People Vs Lacson

PEOPLE VS PANFILO LACSON
GR. No. 149453, April 1, 2003
Facts - Panfilo Lacson and his co-accused were charged with

multiple murder for the shooting and killing of eleven male persons
bandied as members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang.
The said cases docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-
99-81689 were provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the
respondent as he himself moved for said provisional dismissal when he
filed his motion for judicial determination of probable cause and for
examination of witnesses.
Respondent asserts that the new rule under Section 8 of Rule 117
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure may be applied retroactively
since there is no substantive right of the State that may be impaired by
its application to the criminal cases in question.The Court held therein that
although Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
could be given retroactive effect there is still a need to determine whether
the requirements for its application are attendant.
According to the respondent, penal laws, either procedural or
substantive, may be retroactively applied so long as they favor the
accused. He asserts that the two-year period commenced to run on March
29, 1999 and lapsed two years thereafter was more than reasonable
opportunity for the State to fairly indict him.The Court agrees with the
respondent that procedural laws may be applied retroactively. As applied
to criminal law, procedural law provides or regulates the steps by which
one who has committed a crime is to be punished. It further ruled therein
that a procedural law may not be applied retroactively if to do so would
work injustice or would involve intricate problems of due process or impair
the independence of the Court.
Remedial legislation, or procedural rule, or doctrine of the Court
designed to enhance and implement the constitutional rights of parties in
criminal proceedings may be applied retroactively or prospectively
depending upon several factors, such as the history of the new rule,... its
purpose and effect, and whether the retrospective application will further
its operation, the particular conduct sought to be remedied and the effect
thereon in the administration of justice and of criminal laws in particular.
ISSUES - 1. Is the requisite for applicability of Section 8, Rule 117
were met? 2. Is the time-bar rule in Section 8, Rule 117 should be applied
retroactively?
RULING- 1. No, the requisites were not met. Under Sec. 8.
Provisional dismissal. A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the q
express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party.
The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six

(6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after
issuance of the order without the case having been revived. With respect to offenses
punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall
become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having
been revived.
Having invoked said rule before the petitioners-panel of prosecutors and

before the Court of Appeals, the respondent is burdened to establish the
essential requisites of the first paragraph thereof, namely:
1. the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused or the accused
moves for a provisional (sin perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or both the
prosecution and the accused move for a provisional dismissal of the case;
2. the offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the
case;
3. the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case
provisionally;
4. the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional

dismissal of the case.
Specifically, the respondent failed to prove that the conditions

stated in the first paragraph were met at the time that the provisional
dismissal was granted. In fact, in the CA hearing on July 31, 2001, the
respondent, through counsel, categorically declared that he did not file
the motion to dismiss the criminal cases against him nor did he agree to
a provisional dismissal of same. 2. No, Section 8, Rule 117 should NOT
be given retroactive effect. By the time that the Rule was promulgated,
the State only had 1 year and 3 months to contest the provisional
dismissal, rather than the stipulated 2 years. As such, the Court ruled that
the period of April 1, 1999 to November 20, 1999 should be excluded in
the 2 year computation for case revival. To quote Justice Frankfurter in
Griffin vs. People: “We should not indulge in the fiction that the law
announced has always been the law, and therefore, that those who did
not avail themselves of it waived their rights.”

People Vs Lacson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Lacson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Lacson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE VS PANFILO LACSON

GR. No. 149453, April 1, 2003

Facts - Panfilo Lacson and his co-accused were charged with

The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six

Having invoked said rule before the petitioners-panel of prosecutors and

4. the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional

Specifically, the respondent failed to prove that the conditions

You might also like