GR 149453; (April, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149453 ; April 1, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al., petitioners, vs. PANFILO M. LACSON, respondent.
FACTS
This case involves a Motion for Reconsideration of a Resolution dated May 28, 2002, which remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The remand was for the determination of factual issues concerning the application of Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689. In these cases, respondent Panfilo M. Lacson and his co-accused were charged with multiple murder for the killing of eleven individuals, allegedly members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang. The cases were provisionally dismissed by then Judge Agnir, Jr. on March 29, 1999.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which imposes a two-year time-bar for reviving provisionally dismissed cases, is applicable to the criminal cases against Lacson.
RULING
The Court denied the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed the need for remand. The legal logic centers on the retroactive application and the essential conditions of Section 8, Rule 117. The Court previously ruled that procedural rules, like Section 8, can be applied retroactively as they do not create new rights or obligations but merely prescribe the means for enforcing existing ones. However, for the time-bar to apply, specific factual conditions must be met: the provisional dismissal must have been with the express consent of the accused and after notice to the offended party.
The petitioners argued that these conditions were absent, contending Lacson did not expressly consent to the dismissal and the heirs were not notified. The Court found these were precisely the factual issues requiring determination by the trial court. The Resolution sought to be reconsidered had already concluded that Lacson’s filing of a motion for judicial determination of probable cause, which sought dismissal if no probable cause was found, constituted moving for provisional dismissal, implying express consent. The notice requirement and the calculation of the two-year period from the date of dismissal or receipt by offended parties were also deemed factual matters for the RTC. The Court emphasized that the State is not absolutely barred from reviving a case after two years if it can present a compelling justification for the delay, but such a determination first requires establishing the baseline facts through remand.