You are on page 1of 9

Provisional Dismissal

Sec. 8. Provisional dismissal. > The mere inaction or silence of the ac


A case shall not be provisionally cused to a provisional
dismissed except with the express consent dismissal of the case or his failure to objec
of the accused and with notice to the t to a provisional dismissal doesnt amount to
offended party. The provisional express consent.
dismissal of offenses
punishable imprisonment not exceeding WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR
six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or SECTION 8 OF THE RULES OF COURT TO
both, shall become permanent one (1) APPLY?
year after issuance of the
order without the case having been rev WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES LAID DOWN
ived. With respect to BY PEOPLE V. LACSON?
offenses punishable by imprisonment of
more than six (6) years,
1. The prosecution, with the express confo
their provisional dismissal shall become
rmity of the accused or the latters counsel
permanent two (2) years after issuance
moves for a provisional dismissal of the case;
of the order without the case having been
or both the prosecution or accused move fo
revived.
r a provisional dismissal of the case

WHAT IS THE TIME-


2. The offended party is notified of the m
BAR RULE? WHEN DOES A PROVISION
otion for a provisional dismissal of the case
AL DISMISSAL BECOME FINAL?
3. The court issues an order granting the
> The provisional dismissal of offenses
motion and dismissing the case provisionally
punishable by imprisonment
exceeding 6 years or a fine of any amount
shall become permanent after one year 4. The public prosecutor is served with a
without the case having been revived copy of the order of provisional dismissal of
the case
> For offenses punishable by imprisonmen
t of more than 6 years, WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN THE TIME
the provisional dismissal shall become perma BAR RULE WILL NOT APPLY?
nent after 2 years without the case having
been revived. > Provisional dismissal will not become pe
rmanent, even after one year or two years
> After the provisional dismissal becomes depending on the offenses nature
final, the accused cannot be prosecuted
anymore HOW CAN A CASE BE REVIVED?

WHEN CAN A CASE BE PROVISIONALLY 1. Re-


DISMISSED? filing the information or filing of a new info
rmation for the same offense necessarily
> A case can only be dismissed provisionally included therein without need of a new
if the accused expressly consents, such consent preliminary investigation unless the original
given in writing or viva voce. witnesses of the

> It must be positive, direct, unequivocal prosecution or some of them may have recanted
consent requiring no inference or implication their testimonies
to supply its meaning or may no longer be available and new wit
nesses for the State have emerged
2. A new preliminary investigation is also
required if aside from the original accused, other
persons are charged under a new criminal
complaint for the same offense or necessarily
included therein

3. Under a new criminal complaint, the cri


minal liability of the
accused is upgraded from that of an access
ory to that of a principal

4. Under a new criminal complaint, the charge


has been upgraded
Traffic Management Command, headed by
G.R. No. 149453 May 28, 2002 Senior Superintendent Francisco Subia, Jr.;
Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC),
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., headed by Chief Superintendent Panfilo M.
Lacson; Central Police District Command,
headed by Chief Superintendent Ricardo de
vs.
Leon; and Criminal Investigation Command
(CIC), headed by Chief Superintendent Romeo
PANFILO M. LACSON Acop. Delos Reyes claimed that the police team
arrested the eleven (11) gang members in early
RESOLUTION morning of May 18, 1995 at the gang's safe
house in Superville Subdivision, Paraaque; that
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari after their arrest, the gang members were made
seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision1 of to board two vans, their hands tied behind their
the Court of Appeals dated August 24, 2001 in backs, and brought initially to Camp Crame
CA-G.R. SP No. 65034.2 The said Decision of the where a decision to summarily execute them
appellate court granted respondent Lacson's was made, and later to Commonwealth Avenue
Second Amended Petition for Prohibition with where they were shot to death by elements of
application for the issuance of a Temporary ABRITFG.5
Restraining Order, (1) assailing the Order issued
by Judge Herminia Pasamba of the Regional (4) On May 26, 1995, SPO2 Corazon dela Cruz,
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 40, that another CIC investigator, executed an affidavit
allowed the continuation of the re-investigation corroborating the material allegations of delos
of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99- Reyes. Dela Cruz claimed that she was with
81689 or the Kuratong Baleleng cases; and (2) delos Reyes from the time the eleven (11) KBG
praying for the dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. members were arrested up to the time they
Q-01-101102 to Q-01-101112 entitled "People of were killed in Commonwealth Avenue.6
the Philippines v. Panfilo Lacson, et al." pending
before Branch 81 of the RTC of Quezon City. (5) On May 31, 1995, Armando Capili, a reporter
of Remate, executed an affidavit stating that he
The following appear in the records of this case: was present when the KBG members were
arrested in Superville Subdivision.7
(1) On May 18, 1995, then PNP Director-General
Recaredo Sarmiento II announced, in a press (6) On June 1, 1995, Chief Superintendent Job
conference, the killing of eleven (11) members A. Mayo, PNP Director for Investigation, filed
of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang (KBG) in a murder charges with the Office of the
shootout with police elements near the fly-over Ombudsman against ninety-seven (97) officers
along Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City at and personnel of ABRITFG. The next-of-kin of
about 4:00 A.M. that day.3 the slain KBG members also filed murder
charges against the same officers and
(2) On May 22, 1995, morning papers carried personnel.8
the news that SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes had
claimed that the killing of the eleven (11) gang (7) Ombudsman Aniano Desierto then created a
members was a "rub-out" or summary execution panel of investigators to conduct a preliminary
and not a shootout.4 investigation of the murder charges. The panel
was headed by Deputy Ombudsman for Military
(3) In an affidavit he executed the following Affairs Bienvenido Blancaflor. On October 20,
day, delos Reyes stated, among others, that he 1995, the panel issued a resolution
was part of a composite police team called the recommending the dismissal of the charges for
Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Force lack of probable cause.
Group (ABRITFG) composed of elements of the
National Capital Region Command (NCRC) and (8) Ombudsman Desierto referred the resolution
headed by Chief Superintendent Jewel Canson;
for review by a panel composed of Over-all took effect on February 23, 1997, amending R.
Deputy Ombudsman Francisco Villa as head, and A. No. 7975. In particular, the amendatory law
Special Prosecutor Leonardo Tamayo and deleted the word "principal" in Section 2 of R. A.
Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo Aportadera as No. 7975, thereby expanding the jurisdiction of
members. On November 20, 1995, the review the Sandiganbayan to include all cases where at
panel reversed the Blancaflor resolution and least one of the accused, whether principal,
found probable cause for the prosecution of accomplice or accessory, is a government official
multiple murder charges against twenty-six (26) of Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher. The
officers and personnel of ABRITFG.9 amendment is made applicable to all cases
pending in any court in which trial has not yet
(9) On November 2, 1995, the Ombudsman filed begun as of the date of its approval.13
before the Sandiganbayan eleven (11)
Informations for MURDER, docketed as Criminal (13) In Lacson v. Executive Secretary,14
Cases Nos. 23047 to 23057, against respondent respondent Lacson challenged the
Panfilo M. Lacson and twenty-five (25) other constitutionality of the amendment and
accused. All twenty-six (26) of them were contended that the Sandiganbayan had no
charged as principals.10 The following appear to jurisdiction over the criminal cases. This Court,
be the victims: Meleubren Sorronda in Crim. while dismissing the constitutional challenge,
Case No. 23047; Welbor Elcamel in Crim. Case nonetheless ordered the transfer of the criminal
No. 23048; Carlito Alap-ap in Crim. Case No. cases to the Regional Trial Court on the ground
23049; Jevy Redillas in Crim. Case No. 23050; that the Amended Informations for murder
Ray Abalora in Crim. Case No. 23051; Joel failed to indicate that the offenses charged
Amora in Crim. Case No. 23052; Alex Neri in therein were committed in relation to, or in
Crim. Case No. 23053; Rolando Siplon in Crim. discharge of, the official functions of the
Case No. 23054; Manuel Montero in Crim. Case respondent, as required by R. A. No. 8249.
No. 23055; Sherwin Abalora in Crim. Case No.
23056; and Pacifico Montero in Crim. Case No. (14) Criminal Cases Nos. 23047 to 23057 were
23057. raffled off to Branch 81 of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, then presided by Judge,
(10) Upon motion of the respondent, the now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals,
criminal cases were remanded to the Wenceslao Agnir, Jr., and re-docketed as
Ombudsman for reinvestigation. On March 1, Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689.
1996, Amended Informations were filed against
the same twenty-six (26) suspects but the (15) Before the accused could be arraigned,
participation of respondent Lacson was prosecution witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes,
downgraded from principal to accessory. Corazon de la Cruz, Armando Capili and Jane
Arraignment then followed and respondent Gomez recanted their affidavits which implicated
entered a plea of not guilty.11 respondent Lacson in the murder of the KBG
members.
(11) With the downgrading of charges against
him, respondent Lacson questioned the On the other hand, private complainants Myrna
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to hear the Abalora,15 Leonora Amora,16 Nenita Alap-ap,17
criminal cases as none of the "principal" accused Imelda Montero,18 Margarita Redillas,19
in the Amended Informations was a government Carmelita Elcamel and Rolando Siplon21 also
20

official with a Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher, executed their respective affidavits of desistance
citing Section 2 of R. A. No. 7975 then declaring that they were no longer interested to
prevailing. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan prosecute these cases.22
ordered the cases transferred to the Regional
Trial Court.12 (16) Due to these developments, the twenty-six
(26) accused, including respondent Lacson, filed
(12) The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a five separate but identical motions to (1) make a
motion for reconsideration of the transfer. judicial determination of the existence of
Pending resolution of the motion, R. A. No. 8249
probable cause for the issuance of warrants of is no showing of manifest error, grave abuse of
arrest; (2) hold in abeyance the issuance of the discretion or prejudice on the part of the public
warrants, and (3) dismiss the cases should the prosecutor, courts should not dismiss it for want
trial court find lack of probable cause. of evidence, because evidentiary matters should
be presented and heard during the trial', and
(17) The records of the case before us are not that the ruling in Allado vs. Diokno 'is an
clear whether the private offended parties were exception to the general rule and may be
notified of the hearing on March 22, 199923 held invoked only if similar circumstances are clearly
by Judge Agnir to resolve the motions filed by shown to exist.'
respondent Lacson and the other accused.
This Court holds that the circumstances in the
(18) During the said hearing, the private case at bench clearly make an exception to the
offended parties who desisted do not appear to general rule.
have been presented on the witness stand. In
their stead, Atty. Godwin Valdez testified that he WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court
assisted them in preparing their affidavits of finds no probable cause for the issuance of the
desistance and that he signed said affidavits as warrants of arrest against the accused or to hold
witness. On the other hand, Atty. Aurora them for trial. Accordingly, the Informations in
Bautista of the Philippine Lawyer's League the above-numbered cases are hereby ordered
presented the affidavits of recantation of dismissed."
prosecution witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes,
Armando Capili and Jane Gomez. Only SO ORDERED."26
prosecution witness Corazon de la Cruz testified
to affirm her affidavit.24 (20) On March 27, 2001, PNP Director Leandro
R. Mendoza indorsed to the Department of
(19) On March 29, 1999, Judge Agnir issued a Justice the new affidavits of P/Insp. Ysmael S.
Resolution25 dismissing Criminal Cases Nos. Q- Yu and P/S Insp. Abelardo Ramos regarding the
99-81679 to Q-99-81689, as follows: Kuratong Baleleng incident for preliminary
investigation. On the strength of this
"As already seen, the documents attached to the indorsement, Secretary of Justice Hernando B.
Informations in support thereof have been Perez formed a panel to investigate the matter.
rendered meaningless, if not absurd, with the On April 17, 2001, the respondent was
recantation of the principal prosecution subpoenaed to attend the investigation of
witnesses and the desistance of the private Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-
complainants. There is no more evidence to 81689.27
show that a crime has been committed and that
the accused are probably guilty thereof. (21) On May 28, 2001, respondent Lacson, et
Following the doctrine above-cited, there is no al., invoking, among others, their constitutional
more reason to hold the accused for trial and right against double jeopardy, filed a petition for
further expose them to an open and public prohibition with application for temporary
accusation. It is time to write finis to these cases restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
and lay to rest the ghost of the incident of May injunction with the Regional Trial Court of
18, 1995 so that all those involved--- the Manila, primarily to enjoin the State prosecutors
accused, the prosecution witnesses and the from conducting the preliminary investigation.
private complainants alike--- may get on with The petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 01-
their lives. 100933 and raffled to Branch 40, presided by
Judge Herminia V. Pasamba.28
The Court is not unmindful of the admonition in
the recent case of People vs. Court of Appeals (22) The plea for temporary restraining order
(G.R. No. 126005, January 21, 1999) where the was denied by Judge Pasamba in an Order 29
Supreme Court said that the general rule is that dated June 5, 2001, viz:
'if the Information is valid on its face and there
"After a study, this Court submits that the City Prosecutor Jamolin, and the People of the
dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Philippines. The said petition was amended to
Q-99-81689 is not one on the merits and implead as additional party-respondents State
without any recorded arraignment and entered Prosecutor Claro Arellano and the RTC, Quezon
plea on the part of the herein petitioners. The City, Branch 81 in which the Informations in
dismissal was a direct consequence of the Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112
finding of the Quezon City RTC that no probable were filed.32
cause exists for the issuance of warrants of
arrest against petitioners herein and to hold (25) The Second Amended Petition33 dated June
them for trial. The arraignment had with the 14, 2001 and admitted by the Court of Appeals
Sandiganbayan does not put the case in a on June 26, 2001, alleged:
different perspective since the Sandiganbayan
was adjudged to be without any jurisdiction to "The reliefs of certiorari, prohibition and
try the cases. It is the People of the Philippines injunction against the questioned Order (Annex
who is the complainant in the Kuratong Baleleng A) and the new Informations in Criminal Cases
case and remains to be the complainant in the Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112 pending before
present investigation initiated thru a letter of respondent Yadao (Annex B) are founded upon
PNP Chief Mendoza dated March 27, 2001 the grave abuse of discretion by respondent
(Exhibit "B") together with the sworn statements Judge Pasamba of her discretion in its issuance,
of witnesses Ramos and Yu (Exhibits "2" and "3" the illegality of the proceedings of the
- supportive of the refiling of the case (Exhibit respondent State Prosecutors as they cannot
"9"). revive complaints which had been dismissed
over two (2) years from the date the dismissal
xxx xxx xxx order was issued, and the invalidity of the new
Informations for Murder filed against petitioners
Above considered, this Court finds petitioners and others, all in defiance of law and
have not preliminarily established that they have jurisprudence as shown by the following:
a right to be preserved pending hearing on the
injunctive relief. (a) Respondent judge had ruled on the merits of
the main prohibition action a quo rendering the
WHEREFORE, the prayer for temporary same moot and academic by concluding that the
restraining order is hereby DENIED. dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679-Q-
99-81689 by the QC RTC was not final and
SO ORDERED."30 executory, hence [i] the complaints therein can
be reinvestigated, and [ii] petitioner's
(23) On June 6, 2001, eleven (11) Informations arraignment while the case had not yet been
for murder involving the killing of the same remanded to the QC RTC and while the
members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang were Sandiganbayan had valid jurisdiction thereover
filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon [Criminal Cases No. 23047-2048] was void,
City and were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. notwithstanding that the only issue in the TRO
01-101102 to 01-101112. The new Informations application was the existence or lack of a valid
charged as principals thirty-four (34) people, complaint as defined in S1 and S3, Rule 110.
including respondent Lacson and his twenty-five
(25) other co-accused in Criminal Cases Nos. Q- (b) Respondent Judge ruled that respondent
99-81679 to Q-99-81689. The criminal cases State Prosecutors could proceed to re-
were assigned to Judge Ma. Theresa L. Yadao. investigate and thereafter file new Informations
on June 6, 2001 covering those offenses subject
(24) On the same day, respondent Lacson filed of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679-Q-99-81689
before the Court of Appeals a petition for on the basis of affidavits filed after said cases
certiorari31 against Judge Pasamba, the were dismissed on March 29, 1999, despite the
Secretary of Justice, the PNP Chief, State fact that under Section 8, Rule 117, cases
Prosecutors Ong and Zacarias, 2nd Assistant similar to those filed against the petitioner and
others (where the penalty imposable is
imprisonment of six (6) years or more) cannot the dismissed cases. The present controversy,
be revived after two (2) years from the date the being one involving "provisional dismissal" and
dismissal order was issued. revival of criminal cases, falls within the purview
of the prescriptive period provided under Section
(c) Respondent Judge held that the petitioner 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
had not shown a right to be preserved despite Criminal Procedure. The second paragraph of
evidence showing the short cuts taken by the said provision is couched in clear, simple
respondent State prosecutors in re-investigating and categorical words. It mandates that for
a dismissed case, in not complying with Rules in offenses punishable by imprisonment of more
respect of its re-opening, and in insisting that a than six (6) years, as the subject criminal cases,
valid complaint was filed in clear violation of the their provisional dismissal shall become
Rules and case law thereon, and despite the fact permanent two (2) years after the issuance of
that the petitioner had shown that an the order without the case having been revived.
inextendible deadline of June 5, 2001 was given It should be noted that the revival of the subject
him to file his counter-affidavit without which his criminal cases, even if reckoned from the DOJ's
indictment for a non-bailable offense is assured issuance of subpoenas to petitioner, was
because of DOJ Secretary Hernando Perez's commenced only on April 19, 2001, that is, more
political schemes."34 than two (2) years after the issuance, on March
29, 1999, of RTC-Quezon City's Resolution,
(26) In the meantime, on June 8, 2001, provisionally dismissing the criminal cases now
respondent Lacson also filed with the RTC-QC sought to be revived. Applying the clear and
Branch 81 (presided by Judge Ma. Theresa categorical mandate of Section 8, Rule 117,
Yadao), a Motion for Judicial Determination of supra, such efforts to revive the criminal cases
Probable Cause and in the absence thereof, to are now definitely barred by the two-year
dismiss the cases outright. Respondent Lacson, prescriptive period provided therein.
however, filed a Manifestation and Motion dated
June 13, 2001 seeking the suspension of the xxx xxx xxx
proceedings before the trial court.35
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. As
(27) The Court of Appeals issued a temporary prayed for, the Temporary Restraining Order
restraining order enjoining Judge Yadao from earlier issued against the conduct of further
issuing a warrant of arrest or conducting any proceedings in Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102
proceeding or hearing in Criminal Cases Nos. 01- to 01-101112, including the issuance of warrants
101102 to 01-101112.36 of arrest against the petitioner, PANFILO M.
LACSON, is hereby made PERMANENT.
(28) On August 24, 2001, the Court of Appeals Accordingly, with respect to said accused, the
(Special Third Division), rendered the now proceedings conducted by respondent State
assailed Decision. It characterized the Prosecutors in respect of the said criminal cases
termination of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 are declared NULL AND VOID and the
to Q-99-81689 as "provisional dismissal," and corresponding Informations, docketed as
considered Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112,
01-101112 as mere revivals of the same. entitled 'People of the Philippines vs. Panfilo M.
Applying Section 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Lacson, et al." and filed before respondent
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, it Judge Maria Theresa L. Yadao of Branch 81 of
dismissed the criminal cases against the the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, are
respondent, viz: hereby ordered DISMISSED.

"In sum, this Court is of the considered view SO ORDERED."37


that the subject dismissal of [the] criminal cases
was provisional in nature and that the cases The issue is whether Section 8, Rule 117 bars
presently sought to be prosecuted by the the filing of the eleven (11) informations against
respondents are mere revival or re-opening of the respondent Lacson involving the killing of
some members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang.
This rule which took effect on December 1, 2000 testified that he assisted the private
provides: complainants in preparing their affidavits and he
signed them as a witness. It also appears that
"SEC. 8. Provisional dismissal.- A case shall not only seven (7) persons submitted their affidavits
be provisionally dismissed except with the of desistance, namely:
express consent of the accused and with notice
to the offended party. a. Myrna Abalora, mother of the victims Sherwin
Abalora and Rey Abalora
The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable
by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or b. Carmelita Elcamel, wife of Wilbur Elcamel;
a fine of any amount, or both, shall become
permanent one (1) year after issuance of the c. Leonora Amora, mother of victim Joel Amora;
order without the case having been revived.
With respect to offenses punishable by d. Nenita Alap-ap, wife of victim Carlito Alap-ap;
imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their
provisional dismissal shall become permanent
e. Imelda Montero, wife of victim Manuel
two (2) years after issuance of the order without
Montero;
the case having been revived."
f. Margarita Redillas, mother of victim Hilario
Like any other favorable procedural rule, this
Jevy Redillas; and
new rule can be given retroactive effect.
However, this Court cannot rule on this jugular
issue due to the lack of sufficient factual bases. g. Rolando Siplon.
Thus, there is need of proof of the following
facts, viz: (1) whether the provisional dismissal From the records of the case before us, it
of the cases had the express consent of the cannot be determined whether there were
accused; (2) whether it was ordered by the affidavits of desistance executed by the relatives
court after notice to the offended party, (3) of the three (3)38 other victims, namely:
whether the 2-year period to revive has already Meleubren Soronda, Pacifico Montero, Jr., and
lapsed, and (4) whether there is any justification Alex Neri. The same records do not show
for the filing of the cases beyond the 2-year whether they were notified of the hearing or had
period. knowledge thereof. To be sure, it is not fair to
expect the element of notice to be litigated
There is no uncertainty with respect to the fact before then Judge Agnir for Section 8, Rule 117
that the provisional dismissal of the cases was yet inexistent at that time.
against respondent Lacson bears his express
consent. It was respondent Lacson himself who The fact of notice to the offended parties was
moved to dismiss the subject cases for lack of not raised either in the petition for prohibition
probable cause before then Judge Agnir, hence, with application for temporary restraining order
it is beyond argument that their dismissal bears or writ of preliminary injunction filed by
his express consent. respondent Lacson in the RTC of Manila,
presided by Judge Pasamba, to enjoin the
The records of the case, however, do not reveal prosecutors from reinvestigating the said cases
with equal clarity and conclusiveness whether against him. The only question raised in said
notices to the offended parties were given petition is whether the reinvestigation will
before the cases against the respondent Lacson violate the right of respondent Lacson against
were dismissed by then Judge Agnir. It appears double jeopardy. Thus, the issue of whether or
from the resolution of then Judge Agnir that the not the reinvestigation is barred by Section 8,
relatives of the victims who desisted did not Rule 117 was not tackled by the litigants.
appear during the hearing to affirm their
affidavits. Their affidavits of desistance were Nor was the fact of notice to the offended
only presented by Atty. Godwin Valdez who parties the subject of proof after the eleven (11)
informations for murder against respondent
Lacson and company were revived in the RTC of not in a position to rule whether or not the re-
Quezon City presided by Judge Yadao. There filing of the cases for multiple murder against
was hardly any proceeding conducted in the respondent Lacson should be enjoined.
case for respondent Lacson immediately filed a Fundamental fairness requires that both the
petition for certiorari in the appellate court prosecution and the respondent Lacson should
challenging, among others, the authority of be afforded the opportunity to be heard and to
Judge Yadao to entertain the revived adduce evidence on the presence or absence of
informations for multiple murder against him. the predicate facts upon which the application of
the new rule depends. They involve disputed
This is not to be wondered at. The applicability facts and arguable questions of law. The
of Section 8, Rule 117 was never considered in reception of evidence on these various issues
the trial court. It was in the Court of Appeals cannot be done in this Court but before the trial
where respondent Lacson raised for the first court.
time the argument that Section 8, Rule 117 bars
the revival of the multiple murder cases against IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the case at
him. But even then, the appellate court did not bar is remanded to the RTC - Quezon City,
require the parties to elucidate the crucial issue Branch 81 so that the State prosecutors and the
of whether notices were given to the offended respondent Lacson can adduce evidence and be
parties before Judge Agnir ordered the dismissal heard on whether the requirements of Section 8,
of the cases against respondent Lacson and Rule 117 have been complied with on the basis
company. To be sure, there is a statement in of the evidence of which the trial court should
the Decision of the appellate court to the effect make a ruling on whether the Informations in
that "records show that the prosecution and the Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112
private offended parties were notified of the should be dismissed or not. Pending the ruling,
hearing x x x."39 It is doubtful whether this the trial court is restrained from issuing any
finding is supported by the records of the case. warrant of arrest against the respondent Lacson.
It appears to be contrary to Judge Agnir's Melo and Carpio, JJ., take no part.
finding that only seven (7) of the complainants
submitted affidavits of desistance. SO ORDERED.

Indeed, the records of this case are inconclusive


on the factual issue of whether the multiple
murder cases against respondent Lacson are
being revived within or beyond the 2-year bar.
The reckoning date of the 2-year bar has to be
first determined - - - whether it is from the date
of the Order of then Judge Agnir dismissing the
cases or from the dates the Order were received
by the various offended parties or from the date
of the effectivity of the new rule.

If the cases were revived only after the 2-year


bar, the State must be given the opportunity to
justify its failure to comply with said timeline.
The new rule fixes a timeline to penalize the
State for its inexcusable delay in prosecuting
cases already filed in courts. It can therefore
present compelling reasons to justify the revival
of cases beyond the 2-year bar.

In light of the lack of or the conflicting evidence


on the various requirements to determine the
applicability of Section 8, Rule 117, this Court is

You might also like