PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES, et al. v PANFILO M. LACSON G.R.

149453
Judicial Perspective on The Bill of Rights | April 1, 2003 | Callejo, Sr., J.

Nature of Case: Motion for reconsideration re: the Supreme Court decision on People vs. Lacson (May 28, 2002)
Digest maker: Isis Valencia

FACTS: The respondent is accused of multiple counts of murder, the victims being alleged members of the Kuratong
Baleleng Gang. Citing Section 8,Rule 117 of the Revised Rule of Criminal Procedure, said charges were dismissed
provisionally by Judge Agnir, Jr. on March 29, 1999. This provisional dismissal was contested in an earlier case
(People vs. Lacson, May 28, 2002) with the SC ruling that 1) the dismissal had express consent of the accused and
2) Section 8, Rule 117 should be given retroactive effect. They then remanded the case to the RTC of Quezon City to
ascertain if the other conditions stipulated by Section 8, Rule 117 were met. the petitioners aim to question said
ruling. HEnce, the present motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the requisite for applicability of Section 8, Rule 117 were met.
Whether or not the time-bar rule in Section 8, Rule 117 should be applied retroactively.

RULING: No, the requisites were not met. More specifically, the respondent failed to prove that the conditions stated
in the first paragraph were met at the time that the provisional dismissal was granted. In fact, in the CA hearing on
July 31, 2001, the respondent, through counsel, categorically declared that he did not file the motion to dismiss the
criminal cases against him nor did he agree to a provisional dismissal of same.
No, Section 8, Rule 117 should NOT be given retroactive effect. By the time that the Rule was promulgated, the State
only had 1 year and 3 months to contest the provisional dismissal, rather than the stipulated 2 years. As such, the
Court ruled that the period of April 1, 1999 to November 20, 1999 should be excluded in the 2 year computation for
case revival. To quote Justice Frankfurter in Griffin vs. People: “We should not indulge in the fiction that the law
announced has always been the law, and therefore, that those who did not avail themselves of it waived their rights.”

RELEVANT STATUTES:
Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Section 8. Provisional dismissal. A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the
accused an with notice to the offended party.

The Provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any
amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been
revived. WIth respect too offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal
shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived.