G.R. No. 173588 , April 22, 2009.
ARIEL M. LOS BAÑOS, on behalf of P/Supt. Victor Arevalo, SPO2 Marcial Olympia, SPO1 Rocky Mercene and PO1 Raul Adlawan, and in his personal capacity, Petitioner, vs. JOEL R. PEDRO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Joel R. Pedro was charged with violating the election gun ban under the Omnibus Election Code for carrying a loaded .357 Magnum revolver without COMELEC authorization on May 13, 2001, a day before the national and local elections. The Information was filed after he was apprehended at a PNP checkpoint in Boac, Marinduque. Pedro filed a Motion to Quash the Information, attaching a COMELEC Certification dated September 24, 2001, stating he was “exempted” from the gun ban. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion and ordered the return of the seized items. Petitioner Ariel Los Baños, a private prosecutor representing the checkpoint team, moved to reopen the case, alleging the COMELEC Certification was falsified and presenting new COMELEC certifications stating Pedro was not exempted and the signatures were forged. The RTC reopened the case. Pedro moved for reconsideration, arguing the dismissal had become permanent under Section 8, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. The RTC denied his motion, ruling Section 8 did not apply as the dismissal was upon the accused’s motion over the prosecution’s objection. Pedro filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA initially denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC and noting the lack of proof as to when the public prosecutor was served the dismissal order. Upon Pedro’s motion for reconsideration, where he proved the prosecutor received the order on December 10, 2001, the CA reversed itself. It ruled that Section 8, Rule 117 applied, and since the motion to reopen was filed more than one year after service of the dismissal order on the prosecutor, the dismissal had become permanent, barring revival. Los Baños filed the present petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the dismissal of the criminal case against respondent, via an order granting his Motion to Quash, became permanent under Section 8, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, thereby barring its revival.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CA’s decision. The Court held that Section 8, Rule 117, which provides that a provisional dismissal becomes permanent if not revived within one year, applies only to dismissals with the express consent of the accused and upon prior notice to the offended party. It does not apply to a dismissal by way of granting a motion to quash. A motion to quash is a challenge to the sufficiency of the Information, and its grant is an adjudication on the merits based on the defects of the charge, not a provisional dismissal. In this case, the RTC’s order granting the motion to quash was based on Pedro’s claim of a COMELEC exemption, which went beyond the allegations of the Information and should not have been considered without a full trial on the merits. Since the dismissal was not provisional, the time-bar under Section 8, Rule 117 did not apply. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.