1.

Discuss the Rule on Provisional What is the period of effectiveness of provisional

Dismissal P997 dismissal?
The rule on provisional dismissal of offenses shall be
Section 8 Rule 117. Provisional dismissal. - A as follows:
case shall not be provisionally dismissed except (1) Offenses punishable by imprisonment not
with the express consent of the accused and with exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any
notice to the offended party. amount, or both, shall become permanent
one (1) year after issuance of the order
The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable without the case having been revived;
by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a (2) With respect to offenses punishable by
fine of any amount, or both, shall become imprisonment of more than six (6) years,
permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order their provisional dismissal shall become
without the case having been revived. With permanent two (2) years after issuance of
respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment the order without the case having been
of more than six (6) years, their provisional revived.
dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years
after issuance of the order without the case Prescriptive period to revive the case; Mandatory
having been revived.
- In sum, the Court is of the considered view
What is the rule on provisional dismissal? that the subject dismissal of the criminal
A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except cases was provisional in nature and that the
with the express consent of the accused and with cases presently sought to be prosecuted by
notice to the offended party. the respondent are mere revival or
re-opening of the dismissed cases.
When can a case be provisionally dismissed - The present controversy, being one
- A case can only be dismissed provisionally if involving, “provisional dismissal” and revival
the accused expressly consents, such of criminal cases, falling within the purview of
consent given in writing or viva voce. the prescriptive period provided under
- It must be positive, direct, unequivocal Section 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised
consent requiring no inference or Rules of Criminal Procedure.
implication to supply its meaning - The second paragraph of the said provision
- The mere inaction or silence of the is couched in clear, simple and categorical
accused to a provisional dismissal of the words. It mandates that for offenses
case or his failure to object to a punishable by imprisonment of more than six
provisional dismissal doesn’t amount to (6) years, as the subject criminal cases, their
express consent. provisional dismissal shall become
permanent two (2) years after the issuance
What are the requisites laid down by People v. of the order without the case having been
Lacson revived.
1. The prosecution, with the express - It should be noted that the revival of the
conformity of the accused or the latter’s subject criminal cases, even if recokened
counsel moves for a provisional dismissal of from the DOJ’s issuance of subpoena to
the case; or both the prosecution or petitioner, was commenced only on April 19,
accused move for a provisional dismissal 2001, that is, more than two (2) years after
of the case the issuance, on March 29, 1999, pf
2. The offended party is notified of the RTC-Quezon City’s Resolution, provisionally
motion for a provisional dismissal of the dismissing the criminal cases now sought to
case be revived. Applying the clear and
3. The court issues an order granting the categorical mandate of Section 8, Rule 117,
motion and dismissing the case provisionally supra, ​such efforts to revive the criminal
4. The public prosecutor is served with a cases are not definitely barred by the
copy of the order of provisional dismissal two-year prescriptive period provided
of the case therein.
 (People of the Philippines, et al. v. Panfilo What is the constitutional requirement of a
Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, May 28, 2002) judgment?
A decision must clearly state the facts and the law on
2. Is trial necessary to secure a judgement? which it is based.
What are the exceptions? P.1102
Constitutional requirements of judgment
Trial Distinguished From Hearing - The constitution commands that ​“no decision
Hearing is more broader in its scope as it includes a shall be rendered by any court without
pre-trial conference, hearing on the motion, and trial; expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
while trial is limited only to the presentation of facts and the law on which it is based.”
evidence and witnesses before the court. (Article VIII, Section 14, 1987 Constitution)
- Judges are expected to make complete
Is Trial Necessary To Secure A Judgment? findings of fact in their decisions and
Trial is necessary if there are legal and factual issues scrutinize closely the legal aspects of the
involved in the case which requires presentation of case in the light of the evidence presented.
evidence and witnesses. - They should avoid the tendency to
generalize and form conclusions without
What are the Exceptions? detailing the facts from which such
Trial is no longer necessary in order for the conclusions are deduced. (Lenido Lumanog
adjudication of the criminal action in the following and Augusto Santos v. People, G.R. No.
instances: 182555, September 7, 2010)
1) When the accused pleads guilty to the
offense during arraignment under Rule 116; Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
2) Plea bargaining during arraignment or accusation against him
pre-trial conference; (1) Specific allegations of crime charged - This
3) When the motion to quash on the ground of right implies that the offense which a person
double jeopardy or prescription of action or is accused of be made known to him.
liability is granted under Rule 117; - The criminal complaint or
4) When there is a provisional dismissal under information should be sufficiently
Rule 117; clear to a person of ordinary
5) When there is failure of the prosecution to intelligence as to what the charge is
bring the accused to trial within the time so as to enable him to prepare his
prescribed under the rules; and defense.
6) When the case was dismissed due to the - It is imperative that he is thus made
grant of the motion for judicial determination fully aware of possible loss of
of probable cause. freedom, even of his life, depending
on the nature of the crime imputed
3. Explain the so-called constitutional to him. (Borja v. Mendoza, supra;
requirement of a judgment? P.1291 Matilde, Jr. v. Jabson, Dec. 29,
1975)
Article III, Section 14 of the Constitution (2) Remedy of accused right whose right is
violated - This requirement of notice is
“No court shall render a decision without stating indispensable inasmuch as in criminal cases
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on not only the liberty but even the life of the
which it is based. accused may be at stake.
- Thus, there is a violation of the right
No petition for review or motion for where an accused has been
reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be charged with an offense and
refused due course or denied without stating the convicted of another, or where no
legal basis therefor. arraignment of the accused has
taken place. (People v.
AbadSantos, 78 Phil. 774; U.S. v.
Sobrevinas, 35 Phil. 32)
 - The proceedings in such case may
be challenged and annulled in the
proper court, at the instance of the
accused. But an accused may be
convicted of a lesser offense (e.g.,
theft) included in that (e.g., robbery)
which is charged.

Trial in the absence of the accused

(1) Conditions - The constitutional right of the
accused to be personally present and to be
heard in his defense by himself may be
waived by him. Thus, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that three (3) conditions concur:
(a) He has arraigned;
(b) He has been duly notified of the
trial; and
(c) His failure to appear is unjustifiable.
(Sec. 14[2])
(2) Reason for rule - The rule is in the interest of
a speedy administration of justice which
should be afforded not only to the accused
but to the offended party as well. An accused
cannot, by simply escaping, that his
prosecution and possibly, eventual
conviction provided only that the three (3)
conditions mentioned are present. (People v.
Salas, 143 SCRA 163, July 29, 1986)