PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMILU`S SUPERMARKET SYSTEMS, INC. Tejeros Convention, General Trias Drive, Rosario, Cavite and REGIDOR R. MATA 1013 Samala St., Binakayan, Kawit, Cavite

CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) 111111111111 1111 111111 11111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 22-000599-0057 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CRIM. CASE NO. 0-976 & 0-977 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION EMILU'S SUPERMARKET SYSTEMS, INC. and REGIDORR. MATA, Accused. To: PROSECUTOR GENERAL RICHARD ANTHONY D. FADULLON SR. ASST. STATE PROS. ZENAMAR J. L. MACHACON-CAPARROS Department ofJustice Padre Faura Street Ennita, Manila 1000 ATTY. CATHERINE P. CANTOS ATTY. DIANA MICHELLE B. CASINILLO ATTY. MARK ANTHONY R. ROJO Bureau of Internal Revenue Revenue Region 9A-CaBaMiro Legal Division, 3rd Floor, Liana's Junction Plaza Brgy. Poblacion IV, City of Sto. Tomas, Batangas REGIDORR. MATA 1013 Sama1a Marquez St. Binakayan, Kawit, Cavite MENDOZA NAVARRO-MENDOZA & PARTNERS LAW OFFICES Units 205 and 501 , Amberland Plaza Dona Julia Vargas Ave. & Jade Drive Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on December 4, 2024,a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, December 6, 2024. AttyE. MxeacuritiavJeo~ ~ CFo.uCrthaIIn-Te

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Grim. Case Nos. 0-976 Plaintiff, and 0-977 For: Violation of Section 255, in relation to Sections 253(d) & 256 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended -versus- Members: DEL ROSARIO , P.J. , Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. EMILU'S SUPERMARKET SYSTEMS, INC. and REGIDOR R. MATA, P- r-o-m- u-~ lg- ated~ : -'j�_/[-Jl.-/) ntll - - - -- - -- - - - --- - --- --- DEC : rY�r X Accused . - -- X -- -- - -- -- RESOLUTION For the Court's resolution is plaintiff People of the Phil ippines' (plaintiff's) "Motion for Reconsideration [of the Resolution dated May 29, 2024]"1 (MR) filed via LBC (an accredited courier service provider2) on 20 June 2024 3 , praying for the reversal of the Resolution dated 29 May 20244 (assailed Resolution), which dismissed the instant cases due to prescription and thereby rendered moot and academic accused EMILU'S SUPERMARKET SYSTEMS, INC. and REGIDOR R. MATA's (collectively, accused's/ESSI and Mata's) "Demurrer to Evidence"5 (Demurrer). Division Docket (CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-976 & 0-977), Volume II, pp. 11 56- 1165. 2 Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 22-2024 re: Nationwide Coverage of the Reaccreditation of LBC Express, Inc. fo r a period of one ( I) year, from 17 January 2024 to 16 January 2025. Received by th e Court on 21 June 2024. Division Docket (CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-976 & 0-977), Vo lume II, pp. 1139- 11 55. 5 Id., pp. I045- 1077 .

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-976 and 0-977 People of the Philippines v. Emilu's Supermarket Systems, Inc. and Regidor R. Mata Page 2 of7 x~ ~ ------------------------------------------------------------ x In compliance with the Court's directive, accused filed their "Comment/Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated 20 June 2024)"6 (Comment/Opposition) on 12 July 2024. In the instant MR7, plaintiff argues that the willfulness of the failure to pay tax, a key element of the offense, was only established when respondent continued to refuse payment of the deficiency taxes despite receiving collection notices from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Plaintiff asserts that the manner of the offense's commission, as well as the nature and extent of the refusal to pay, was definitively determined at that point. In other words, the element of "willful failure to pay the taxes" became evident through the accused's blatant refusal to settle the deficiency taxes, despite receiving collection letters such as the Preliminary Collection Letter8 (PCL) dated 13 June 2012, the Final Notice Before Seizure9 (FNBS) dated 11 July 2012 and the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy10 (WDL) dated 06 March 2015. As such, the discovery of the crime should instead be reckoned from the issuance of the WDL on 06 March 2015. Plaintiff further argues that the institution of the criminal action before the Department of Justice (DOJ) for purposes of preliminary investigation effectively tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Citing People of the Philippines v. Mateo A. Lee, Jr. 11 (Lee, Jr.), plaintiff insists that the five (5)-year prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation against accused; as such, the filing of the Joint Complaint Affidavit12 (JCA) before the DOJ tolled the running of the said prescriptive period under Section 281 13 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. Accused, on the other hand, contends that the instant MR violates their constitutionally protected right against double jeopardy, particularly as there is no allegation of any applicable exceptional circumstances. Accused theorizes that the dismissal of the instant cases was based on insufficient evidence and the denial of their right to a speedy trial. As a result, they are deemed acquitted, and such an !d., pp. 1172-1184, with Annex "A". Supra at note I. Exhibit "P-15", Division Docket (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-976), Volume I, p. 208. Exhibit "P-17", id., p. 210. 10 Exhibit "P-19", id., p. 212. " G.R. No. 234618, 16 September 2019. 12 Exhibit "P-27", Division Docket (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-976), Volume I, pp. 232-277, with annexes. 13 SEC. 281. Prescription for Violations ofany Provision ofthis Code.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-976 and 0-977 People of the Philippines v. Emilu's Supermarket Systems, Inc. and Regidor R. Mata Page 3 of? x---- ---------------------------------------------------------- x acquittal cannot be reviewed without placing them in double jeopardy, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion by this Court in dismissing these cases. As regards plaintiff's argument that the offense was only discovered when it became clear that accused blatantly ignored the demand for payment, accused asserts that this is a new theory introduced only in the instant MR14 and may not be considered for the first time at this stage of the proceedings. Lastly, accused echoes this Court's ruling that the cases filed against them should be dismissed on the ground of prescription, as the subject lnformations15 were filed only on 05 December 2022, which is more than ten (10) years after the commission of the offense or the finality of the assessment on 20 February 2012 (i.e., the day after the deadline for filing a protest against the Formal Letter of Demand16 and Assessment Notices17 [FLO/FANs]) and clearly beyond the five (5)- year prescriptive period for violations of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. We resolve. After careful consideration of the parties' arguments, this Court finds no merit in plaintiff's MR. At the outset, most of plaintiff's arguments have already been considered and addressed in the assailed Resolution. 18 Nevertheless, for emphasis, the Court will revisit the crux of plaintiff's contention, which essentially questions the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Emilio E. Lim, Sr. and Antonia Sun Lim v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines19 (Lim, Sr.) in light of the more recent decision in Lee, Jr. 14 Supra at note I. 15 Division Docket (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-976), Volume I, pp. 5-7; Division Docket (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-977), pp. 5-7. Exhibits "P-13" to "P-13-1", Division Docket (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-976), Volume I, pp. 203-206, with Details of Discrepancies. 17 Exhibits "P-12" to "P-12-2"; id., pp. 278-280. 18 Supra at note 4. 19 G.R. Nos. L-48134-37, 18 October 1990.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-976 and 0-977 People of the Philippines v. Emilu's Supermarket Systems, Inc. and Regidor R. Mata x------------------------------------------------------------- -x According to plaintiff, the above recent interpretation of Act No. 332620 provides that filing a complaint with the prosecutor interrupts the running of the prescriptive period. Since the provisions in Section 221 of Act No. 3326 are the same as those in Section 281 22 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the interpretation in the more recent case of Lee, Jr. should be applied here instead of Lim, Sr. We disagree. It is important to emphasize that Lim, Sr. specifically addresses the prosecution for violations of a tax law (i.e., the NIRC of 1997, as amended), while Lee, Jr., cited by plaintiff, involves the prosecution of violations under special penal laws unrelated to tax. As held in the assailed Resolution23 , the ruling in Lim, Sr. that the filing of an Information in Court interrupts the running of prescriptive period is consistent with Section 2, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals24 (RRCTA), which reads as follows: SEC. 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 of an information in the name of the People 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 20 AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN. " SEC. 2. 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 proceeding for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. SEC. 281. Prescription for Violations of any Provision qf 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 ofjudicial 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. Supra at note 4. A.M. No. 05-I 1-07-CTA dated 22 November 2005.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-976 and 0-977 People of the Philippines v. Emilu's Supermarket Systems, Inc. and Regidor R. Mata Page 5 of7 X--------------------------------------------------------------X enforced by the Bureau of Customs, the Commissioner of Customs must approve their filing. The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription.25 The RRCTA clearly states that the institution of a criminal action interrupts the running of the prescription period, which occurs upon the filing of the Information with this Court (not by filing the complaint with the DOJ). Thus, in view of Lim, Sr. and the RRCTA, this Court reiterates that the prescriptive period for a tax case begins to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, or if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and institution of proceedings for its investigation and shall only be tolled by the filing of an Information with this Court. To reiterate, herein plaintiff had five (5) years from 20 February 2012 (i.e., the day after the deadline for filing a protest against the FLD/FANs26), or until 19 February 2017, within which to file the separate Informations in court. Since the subject lnformations27 were filed only on 05 December 2022, ten (10) years, nine (9) months and twenty-one (21) days have elapsed since the commission of the violation on 20 February 2012 and the criminal action had already prescribed for five (5) years, nine (9) months and twenty (20) days reckoned from 19 February 2017 (i.e., the last day of the five [5]-year prescriptive period). Evidently, plaintiff's right to file these criminal actions has already prescribed. Thus, unless and until the Supreme Court modifies or reverses Lim, Sr., this Court shall be bound by the said ruling in cases involving prosecutions for violation of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. On the issue of double jeopardy, this Court finds that the filing of the instant MR does not constitute a violation of accused's right against double jeopardy. It should be noted that the filing of an MR is a plain and adequate remedy expressly available under the law and is not Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text. 26 Exhibits "P-13" to "P-13-1'' and "P-12" to "P-12-2", supra at notes 16 and 17, respectively. 27 Supra at note 15.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-976 and 0-977 People of the Philippines v. Emilu's Supermarket Systems, Inc. and Regidor R. Mata Page 6 of? x--------------- ---------------------------------------------- -x equivalent to an appeal. 28 Such procedural remedy allows the court an opportunity to correct its own errors or address any possible oversight, including the miscalculation of the prescriptive period. 29 The Supreme Court has held that an MR merely asks the same court to reconsider its ruling without transferring the case to a higher court or re-opening the case for a new trial. 30 This means that an MR does not subject the accused to a second prosecution that would constitute double jeopardy; rather, it serves as a procedural remedy allowing the court to address any possible oversight or error in its ruling. 31 Lastly, plaintiff's argument regarding the alleged "willful refusal to pay taxes", based on accused's blatant disregard of BIR's demands for payment, introduces a new theory raised for the first time in the instant MR. Procedural rules, however, prohibit the introduction of new arguments or theories not previously raised at this stage of the proceedings. 32 In any case, even if this Court were to consider plaintiff's argument and begin reckoning the commission of the offense from the service of the WDL on 06 March 2015, the ruling would remain unchanged. The prosecution would still have only five (5) years from that date, or until 06 March 2020, to file the separate Informations with this Court. Since the subject Informations were filed only on 05 December 2022, plaintiff's right to file these criminal actions has already prescribed. Accordingly, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the assailed Resolution. ACCORDINGLY, plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration [of the Resolution dated May 29, 2024]" filed on 20 June 2024 is DENIED for lack of merit. See People ofthe Philippines v. Han. PeJfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 18, RTC, Manila, eta/., G.R. No. 128587, 16 March 2007. !d. 30 See Barrio Fiesta Restaurant, eta/. v. Helen C. Beronia, G.R. No. 206690, II July 2016. 31 See People ofthe Philippines v. Han. PeJfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 18, RTC, Manila, el al., supra at note 28. 32 See Heirs ofSpouses Teofilo M. Reterta and Elisa Reterta, namely: Eduardo M Reterta, Consuela M. Reterta, and Ave/ina M. Relerta v. Spouses Lorenzo Mores and Virginia Lopez, G.R. No. 159941, 17 August 20 I I.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case Nos. 0-976 and 0-977 People of the Philippines v. Emilu's Supermarket Systems, Inc. and Regidor R. Mata Page 7 of7 X--------------------------------------------------------------X SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice JEAN MARl LAN D Associate Justice