People v. Consebido
ABANDONMENTFacts
The Antecedents: The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc, which affirmed the dismissal of an Information for Willful Failure to File a Quarterly Value-Added Tax (VAT) Return against Ulysses Palconit Consebido (Consebido). The dismissal was based on prescription. Procedural History: A Joint Complaint-Affidavit was filed by BIR Officers on January 30, 2014, charging Consebido with Willful Failure to File a Quarterly VAT Return. An Information was filed before the CTA on March 18, 2019. The CTA Second Division dismissed the case on April 2, 2019, on the ground of prescription, holding that the five-year prescriptive period under Section 281 of the 1997 NIRC lapsed on January 30, 2019. The CTA En Banc affirmed this dismissal. The Petition: The People of the Philippines argued that the prescriptive period should run from the discovery of the violation and the institution of judicial proceedings, and that the filing of the complaint with the DOJ interrupted the prescriptive period. They also contended that Section 2 of Act 3326 governs prescription for violations of the 1997 NIRC.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc erred in affirming the dismissal of the Information on the ground of prescription, considering the prescriptive period for violations of the NIRC and the applicability of the Discovery Rule. Whether the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc erred in affirming the dismissal of the Information on the ground of prescription, specifically regarding the tolling of the prescriptive period by preliminary investigation.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Decision dated January 6, 2021, and the Resolution dated January 5, 2022, of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc in CTA EB CRIM No. 069 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription for violations of the NIRC and the applicability of the Discovery Rule: The Court clarified the prescriptive period under Section 281 of the 1997 NIRC, particularly for violations unknown at the time of commission, holding that prescription begins to run from the discovery of the violation. It re-examined its ruling in Lim, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, adopting the interpretation in People v. Duque that the commencement of preliminary investigation interrupts the prescriptive period. The Court found the Discovery Rule inapplicable because the BIR had reasonable means to ascertain Consebido's failure to file his quarterly VAT return for the 3rd quarter of 2008. Therefore, the prescriptive period should have been reckoned from the date of commission (October 25, 2008), not the date of discovery (January 30, 2014). On the tolling of the prescriptive period by preliminary investigation: The Court clarified that the filing of a criminal complaint before the DOJ tolls the running of the prescriptive period for offenses under the 1997 NIRC, regardless of whether the commission was immediately known or unknown, including offenses covered by the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts. The Court explicitly abandoned the rulings in Republic v. Desierto and Corpus, Jr. v. People of the Philippines insofar as they held that prescription is only interrupted by the filing of the Information for crimes covered by the said Rules. The Court emphasized that the State, as the injured party, should not be prejudiced by delays in the conduct of preliminary investigations.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a criminal complaint before the prosecution office, even if it involves offenses that may be covered by the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts, shall toll the running of the prescriptive period. The ruling in Republic v. Desierto and Corpus, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, insofar as the tolling of the prescriptive period for crimes covered by the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts is concerned, is deemed abandoned.