Practice question
A tax offense was complete more than five years before the BIR filed its complaint. The violation was reasonably ascertainable from records available to the BIR when committed. The prosecution invokes discovery on the later complaint date and tolling by that complaint. Applying the reasoning in Consebido, which is most accurate?
- A complaint necessarily revives an expired period
- The discovery rule always starts prescription only when BIR elects to complain
- Available records are irrelevant to discovery
- The discovery rule need not apply when reasonable means of ascertainment existed; a complaint after expiration cannot save the prescribed offense
- Every tax offense is imprescriptible
Legal references
- People v. Consebido, G.R. No. 258563, April 2, 2025, Decision of the Court; Rule 110, Section 1.
- Reviewed primary authority, Main decision, prescription and prospective tolling ruling: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/apr2025/gr_258563_2025.html
- Reviewed primary authority, Rule 110, Section 1: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.