G.R. No. 258563 , April 2, 2025
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. ULYSSES PALCONIT CONSEBIDO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the CTA En Banc’s affirmance of the dismissal of an Information against respondent Ulysses Palconit Consebido for Willful Failure to File a Quarterly VAT Return for the 3rd quarter of 2008, in violation of the 1997 NIRC. The CTA Second Division dismissed the case on the ground of prescription, finding it was filed beyond the five-year prescriptive period under Section 281 of the NIRC. The CTA En Banc affirmed, noting the complaint was filed with the DOJ on January 30, 2014, which was beyond five years from October 25, 2008, the date the return was due.
The ponencia ultimately denied the petition, agreeing the case had prescribed. It clarified, however, two key legal principles: first, the interpretation of Section 281 on when prescription begins to run for violations unknown at commission; and second, the rule on what act tolls the prescriptive period for offenses falling under summary or expedited procedures.

ISSUE

The core issues resolved were: (1) When does the prescriptive period for violations of the 1997 NIRC begin to run if the date of commission is not known? (2) What act tolls the prescriptive period for offenses covered by the Rules on Summary or Expedited Procedures?

RULING

The Court, through the ponencia and concurring opinions, denied the petition. On the first issue, it harmonized Section 281’s paragraphs, ruling that for violations where the commission is not known, the five-year prescriptive period begins to run from discovery. Crucially, it clarified that the institution of proceedings, specifically the commencement of a preliminary investigation, interrupts this period. This reinterpretation corrected the literal reading in Lim, Sr. v. CA which suggested prescription runs from discovery until an Information is filed, without tolling. The Court found this literal interpretation led to absurdity, as the same act (institution) would both start and interrupt the period.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that for offenses under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure or the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures, the filing of a complaint with the prosecution office (e.g., the DOJ) for preliminary investigation or summary investigation tolls the running of the prescriptive period. This aligns with the principle that prescription is tolled once a prosecution for the offense is commenced.
Applying these to the case, the Discovery Rule did not save the prosecution. The BIR had reasonable means to discover the failure to file by October 25, 2008, through mandatory reporting by the payor and the electronic filing system. Thus, prescription ran from that date. The complaint filed on January 30, 2014, was beyond the five-year period, making the dismissal correct. The new interpretations on tolling apply prospectively.