People v. Dilodilo

FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CRIM. CASE NO. O-1035. January 12, 2024.] For: Violation of Sec. 255 in rel. to Sec. 253 (d) of the NIRC PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff , vs. MELAND G. DILODILO, Global Die Cast & Forging, Inc. No. 6001-R Tatalon St., Ugong Valenzuela City , accused . RESOLUTION For the Court's Resolution is plaintiff's Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion to Admit/with Leave of Court) and Entry of Appearance filed on October 24, 2023, with accused's Opposition (to Plaintiff's Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit/with Leave of Court and Entry of Appearance) filed on November 3, 2023. HTcADC Plaintiff moves that the Court's Resolution dated August 11, 2023, which dismisses the instant case on the ground of prescription, be reversed and set aside. We deny. First, the instant Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration is filed out of time. Records reveal that the dismissal has already attained finality with the issuance of the Entry of Judgment on October 19, 2023, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals ("RRCTA") 1 in relation to Section 8, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 2 Records further reveal that plaintiff received the Resolution dated August 11, 2023, on August 18, 2023 . Plaintiff filed its Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration only 66 days after or on October 23, 2023 , long after the dismissal had attained finality. Second, plaintiff cites Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice , 3 People v. Pangilinan , 4 and People v. Bautista . 5 A perusal of plaintiff's citations discloses that, while they discuss the prescription of crimes, these cases do not specifically discuss the prescription of crimes under the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which is governed by a different provision of law. The applicable and controlling case is Emilio E. Lim, Sr. and Antonia Sun Lim vs. Court of Appeals ("Lim") , 6 which discussed the prescription of crimes specifically in relation to Section 354 of the 1939 Tax Code, which was reproduced in Section 281 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. CAIHTE To reiterate, the Supreme Court enunciated in Lim that tax criminal cases are imprescriptible. However, violations shall nevertheless prescribe if more than five (5) years have lapsed from the time of the commission of the offense if known, and as applicable in this case, i.e. , the date of finality of the Final Assessment Notice (FAN)/Formal Letter of Demand (FLD), up to the date of filing of the Information before the Court. Accordingly, plaintiff had five (5) years counted from June 4, 2014, or until June 4, 2019, to file the Information before the Court. The Information , dated March 17, 2021, was filed only on April 13, 2023. 7 We maintain our Resolution that the filing of the Information is already time-barred. WHEREFORE , plaintiff's Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion to Admit/with Leave of Court) is DENIED . Plaintiff's counsel Entry of Appearance is NOTED . SO ORDERED. Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Lanee S. Cui-David, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. SECTION 6. Entry of Judgment and Final Resolution. If no appeal or motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed within the time provided in these Rules, the Clerk of Court shall forthwith enter the judgment or final resolution in the book of judgment. The date when the judgment or final resolution becomes executory shall be deemed the date of its entry. The entry shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final resolution and shall be signed by the Clerk of Court, with a certification that such judgment or resolution has become final and executory. 2. SECTION 8. Entry of Judgment. After a judgment has become final, it shall be entered in accordance with Rule 36. 3. G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008, 592 PHIL. 286-298. 4. G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012, 687 PHIL. 95-106. 5. G.R. No. 168641, April 27, 2007, 550 PHIL. 835-841. 6. G.R. Nos. L-48134-37, October 18, 1990, 268 PHIL. 680-692. 7. Docket, pp. 5-6.