The Supreme Court of the Philippines has recently issued significant decisions clarifying that the prescriptive period for prosecuting crimes is interrupted upon the filing of a criminal complaint with the office of the public prosecutor, such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), for preliminary investigation, rather than only when the case is filed in court. This marks a shift from previous rulings and aligns with the intent to ensure that the State is not prejudiced by procedural delays beyond the complainant’s control. Below is a discussion and summary of the latest relevant decisions based on available information up to April 10, 2025, including case citations or docket references where specified.
Key Decision: People v. Consebido (G.R. No. 258563, April 2, 2025)
- **Background**: This case involved a criminal complaint against a taxpayer for failing to file a Quarterly Value-Added Tax Return, violating the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). The prescriptive period for the offense was five years. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and initially the Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling it had prescribed because the Complaint-Affidavit was filed with the DOJ beyond the five-year period.
- **Ruling**: On April 2, 2025, the Supreme Court En Banc, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, reversed its earlier stance. It abandoned the 2023 rulings in *Republic v. Desierto* and *Corpus, Jr. v. People*, which held that the prescriptive period for crimes under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure stops only when the information is filed in court. Instead, the Court clarified that the prescriptive period is tolled upon the filing of a complaint with the DOJ for preliminary investigation. This applies even to cases under the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts.
- **Rationale**: The Court emphasized fairness to the State and victims, noting that delays in preliminary investigations by the DOJ should not disadvantage the offended party, who can only initiate prosecution by filing a complaint. For tax offenses under Section 281 of the NIRC, the prescriptive period begins when the violation is discovered, and filing with the DOJ interrupts it. The ruling applies prospectively to ensure legal consistency.
- **Significance**: This decision broadens the interruption point of prescription, ensuring that the mere act of filing a complaint with the prosecutor halts the running of the period, regardless of subsequent delays in reaching the court.
Context from Prior Jurisprudence Affirmed
While *People v. Consebido* is the most recent and definitive ruling on this matter as of April 10, 2025, it builds on and reaffirms earlier jurisprudence that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld in other contexts:
- **People v. Pangilinan (687 Phil. 95, 2012)**: This case established that the prescriptive period for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (four years under Act No. 3326) is interrupted by filing a complaint with the prosecutor’s office. The Court rejected distinctions between crimes under the Revised Penal Code and special laws regarding prescription interruption.
- **Panaguiton v. Department of Justice (G.R. No. 167571, 2008)**: The Court ruled that filing a complaint for preliminary investigation tolls the prescriptive period for special laws, citing historical judicial practices and prior decisions.
Summary of Implications
- **Shift in Doctrine**: The *Consebido* ruling explicitly overturns the narrower interpretation from 2023 cases, aligning with the broader principle from *Pangilinan* and *Panaguiton*. It ensures that the prescriptive period stops at the earliest point of State action—filing with the DOJ—rather than requiring court filing.
- **Scope**: The decision covers all crimes requiring preliminary investigation, including those under summary or expedited procedures, and tax-related offenses under the NIRC. It clarifies that the interruption occurs upon filing with the public prosecutor, not merely upon judicial docketing.
- **Prospective Application**: To maintain legal stability, the ruling applies only to future cases, leaving prior dismissals based on the old doctrine intact.
- **Case Citation**: *People v. Consebido*, G.R. No. 258563, decided on April 2, 2025, is the primary docket reference for this shift.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s latest decision in *People v. Consebido* (G.R. No. 258563) solidifies the rule that filing a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor for preliminary investigation interrupts the prescriptive period for crimes. This ruling, effective as of April 2, 2025, reflects a pragmatic approach to criminal justice, ensuring that procedural delays do not unduly extinguish the State’s right to prosecute. It builds on established precedents like *Pangilinan* and *Panaguiton*, providing a unified standard across various types of offenses. The full text of the decision is expected to be available on the Supreme Court’s website, offering further details on its application.
Grok Beta AI app
April 11, 2025
