When Does Corporate Fraud Prosecution Prescribe?

Introduction

Corporate fraud may expose a company’s directors, officers, employees, agents, and other responsible persons to criminal prosecution. The time limit, however, is not uniform. It depends on the specific offense, the statute creating the offense, the applicable penalty, and the date when the violation was committed or discovered.

For that reason, a business cannot determine prescription merely by counting from the date when it first learned of the fraud. Some offenses prescribe from commission, others from discovery, and the filing of a complaint or the institution of proceedings may interrupt the running of the period.

This guide explains the principal Philippine rules on the prescription of criminal offenses that may arise from corporate fraud, including violations of the National Internal Revenue Code, special penal laws, and the Revised Penal Code.

What Is Prescription of a Crime?

Prescription of a crime is the loss of the State’s right to prosecute because the legally prescribed period has expired without a valid interruption. Once a criminal action has prescribed, the accused may invoke prescription as a ground for dismissal, subject to the rules applicable to the offense.

Prescription is distinct from laches. Prescription is fixed by law, while laches concerns unreasonable delay that may make enforcement inequitable. The applicable period must first be identified from the law defining and penalizing the offense.

How Many Years Are Allowed?

There is no single limitation period for all corporate fraud cases. The following periods are among the most relevant:

Possible offense or source of liability	Prescriptive period	Starting point
Violations of the National Internal Revenue Code	Five years	Generally, from commission; if unknown at the time, from discovery and institution of judicial proceedings
Offenses under the Labor Code	Three years	Under the specific labor-law rules
Unfair labor practice	One year from accrual	From accrual of the unfair labor practice
Crimes under the Revised Penal Code	Depends on the penalty; estafa may prescribe in 10, 15, or 20 years depending on the penalty imposed by law	Generally, from discovery by the offended party, authorities, or their agents
Offenses under a special law	Depends on the special law or the applicable general rule	Usually from commission or discovery, subject to the statute’s text

Prescription Under the National Internal Revenue Code

Section 281 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 provides that violations of any provision of the Code prescribe after five years. The period generally begins on the day the violation was committed.

If the violation was not known when committed, prescription begins from its discovery and the institution of judicial proceedings for investigation and punishment. The running of prescription is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty persons. It begins to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons that do not constitute double jeopardy.

The period does not run while the offender is absent from the Philippines. These rules are stated in Section 281 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 [National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (2026)](#L1.559).

When Does Discovery Apply to Tax Fraud?

Discovery does not automatically replace the date of commission. The Supreme Court has explained that when the records or information showing the violation were readily available, or could have been discovered through reasonable means, prescription may be counted from the date of commission rather than from a later audit or investigation.

In People of the Philippines v. Consebido, G.R. No. 258563, 2025, the Court applied Section 281 of the NIRC and emphasized that the date of discovery is relevant when the offense was genuinely unknown at the time of commission. However, readily available records may defeat an assertion that the violation was discovered only years later [People of the Philippines v. Consebido (2025)](#J4.5).

For corporate tax fraud, counsel should therefore examine when the relevant books, returns, invoices, ledgers, bank records, and corporate approvals became available to the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the complainant. A later audit finding does not necessarily establish the legal date of discovery.

Prescription Under the Revised Penal Code

For crimes under the Revised Penal Code, Article 90 classifies prescription according to the penalty prescribed by law. Crimes punishable by reclusion temporal prescribe in 20 years; crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties prescribe in 15 years; and crimes punishable by correctional penalties generally prescribe in 10 years, except those punishable by arresto mayor, which prescribe in five years.

Libel and similar offenses prescribe in one year, oral defamation and slander by deed in six months, and light offenses in two months. Where the penalty is compound, the highest penalty controls the period of prescription.

Article 91 provides that the period begins when the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. Filing the complaint or information interrupts prescription, after which the period may run again if the proceedings terminate without conviction or acquittal, or are unjustifiably stopped for a reason not attributable to the accused [Causing v. People (2026)](#J1.2).

Corporate Estafa and Misappropriation

Corporate fraud may constitute estafa when a person receives money, property, or funds for a specified purpose and later misappropriates or converts them. The existence of a corporation, partnership, or other business relationship does not automatically make the dispute purely civil.

In Orbe v. Miaral, G.R. No. 217777, 2017, the Court recognized that a partner may incur criminal liability for estafa when the elements of misappropriation are present. The Court also treated the filing of a criminal complaint before the prosecutor as interrupting prescription [Orbe v. Miaral (2017)](#J3.13).

The actual period for estafa must still be determined from the value involved and the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the statement that “estafa prescribes in 15 years” is not universally correct. The penalty applicable to the particular amount must be verified.

Filing a Complaint Before the Prosecutor

A criminal complaint filed with the appropriate prosecutorial office for preliminary investigation may interrupt prescription. The filing need not always await the filing of an information in court.

In People of the Philippines v. Lee, Jr., G.R. No. 234618, 2019, the Court held that for offenses under special laws, prescription may be interrupted by filing a complaint for preliminary investigation with the proper prosecutorial office, rather than only by filing an information in court [People of the Philippines v. Lee, Jr. (2019)](#J2.5).

This rule is important for corporate complainants because preliminary investigation may consume substantial time. A timely and sufficient complaint should be filed with the proper office before the limitation period expires.

Prescription of Special-Law Offenses

Special laws may provide their own periods and rules. If the special law is silent, the applicable statute governing violations of special laws and municipal ordinances, together with controlling jurisprudence, must be examined.

Supreme Court decisions have rejected a rigid distinction under which prescription in special-law cases is interrupted only by court proceedings. In appropriate cases, the commencement of preliminary investigation interrupts prescription.

For example, Republic of the Philippines v. Desierto, et al., G.R. No. 136506, 2023, explains that prescription is interrupted when preliminary investigation against the accused is commenced. The decision also recognizes that discovery-based rules may apply where the unlawful conduct was concealed or could not reasonably have been known at the time of commission [Republic of the Philippines v. Desierto, et al. (2023)](#J5.64).

Corporate Fraud Under the Anti-Graft Law

When corporate fraud involves a public officer, government funds, or a transaction covered by the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 3019 may apply. The ordinary period for violations under that law is generally ten years, subject to the statutory rules and the facts concerning commission and discovery.

The discovery rule may apply when the violation was concealed or could not reasonably have been detected at the time. In Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 109376, 2000, the Court held that prescription may begin from discovery when the unlawful nature of the transaction was not known and could not reasonably have been known when the transaction occurred [Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, et al. (2000)](#J6.7).

Nevertheless, the prosecution must establish a legally supportable discovery date. A complainant cannot indefinitely postpone prescription by simply asserting that the fraud was discovered during a later review.

When Does a Corporate Civil Claim Differ?

A corporate victim should distinguish criminal prosecution from a civil action for damages, restitution, accounting, or recovery of property. The criminal prescriptive period does not necessarily govern the civil claim.

In United Coconut Planters Bank v. Secretary of Justice, et al., G.R. No. 209601, 2021, the Court held that a violation of Section 31 of the former Corporation Code, which imposed liability for damages on directors, trustees, or officers acting in bad faith or with gross negligence, was civil rather than criminal in character. The applicable action prescribed in four years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code [United Coconut Planters Bank v. Secretary of Justice, et al. (2021)](#J7.15).

Accordingly, a corporation may lose its civil action even if a separate criminal complaint remains possible, or may preserve a civil remedy while the criminal offense has already prescribed. Each cause of action must be analyzed independently.

Administrative Claims and Regulatory Enforcement

Some corporate fraud-related conduct may also result in administrative or regulatory proceedings. These proceedings may have different limitation periods from criminal cases.

For example, the rules identified in SEC MC No. 05, series of 2023, provide that actions or claims under the applicable consumer-protection framework prescribe after five years from consummation of the financial transaction or from discovery of deceit or nondisclosure, subject to an outside period of ten years from commission of the violation [SEC MC No. 05, series of 2023 (2023)](#I1.48).

Administrative liability may also be governed by laches rather than a fixed criminal prescriptive period, depending on the statute and the nature of the proceeding. A regulatory complaint should therefore be classified before calculating the deadline.

Common Situations Affecting the Deadline

Fraud discovered during an internal audit

An internal audit may establish when the company actually learned of the fraud, but that date is not always the legal starting point. If the records were previously available and the fraud could have been detected through reasonable diligence, the opposing party may argue that prescription began earlier.

Fraud concealed by falsified records

Where the accused concealed the unlawful conduct through falsified books, hidden transactions, or coordinated acts, discovery may become the proper starting point. The complainant should preserve evidence showing why the fraud could not reasonably have been detected earlier.

Complaint filed with the wrong office

A filing may not interrupt prescription if it is not a proper institution of proceedings against the responsible persons or is legally insufficient. The complaint should identify the accused, describe the acts constituting the offense, and attach or refer to supporting evidence.

Proceedings later dismissed

Interruption is not always permanent. If proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double jeopardy, prescription may begin running again under the applicable law. Counsel must calculate the elapsed periods before filing and after termination of the earlier proceeding.

How Should a Business Calculate Prescription?

A company investigating suspected fraud should prepare a dated chronology containing the following information:

• the date of each allegedly fraudulent act;
• the date when the act was discovered or reasonably discoverable;
• the date when the responsible persons were identified;
• the date when a complaint, preliminary investigation, or other proceeding was instituted; and
• any period when the accused was absent from the Philippines or when proceedings were pending or terminated.

The company should then identify the exact offense. “Corporate fraud” is not, by itself, a single crime. The conduct may involve estafa, falsification, tax offenses, bribery, violations of a special statute, or only a civil breach of duty.

Important Limits on General Advice

The limitation period cannot be fixed from the date of the company’s discovery alone. The controlling factors include the law violated, the penalty prescribed, whether the offense was known or concealed, whether the complaint was properly filed, and whether the proceedings interrupted prescription.

A corporation should also avoid assuming that a demand letter, internal investigation, board resolution, or administrative complaint automatically interrupts criminal prescription. The legal effect of each act depends on the governing statute and jurisprudence.

Recommendations for Corporate Complainants

Upon discovering suspected fraud, the company should immediately preserve electronic records, accounting entries, audit reports, corporate minutes, communications, bank documents, and access logs. It should also document the date and circumstances of discovery.

Before filing, counsel should identify every potentially applicable offense and compute each prescriptive period separately. The complaint should be filed with the proper prosecutor or investigating agency as soon as the evidence reasonably permits, rather than waiting for the completion of every internal audit.

Finally, the company should consider criminal, civil, administrative, and employment remedies separately. Filing a criminal complaint does not necessarily preserve all civil or regulatory claims.

Conclusion

The State’s right to prosecute corporate fraud does not expire according to one universal period. Depending on the offense, prescription may be five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or another number of years; and the period may run from commission, discovery, or accrual of the relevant cause of action.

The safest approach is to determine the precise offense, establish the legally relevant starting date, and file a proper complaint before the earliest arguable deadline. Because an incorrect classification can result in dismissal, prescription should be evaluated from the facts and the exact statutory provision involved.

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

 Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines.  You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.