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, Petitioners, vs. Panfilo M. Lacson, Respondent, G.R. No. 149453, April 01, 2003, the Supreme Court En Banc, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.The underlying events arise from the May 18, 1995 killings of eleven persons alleged to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang. The Ombudsman filed multiple-murder informations in the Sandiganbayan against respondent and numerous police officers (Crim. Cases Nos. 23047–23057). After amendments and controversy over jurisdiction, the Supreme Court ruled the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction and ordered the records remanded to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 81 (Judge Wenceslao Agnir, Jr.).
Assigned to Branch 81, the accused (including Panfilo M. Lacson) filed motions for judicial determination of probable cause and examination of prosecution witnesses; at the hearing several prosecution witnesses either recanted or the private complainants executed affidavits of desistance. On March 29, 1999 Judge Agnir dismissed Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 for lack of probable cause. In 2001, after new affidavits surfaced, the Department of Justice panel found probable cause and filed new informations in RTC Quezon City as Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112.
Respondent challenged the reinvestigation and refiling (petition for prohibition in RTC-Manila; denial of TRO; certiorari to the Court of Appeals). The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 65034 (Aug. 24, 2001), held that the provisional dismissal had become permanent under Section 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and dismissed the newly filed informations. The Court of Appeals reckoned the two-year bar from the March 29, 1999 dismissal.
On May 28, 2002 this Court (En Banc) issued a Resolution remanding the matter to RTC-Quezon City, Branch 81 to determine certain factual issues relevant to the applicability of Section 8, Rule 117 (e.g., whether the dismissal had the accused’s express consent; whether offended parties were notified; when the two-year bar should be reckoned). The petitioners (state prosecutors and DOJ/PNP officials) moved for reconsideration of that Resolution, arguing (a) Section 8 did not apply because its requisites were absent when Judge Agnir dismissed the cases, and (b) if it did apply it should not be given retroactive effect to the prejudice of the State. The respondent opposed the Motion fo...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 (i.e., were the rule’s requisites — express consent of the accused and notice to the offended parties — present when Judge Agnir dismissed the cases)?
- If Section 8 is applicable, should its one- or two-year time-bar for revival be applied retroactively to bar the State’s reinvestigat...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)