G.R. No. 254021 - Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Philippine Bank of Communications Employees Association

Ask AI

G.R. No. 254021: Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Philippine Bank of Communications Employees Association

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Ask AI quickly gives answers based only on the current context to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

New Chat Started

Ask AI

Title Source: Supreme Court: People vs. Lacson

Case: G.R. No. 149453

Decision Date: Apr 1, 2003

A murder case involving multiple victims challenged the provisional dismissal under Rule 117, requiring express consent of the accused and notice to the offended party.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 254021)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Kuratong Baleleng incident and initial charges

On May 18, 1995, eleven adult males—some former military and police personnel—were killed along Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, allegedly by Philippine National Police officers.
Victims included Manuel Montero, Rolando Siplon, Sherwin and Ray Abalora, Joel Amora, Jevy Redillas, Meleubren Sorronda, Pacifico Montero Jr., Welbor Elcamel, Carlito Alap-ap, and Alex Neri, reputed members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang.

Sandiganbayan proceedings and referral to RTC

The Ombudsman filed multiple murder charges in the Sandiganbayan against respondent Lacson and others.
The Supreme Court found lack of jurisdiction in the Sandiganbayan and remanded Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 to RTC-Quezon City, Branch 81.

RTC-Quezon City, Branch 81 proceedings before Judge Agnir

Respondent and co-accused filed motions (March 17, 1999) for judicial determination of probable cause and examination of prosecution witnesses, praying that if no probable cause were found, the cases be dismissed.
Hearing held March 22, 1999: seven kin executed affidavits of desistance; some prosecution witnesses recanted.
On March 29, 1999, Judge Agnir provisionally dismissed the cases for lack of probable cause.

Department of Justice reinvestigation and new Informations

In April 2001 PNP Director General Mendoza transmitted new affidavits by P/Insp. Abelardo Ramos and P/Insp. Ysmael Yu to DOJ Secretary Perez.
DOJ State Prosecutors held a preliminary investigation and, on June 6, 2001, filed new Informations as Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112 in RTC-Quezon City, Branch 81.

Certiorari proceedings in RTC-Manila and Court of Appeals

Respondent filed a petition for prohibition in RTC-Manila, Branch 40 (June 2001) to enjoin the reinvestigation and new filing; the petition was denied.
He then sought certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which on August 24, 2001, granted the petition and declared the new Informations void for violating Section 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Supreme Court Resolution of May 28, 2002 and Motion for Reconsideration

The Supreme Court, en banc, held that Section 8, Rule 117 might apply but required factual determinations on express consent, notice to offended parties, reckoning of the two-year bar, and justification for delay.
The case was remanded to RTC-Quezon City, Branch 81, for these factual inquiries. DOJ and petitioners moved for reconsideration.

Issues:

Applicability of Section 8, Rule 117, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure

Whether the provisional dismissal had respondent’s express consent.
Whether the offended parties received prior notice of the motion and the dismissal order.
Whether the two-year period to revive the cases has lapsed or was justified in delay.
How to compute the reckoning date of the two-year bar.

Retroactivity of the two-year time-bar in Section 8, Rule 117

Whether retroactive application of the Rule violates the State’s due process or substantive rights.
Whether the two-year period should run only from the Rule’s effective date (December 1, 2000).

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END