Case Summary (G.R. No. 214497)
Petitioners and Respondent
Petitioners: People of the Philippines, Secretary of Justice, PNP Director General, Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuao, State Prosecutors Peter L. Ong and Ruben A. Zacarias, Assistant City Prosecutor Conrado M. Jamolin, City Prosecutor Claro Arellano.
Respondent: Panfilo M. Lacson.
Key Dates
– May 28, 2002: Supreme Court resolution remanding case for factual inquiries.
– March 29, 1999: RTC-Quezon City provisionally dismissed the eleven cases.
– December 1, 2000: Effective date of Section 8, Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
– June 6, 2001: Refiled Informations in RTC-Quezon City as Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112.
Applicable Law
Primary: Section 8, Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (2000), implementing the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial and speedy disposition under the 1987 Constitution. Subsidiary: Articles 90 and 91, Revised Penal Code (prescriptive periods for crimes).
Factual and Procedural Background
– Original multiple-murder charges for the shooting of eleven persons were filed in the Sandiganbayan, then transferred to RTC-Quezon City (Criminal Cases Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689).
– Respondent and co-accused moved for “judicial determination of probable cause,” effectively seeking dismissal if probable cause were absent.
– On March 29, 1999, RTC-Branch 81 dismissed the cases provisionally for lack of probable cause, citing recanted affidavits of key witnesses.
– More than two years later, upon new affidavits from police witnesses, the Department of Justice re-investigated and filed fresh Informations (Criminal Cases 01-101102 to 01-101112).
– Respondent petitioned for prohibition; the Court of Appeals annulled the re-investigation and re-filing as barred by the two-year bar under Section 8, Rule 117.
– Supreme Court resolved to remand for factual determination of Section 8 prerequisites.
Section 8, Rule 117 Essentials
Section 8 permits provisional dismissal only with (1) the accused’s express consent and (2) notice to the offended party. Thereafter:
– Cases punishable by up to six years’ imprisonment or any fine become permanently dismissed one year after the dismissal order if not revived.
– Cases punishable by more than six years’ imprisonment become permanently dismissed two years after the order if not revived.
These time-bars serve to penalize inexcusable prosecutorial delay while allowing the State to justify revival beyond the bar.
Remand Issues for RTC Determination
The Supreme Court directed the RTC to resolve whether, at the time of the March 29, 1999 dismissal:
- Respondent expressly consented to provisional dismissal;
- Offended parties had prior notice of the motion and hearing;
- Affidavits of desistance covered all victims’ heirs;
- The two-year revival period had lapsed;
- There were justifiable reasons for revival beyond two years;
- The two-year period should be reckoned from the dismissal order date, its receipt by offended parties, or the rule’s effectivity;
- If revival occurred after the bar, whether the State can justify the delay.
Distinction from Prescription under the Revised Penal Code
Articles 90 and 91 govern the substantive prescriptive periods for filing offenses and tolling in case of pending proceedings. Section 8 is procedural, regulating post-filing conduct of the prosecution once a case is before the court. It does not shorten or amend substantive prescription but fixes a timeframe for the State to
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 214497)
Facts of the Case
- Eleven male persons, some identified as Philippine Army corporals and others as alleged Kuratong Baleleng Gang members, were shot and killed on May 18, 1995 in Quezon City.
- Victims included Manuel Montero, Rolando Siplon, Sherwin Abalora (16), Ray Abalora (19), Joel Amora, Jevy Redillas, Meleubren Sorronda (14), Pacifico Montero, Jr., Welbor Elcamel, SPO1 Carlito Alap-ap, and Alex Neri.
- Respondent Panfilo M. Lacson and co-accused, all police officers, were charged with multiple murder in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 before RTC-Quezon City, Branch 81.
Procedural History
- The Ombudsman first filed multiple murder charges in the Sandiganbayan, which were later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and transferred to RTC-Quezon City.
- Respondent and co-accused filed identical motions for judicial determination of probable cause, seeking to withhold or recall arrest warrants and to dismiss the cases if no probable cause was found.
- RTC Judge Agnir, Jr. granted the motion and, on March 29, 1999, provisionally dismissed the cases for lack of probable cause.
- On March 27, 2001, PNP Dir. Gen. Mendoza forwarded new affidavits to DOJ Sec. Perez, prompting a fresh preliminary investigation.
- On June 6, 2001, new Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112 were filed against respondent and others.
- Respondent sought prohibition in RTC-Manila and certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 65034).
- The CA held that Section 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure barred revival of the cases after two years and ordered dismissal of the new Informations.
- On May 28, 2002, the Supreme Court (en banc) granted petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of an earlier resolution and remanded the case to RTC-Quezon City to determine key factual issues under Section 8, Rule 117.
Core 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?
- Did the provisional dismissal bear the express consent of respondent?
- Were the offended parties or their heirs given prio