Case Digest (G.R. No. 149453)
Facts:
People of the Philippines, The Secretary of Justice, Director General of the Philippine National Police, Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuno, State Prosecutors Peter L. Ong and Ruben A. Zacarias; 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Conrado M. Jamolin and City Prosecutor of Quezon City Claro Arellano v. Panfilo M. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, October 07, 2003, the Supreme Court En Banc, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.The underlying criminal prosecutions arose from multiple murder charges that were provisionally dismissed by Judge Wenceslao Agnir, Jr. on March 29, 1999. After further preliminary investigation, the prosecution filed eleven new Informations in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on June 6, 2001 (Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112). The accused, Panfilo M. Lacson (respondent), sought injunctive relief in Civil Case No. 01-100933 in the RTC of Manila and then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the conduct of the preliminary investigation and alleging, inter alia, double jeopardy and that revival was barred by Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (RRCP).
The CA granted respondent’s petition on the basis of Section 8, Rule 117. The People and the prosecuting officers (petitioners) sought Supreme Court review under Rule 45, and on May 28, 2002 this Court issued a unanimous resolution (later changed by the Court) remanding certain factual questions to the RTC. The Court subsequently issued a resolution on April 1, 2003 that set aside its May 28, 2002 Resolution and held that Section 8 should be applied prospectively; respondent moved for reconsideration, filed an omnibus motion, supplement, and a motion to set the case for oral arguments, and sought recusation/inhibition of certain justices appointed after oral argument.
In the present October 07, 2003 En Banc resolution the Court denied respondent’s Omnibus Motion, Motion for Reconsideration and Supplement, and Motion to Set for Oral Arguments; it ruled that A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC governs only Divisions (not the En Banc), held that Section 8, Rule 117 of the RRCP applies prospectively (not retroactively) to cases already terminated when the rule took ef...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the challenged members of the Court disqualified to participate in thisEn Banc resolution and should they be recused under A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC?
- Should Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure be applied retroactively to bar the prosecution in these cases, or is its application prospective?
- Did respondent satisfy the essential prerequisites of Section 8, Rule 117 (express consent to provisional dismissal and notice to the offended p...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)