Practice question
A prosecution relies on Consebido's new 2025 tolling clarification to revive an offense whose prescriptive period had already fully expired under the governing prior rule before that decision. It argues that the decision expressly required retroactive application of the new rule against the accused. Is that characterization correct?
- Yes; the decision expressly ordered universal retroactivity.
- Yes; no criminal offense can ever prescribe.
- Yes; a new interpretation automatically revives every extinguished offense.
- No; Consebido expressly made the new tolling clarification prospective, preserving the favorable-interpretation principle.
- No; because prosecution-office filing never tolls even under the new rule.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html — Revised Penal Code Articles90–91, prescription of crimes and computation.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/apr2025/gr_258563_2025.html — People v. Consebido, G.R.258563, April2 2025, MAIN en banc decision, prospective tolling clarification for summary-procedure offenses.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.