People v. Bartolome

FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CRIM. CASE NO. O-985. January 12, 2024.] For: Violation of Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff , vs. FAIVO PASCUAL BARTOLOME , accused . RESOLUTION For resolution is the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated August 9, 2023) filed through registered mail on August 30, 2023, without the accused's comment, as per Records Verification dated October 16, 2023. HTcADC Plaintiff prays that the Court reverse and set aside its Resolution dated August 9, 2023 (assailed Resolution), which disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE , premises considered, CTA Crim. Case No. O-985 is DISMISSED on the ground of prescription. SO ORDERED. Plaintiff insists that the criminal action was instituted within the five (5)-year prescriptive period, considering that prescription commenced on February 4, 2016, when the assessment against the accused became final and executory and when the complaint for preliminary investigation was filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on October 23, 2020. Plaintiff disagrees with the Court's ruling that "prescription continues to run until the filing of the Information in Court" and cites Tupaz v. Ulep 1 and Section 1, Rule 110 on Prosecution of Offenses of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. In dismissing this criminal case, i.e. , for the willful failure of the accused to pay deficiency value-added tax (VAT) for taxable year 2012, on the ground of prescription, the Court is guided by Lim, Sr., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. 2 (Lim) , which similarly involves a taxpayer's refusal to pay deficiency taxes. The material dates, as laid down in Lim , are as follows: Date Incident July 3, 1968 The final notice and demand for payment was served on petitioners through their daughter-in-law. September 1, 1969 Since no payment was forthcoming from the delinquent taxpayers, the BIR referred the matter to the Manila Fiscal's Office for investigation and prosecution. June 23, 1970 Four (4) separate criminal informations were filed against petitioners in the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI, for violation of Sections 45 and 51 in relation to Section 73 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Further, Lim explained that the prescription for the offense of willful failure to pay taxes commenced only after receipt was coupled with the willful refusal to pay the taxes due within the allotted period and that the filing of information with the Court is material in determining whether the 5-year prescriptive period is met as the same tolls the prescriptive period, viz. : CAIHTE 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 allotted 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 . xxx xxx xxx . . . As Section 354 stands in the statute book (and to this day it has remained unchanged) it would indeed seem that tax cases, such as the present ones, are practically imprescriptible for as long as the period from the discovery and institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment, up to the filing of the information in court does not exceed five (5) years . [Emphasis supplied] This ruling is consistent with Section 2, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), 3 which provides that the institution of the criminal action ( i.e. , filing of Information) interrupts the prescriptive period: 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 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. [Emphasis supplied] Following Lim and the RRCTA, the period of prescription for a criminal tax case begins to run from the commission of the violation of the law and, if the same is not known at the time, from the discovery and institution of proceedings for its investigation and shall only be tolled by the filing of information with the Court. aScITE Thus, for the accused's failure to file a valid protest and/or pay within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) on January 5, 2016, the violation was committed on February 5, 2016. Thus, the right of the government to institute the case against the accused had already prescribed when the Information was filed with this Court on December 6, 2022, or six (6) years and ten (10) months late. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated August 9, 2023) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Lanee S. Cui-David, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. G.R. No. 127777, October 1, 1999. 2. G.R. Nos. L-48134-37, October 18, 1990. 3. A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, November 22, 2005.