G.R. No. 149453 - People vs. Lacson

On May 18, 1995, then-PNP Director-General Recaredo Sarmiento II announced during a press conference that eleven members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang were killed in a shootout with police near Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City.
Reports surfaced shortly thereafter, with SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes asserting the killings amounted to a summary execution rather than a bona fide shootout.

Delos Reyes executed an affidavit on May 19, 1995, alleging that the gang members were arrested, bound, transported, and subsequently summarily executed by a composite police team (ABRITFG) composed of various police command elements headed by several senior officers, including Chief Superintendent Panfilo M. Lacson.
SPO2 Corazon dela Cruz corroborated delos Reyes’ version of events in her affidavit on May 26, 1995, while Armando Capili, a reporter, also provided an affidavit confirming that he witnessed the arrest at the safe house.
On June 1, 1995, murder charges were filed by Chief Superintendent Job A. Mayo with the Office of the Ombudsman against ninety-seven officers, with next-of-kin of the victims also initiating parallel charges.

Ombudsman Aniano Desierto established an investigative panel headed by Deputy Ombudsman Bienvenido Blancaflor which initially recommended dismissal for lack of probable cause.
A review by a higher panel later reversed this dismissal recommendation, finding probable cause for multiple murder charges against twenty-six officers including Lacson.
On November 2, 1995, the Ombudsman filed eleven Informations for Murder before the Sandiganbayan against Lacson and 25 other accused, charging them as principals.
The criminal cases underwent procedural changes; the cases were remanded to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) after jurisdictional questions were raised, and subsequent motions were filed, including Lacson’s plea for reconsideration of his role which downgraded his charge from principal to accessory.

After Lacson questioned the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under then-prevailing law (R.A. No. 7975), the cases were transferred to the RTC.
Subsequent developments included the recantation of testimonies by key prosecution witnesses (Eduardo delos Reyes, Armando Capili, and Jane Gomez) and the desistance by several private complainants.
In response, Lacson and co-accused filed multiple motions to have their cases dismissed on the ground of lack of probable cause, resulting in Judge Wenceslao Agnir, Jr. dismissing the cases provisionally on March 29, 1999.

On June 6, 2001, eleven new Informations for Murder were filed before the RTC of Quezon City (Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112), charging Lacson and 33 others as principals.
Lacson responded by petitioning for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, challenging the legitimacy of the revived charges on several grounds, including that the new prosecutions constituted a revival of the dismissed cases.
The petition also asserted a violation of Lacson’s constitutional right against double jeopardy and argued the refiled cases were barred by procedural limitations.

Lacson contended that the revival of the cases was in violation of Section 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which sets a 2-year bar for reviving provisionally dismissed cases punishable by imprisonment exceeding six years.
The chronology became a central point of dispute: whether the refiled cases were revived within or beyond the prescribed 2-year period and whether the revival complied with the required procedural safeguards (such as notice to offended parties).

Initially, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was granted by the Court of Appeals to enjoin Judge Yadao from further proceedings in the revived cases.
Later, the appellate court issued decisions characterizing the revived cases as mere re-openings of the dismissed ones under the ambit of the new rule, weighing the timing and procedural requirements to determine if revival was proper.

Whether Section 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure bars the filing of the eleven new Informations for Murder against Lacson.

Does the revival of the cases exceed the prescribed 2-year period following the provisional dismissal?
Was the revival initiated in accordance with the notice and other procedural safeguards required by the rule?

Whether the provisional dismissal of the original criminal cases was valid and legally binding given the absence or presence of notification to the offended parties.

Whether the filing of the revived cases violates Lacson’s constitutional right against double jeopardy.

Is Lacson being subjected to multiple prosecutions for the same underlying offense?

Whether the new investigations and affidavits provided (including recantations and affidavits of desistance) sufficiently negate the existence of probable cause for the continued prosecution.

Procedural problems in the refiling stage and the jurisdiction of lower courts (RTC versus Sandiganbayan) regarding the prosecution of cases initially dismissed.