives and accordingly DISMISSED on the ground of prescription. The Alias Warrant of Arrest issued against the accused 1s RECALLED and SET ASIDE . 26 Rafael Yapdiangco v. The Han. Concepcion B. Buencamino, eta/. , G.R. No. L-28841 , 24 June 1983 .

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-807 People of the Philippines v. Ronie Romano Eustaquio Page 8 of8 x---------------------------------------- -x SO ORDERED. Associate Justice ""' \ JEAN MARW.~LLENA ~ciate Justice flrtuJAAli;n'J LArJ~rls.' cui-DAVID Associate Justice