Case Summary (G.R. No. 138943-44)
Denial of Motion for Oral Arguments
Respondent’s motion to set the case for oral arguments was denied. The Court found that the parties had comprehensively briefed the issues, including a 100-page motion for reconsideration (excluding supplements and replies), rendering further oral argument unnecessary.
Prospective Application of the Provisional-Dismissal Time-Bar
Issue: whether Section 8, Rule 117 RRCP (one-year bar for offenses punishable by ≤ 6 years; two-year bar for offenses punishable by > 6 years) applies prospectively only.
• Constitutional Basis: The Supreme Court promulgated the RRCP under Article VIII, Section 5(5), which directs that procedural rules “shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.”
• Nature of Section 8: Although favorable to the accused’s right to speedy disposition (Article III, Section 16), it also checks State diligence and balances societal interests.
• Rule-making Authority: Under Rule 144, Rules of Court, new procedural rules govern pending cases unless their retroactive application would be infeasible or work injustice.
• Prospective Effect: The Court held that Section 8 was intended to apply prospectively because:
– Retroactive application would require the State to anticipate a rule not yet in existence and penalize it for not reviving cases before the rule’s enactment on December 1, 2000.
– A retroactive bar would unjustly deny the State (and crime victims) due process in prosecuting offenses provisionally dismissed in 1999.
– Prospective application gives the State two years from December 1, 2000 (i.e., until December 1, 2002) to revive cases provisionally dismissed earlier, consistent with the rule’s purpose and the due-process rights of both the State and the accused.
Non-Compliance with Section 8 Prerequisites
Issue: whether respondent’s consent and notice to offended parties met Section 8’s requirements.
• Express Consent: Section 8 requires the accused’s express consent to provisional dismissal. Respondent moved in RTC for a judicial determination of probable cause and for withholding of arrest warrants. That motion did not state or file a separate assent to provisional dismissal; counsel later acknowledged no formal consent was given.
• Notice to Offended Parties: Section 8 also mandates prior notice to offended parties or their heirs. The records contain no proof that RTC Judge Agnir, Jr. provided such notice at the time of the 1999 dismissal. Respondent admitted the rule did not exist in 1999 and thus no formal notice was served.
Because both express consent and notice were absent, respondent cannot invoke the time-bar to permanently discharge his cases.
Final Dispositions and Directives
• Omnibus Motion (recusal), Motion for Reconsideration, Supplement, and Motion to Set for Oral Arguments: all DENIED for lack of merit or finality.
• The Motion for Reconsideration and its Supplement denied with finality.
• Executive Judge, RTC Quezon City: DIRECTED to consolidate Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 138943-44)
Procedural History
- Petitioners (various prosecutorial officers) moved for reconsideration of the Court’s May 28, 2002 Resolution dismissing murder charges against respondent Panfilo M. Lacson.
- Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion, a Motion for Reconsideration with Supplement, and a Motion to Set for Oral Arguments, challenging the April 29, 2003 Resolution that granted petitioners’ reconsideration.
- Key prior actions:
• February 19, 2002: Oral arguments before the Supreme Court En Banc.
• March 29, 1999: QC RTC provisionally dismissed Criminal Cases Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689.
• June 6, 2001: New Informations filed in RTC as Criminal Cases 01-101102 to 01-101112.
• May 28, 2002: En Banc Resolution denying petitioners’ motion to reinstate the murder cases.
• April 1, 2003: En Banc Resolution setting aside the May 28, 2002 Resolution.
• April 29, 2003: En Banc Resolution denying respondent’s motions for recusal and reconsideration.
Issues Presented
- Whether respondent’s motions for inhibition and recusal of newly appointed Justices (Corona, Austria-Martinez, Morales, Callejo Sr., Azcuna) under A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC are meritorious.
- Whether it is necessary to reset the case for oral arguments.
- Whether Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (RRCP) on the time-bar for revival of provisionally dismissed criminal cases applies prospective or retroactive to respondent’s case.
- Whether respondent complied with the essential prerequisites of Section 8, Rule 117 (express consent of the accused and notice to offended party).
- Proper trial court assignment for the consolidated murder cases.
Ruling on Motions to Recuse and for Oral Arguments
- Motions to inhibit and recuse Justices denied for lack of merit:
• A.M. No. 99-8-09-SC applies only to motions in the Divisions, not En Banc cases.
• Successive challenges to identical grounds already passed upon.
• Late objectio