People v. Lacson

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382 11/28/23, 12:46 AM
VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 365

People vs. Lacson
G.R. No. 149453. May 28, 2002.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. vs. PANFILO M.

LACSON.
Criminal Procedure; Provisional Dismissals; Like any other

favorable procedural rule, Section 8, Rule 117, which took effect on 1
December 2000, can be given retroactive effect.·The issue is
whether Section 8, Rule 117 bars the filing of the eleven (11)
informations against the respondent Lacson involving the killing of
some members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang. This rule which took
effect on December 1, 2000 provides: „SEC. 8. Provisional dismissal.
·A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the
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.‰ Like any other
favorable procedural rule, this new rule can be given retroactive
effect. However, this Court cannot rule on this jugular issue due to
the lack of sufficient factual bases. Thus, there is need of proof of
the following facts, viz: (1) whether the provisional dismissal of the
cases had the express consent of the accused; (2) whether it was
ordered by the court after notice to the offended party; (3) whether
the 2-year period to revive has already lapsed; and (4) whether
there is any justification for the filing of the cases beyond the 2-year
period.
Same; Same; The records of the case do not reveal with clarity
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018c11ae4421e91c44e4000d00d40059004a/p/AQP333/?username=Guest Page 1 of 22
and conclusiveness whether notices to the offended parties were

given before the cases against the accused were dismissed by the trial
judge.·The records of the case, however, do not reveal with equal
clarity and conclusiveness whether notices to the offended parties
were given before the cases against the respondent Lacson were
dismissed by then Judge Agnir. It appears from the resolution of
then Judge Agnir that the relatives of the victims who desisted did
not appear during the hearing to affirm their affidavits. Their
affidavits of desistance were only presented by Atty. Godwin Valdez
who testified that he assisted the private complainants in preparing
their affidavits and he signed them as a witness.
Same; Same; It is not fair to expect the element of notice to be
litigated before the then trial court judge where the new rule·
Section 8, Rule 117 was yet inexistent at that time.·It also appears
that only seven (7)
366
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Lacson
persons submitted their affidavits of desistance, namely: a. Myrna

Abalora, mother of the victims Sherwin Abalora and Rey Abalora; b.
Carmelita Elcamel, wife of Wilbur Elcamel; c. Leonora Amora,
mother of victim Joel Amora; d. Nenita Alap-ap, wife of victim
Carlito Alap-ap; e. Imelda Montero, wife of victim Manuel Montero;
f. Margarita Redillas, mother of victim Hilario Jevy Redillas; and g.
Rolando Siplon. From the records of the case before us, it cannot be
determined whether there were affidavits of desistance executed by
the relatives of the three (3) other victims, namely: Meleubren
Soronda, Pacifico Montero, Jr., and Alex Neri. The same records do
not show whether they were notified of the hearing or had
knowledge thereof. To be sure, it is not fair to expect the element of
notice to be litigated before then Judge Agnir for Section 8, Rule 117
was yet inexistent at that time.
Same; Same; The reckoning date of the 2-year bar under Section
8, Rule 117 has to be first determined·whether it is from the date of
the Order of then trial judge dismissing the cases or from the dates
the Order were received by the various offended parties or from the
date of the effectivity of the new rule.·The records of this case are
inconclusive on the factual issue of whether the multiple murder
cases against respondent Lacson are being revived within or beyond
the 2-year bar. The reckoning date of the 2-year bar has to be first
determined·whether it is from the date of the Order of then Judge
Agnir dismissing the cases or from the dates the Order were
received by the various offended parties or from the date of the
effectivity of the new rule.
Same; Same; Speedy Disposition of Cases; Since the new rule
fixes a timeline to penalize the State for its inexcusable delay in
prosecuting cases already filed in courts, it can therefore present
compelling reasons to justify the revival of cases beyond the 2-year
bar.·If the cases were revived only after the 2-year bar, the State
must be given the opportunity to justify its failure to comply with
said timeline. The new rule fixes a timeline to penalize the State for
its inexcusable delay in prosecuting cases already filed in courts. It
can therefore present compelling reasons to justify the revival of
cases beyond the 2-year bar.
Same; Same; Same; Fundamental fairness requires that both
the prosecution and the accused should be afforded the opportunity
to be heard and to adduce evidence on the presence or absence of the
predicate facts upon which the application of the new rule depends.
·In light of the lack of or the conflicting evidence on the various
requirements to determine the applicability of Section 8, Rule 117,
this Court is not in a position to rule whether or not the re-filing of
the cases for multiple murder against respondent Lacson should be
enjoined. Fundamental fairness requires that
367
VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 367
People vs. Lacson
both the prosecution and the respondent Lacson should be afforded

the opportunity to be heard and to adduce evidence on the presence
or absence of the predicate facts upon which the application of the
new rule depends. They involve disputed facts and arguable
questions of law. The reception of evidence on these various issues
cannot be done in this Court but before the trial court.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

The Solicitor General for the People.
Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun, Gilbert V. Santos and
Floresita Gan for respondent.
RESOLUTION
Before us is a petition for review 1 on certiorari seeking to

reverse and set aside the Decision of the Court of 2
Appeals
dated August 24, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 65034. The said
Decision of the appellate court granted respondent LacsonÊs
Second Amended Petition for Prohibition with application
for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, (1)
assailing the Order issued by Judge Herminia Pasamba of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 40, that
allowed the continuation of the re-investigation of Criminal
Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 or the Kuratong
Baleleng cases; and (2) praying for the dismissal of
Criminal Cases Nos. Q-01-101102 to Q-01-101112 entitled
„People of the Philip-
______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr. and concurred

in by Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Hilarion L. Aquino,
and Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate Justice Buenaventura J.
Guerrero dissenting, of the Special Third Division of the Court of
Appeals.
2 Entitled „Panfilo M. Lacson v. Honorable Herminia Pasamba, in her
capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
(Branch 40); Honorable Ma. Theresa L. Yadao, in her capacity as
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 81);
The Secretary of Justice; The Chief, Philippine National Police; Chief
State Prosecutor Jovencio Zuño; State Prosecutors Peter L. Ong, Ruben
A. Zacarias, Conrado M. Jamolin; City Prosecutor of Quezon City Claro
Arellano; and the People of the Philippines.‰
368

People vs. Lacson
pines v. Panfilo Lacson, et al.‰ pending before Branch 81 of

the RTC of Quezon City.
The following appear in the records of this case:
(1) On May 18, 1995, then PNP Director-General

Recaredo Sarmiento II announced, in a press
conference, the killing of eleven (11) members of the
Kuratong Baleleng Gang (KBG) in a shootout with
police elements near the flyover along
Commonwealth 3
Avenue, Quezon City at about 4:00
A.M. that day.
(2) On May 22, 1995, morning papers earned the news
that SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes had claimed that
the killing of the eleven (11) gang members was a
„rub-out‰4 or summary execution and not a
shootout.
(3) In an affidavit he executed the following day, delos
Reyes stated, among others, that he was part of a
composite police team called the Anti-Bank Robbery
and Intelligence Task Force Group (ABRITFG)
composed of elements of the National Capital
Region Command (NCRC) and headed by Chief
Superintendent Jewel Canson; Traffic Management
Command, headed by Senior Superintendent
Francisco Subia, Jr.; Presidential Anti-Crime
Commission (PACC), headed by Chief
Superintendent Panfilo M. Lacson; Central Police
District Command, headed by Chief Superintendent
Ricardo de Leon; and Criminal Investigation
Command (CIC), headed by Chief Superintendent
Romeo Acop. Delos Reyes claimed that the police
team arrested the eleven (11) gang members in
early morning of May 18, 1995 at the gangÊs safe
house in Superville Subdivision, Parañaque; that
after their arrest, the gang members were made to
board two vans, their hands tied behind their
backs, and brought initially to Camp Crame where
a decision to summarily execute them was made,
and later to Commonwealth Avenue where they
5
were shot to death by elements of ABRITFG.
(4) On May 26, 1995, SPO2 Corazon dela Cruz, another
CIC investigator, executed an affidavit
corroborating the material alle-
______________
3 Resolution of Judge Wenceslao Agnir, Jr. in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-

99-81679 to Q-99-81689, dated March 29, 1999, p. 1; Annex „A‰ of the
Petition.
4 Id., p. 2.
5 Ibid.
369
VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 369

People vs. Lacson
gations of delos Reyes. Dela Cruz claimed that she

was with delos Reyes from the time the eleven (11)
KBG members were arrested up to the 6
time they
were killed in Commonwealth Avenue.
(5) On May 31, 1995, Armando Capili, a reporter of
Remate, executed an affidavit stating that he was
present when the KBG7 members were arrested in
Superville Subdivision.
(6) On June 1, 1995, Chief Superintendent Job A.
Mayo, PNP Director for Investigation, filed murder
charges with the Office of the Ombudsman against
ninety-seven (97) officers and personnel of
ABRITFG. The next-of-kin of the slain KBG
members also filed murder8 charges against the
same officers and personnel.
(7) Ombudsman Aniano Desierto then created a panel
of investigators to conduct a preliminary
investigation of the murder charges. The panel was
headed by Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs
Bienvenido Blancaflor. On October 20, 1995, the
panel issued a resolution recommending the
dismissal of the charges for lack of probable cause.
(8) Ombudsman Desierto referred the resolution for

review by a panel composed of Over-all Deputy
Ombudsman Francisco Villa as head, and Special
Prosecutor Leonardo Tamayo and Assistant
Ombudsman Abelardo Aportadera as members. On
November 20, 1995, the review panel reversed the
Blancaflor resolution and found probable cause for
the prosecution of multiple murder charges against9
twenty-six (26) officers and personnel of ABRITFG.
(9) On November 2, 1995, the Ombudsman filed before
the Sandiganbayan eleven (11) Informations for
MURDER, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 23047
to 23057, against respondent Panfilo M. Lacson and
twenty-five (25) other accused. All twenty-six
10
(26) of
them were charged as principals. The following
appear to be the victims: Meleubren Sorronda in
Crim. Case No. 23047; Welbor Elcamel in Crim.
Case No. 23048; Carlito Alap-ap in Crim. Case
______________
6 Id,. p. 3.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., p. 4.
370

People vs. Lacson
No. 23049; Jevy Redillas in Crim. Case No. 23050;

Ray Abalora in Crim. Case No. 23051; Joel Amora
in Crim. Case No. 23052; Alex Neri in Crim. Case
No. 23053; Rolando Siplon in Crim. Case No. 23054;
Manuel Montero in Crim. Case No. 23055; Sherwin
Abalora in Crim. Case No. 23056; and Pacifico
Montero in Crim. Case No. 23057.
(10) Upon motion of the respondent, the criminal cases
were remanded to the Ombudsman for
reinvestigation. On March 1, 1996, Amended

Informations were filed against the same twenty-
six (26) suspects but the participation of respondent
Lacson was downgraded from principal to accessory.
Arraignment then 11 followed and respondent entered
a plea of not guilty.
(11) With the downgrading of charges against him,
respondent Lacson questioned the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan to hear the criminal cases as
none of the „principal‰ accused in the Amended
Informations was a government official with a
Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher, citing Section 2 of
R.A. No. 7975 then prevailing. Accordingly, the
Sandiganbayan ordered 12
the cases transferred to the
Regional Trial Court.
(12) The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a motion
for reconsideration of the transfer. Pending
resolution of the motion, R.A. No. 8249 took effect
on February 23, 1997, amending R.A. No. 7975. In
particular, the amendatory law deleted the word
„principal‰ in Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975, thereby
expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to
include all cases where at least one of the accused,
whether principal, accomplice or accessory, is a
government official of Salary Grade (SG) 27 or
higher. The amendment is made applicable to all
cases pending in any court in which trial 13
has not
yet begun as of the date of its approval.
14
(13) In Lacson v. Executive Secretary, respondent
Lacson challenged the constitutionality of the
amendment and contended that the
Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the
criminal cases. This Court, while dismissing the
constitutional challenge,
______________
11 Ibid. See also CA Decision dated August 24, 2001, p. 5.

12 Id., p. 5. See also CA Decision, supra note 9, p. 5.
13 Id., p. 6.
14 301 SCRA 298 (1999).
371
VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 371

People vs. Lacson
nonetheless ordered the transfer of the criminal

cases to the Regional Trial Court on the ground that
the Amended Informations for murder failed to
indicate that the offenses charged therein were
committed in relation to, or in discharge of, the
official functions of the respondent, as required by
R.A. No. 8249.
(14) Criminal Cases Nos. 23047 to 23057 were raffled off
to Branch 81 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, then presided by Judge, now Associate Justice
of the Court of Appeals, Wenceslao Agnir, Jr., and
re-docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to
Q-99-81689.
(15) Before the accused could be arraigned, prosecution
witnesses Eduardo de los Reyes, Corazon de la
Cruz, Armando Capili and Jane Gomez recanted
their affidavits which implicated respondent Lacson
in the murder of the KBG members. On the other 15
hand, private complainants
16
Myrna 17
Abalora,
Leonora 18 Amora, Nenita Alap-ap,
19
Imelda
Montero,20 Margarita Redillas,
21
Carmelita
Elcamel and Rolando Siplon also executed their
respective affidavits of desistance declaring that
they were
22
no longer interested to prosecute these
cases.
(16) Due to these developments, the twenty-six (26)
accused, including respondent Lacson, filed five
separate but identical motions to (1) make a judicial
determination of the existence of prob-
______________
15 Mother of victims Sherwin Abalora and Ray Abalora in Crim. Cases

Nos. 23056 and 23051 and redocketed as Q-99-81688 and Q-99-81683,
respectively.
16 Mother of victim Joel Amora in Crim. Case No. 23052 and
redocketed as Q-99-81684.
17 Wife of victim Carlito Alap-ap in Crim. Case No. 23049 and
18 Wife of victim Manuel Montero in Crim. Case No. 23055 and
19 Mother of victim Hilario Jevy Redillas in Crim. Case No. 23050 and
20 Wife of victim Welbor Elcamel in Crim. Case No. 23048 and
21 Relationship with the victim Rolando Siplon in Crim. Case No.
23054 which was redocketed as Q-99-81686 is not clear.
22 Resolution, supra note 1, p. 9.
372

People vs. Lacson
able cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest; (2)

hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrants; and
(3) dismiss the cases should the trial court find lack
of probable cause.
(17) The records of the case before us are not clear
whether the private offended parties23
were notified
of the hearing on March 22, 1999 held by Judge
Agnir to resolve the motions filed by respondent
Lacson and the other accused.
(18) During the said hearing, the private offended
parties who desisted do not appear to have been
presented on the witness stand. In their stead, Atty.
Godwin Valdez testified that he assisted them in
preparing their affidavits of desistance and that he
signed said affidavits as witness. On the other
hand, Atty. Aurora Bautista of the Philippine
LawyerÊs League presented the affidavits of
recantation of prosecution witnesses Eduardo de los
Reyes, Armando Capili and Jane Gomez. Only
prosecution witness24Corazon de la Cruz testified to
affirm her affidavit.
(19) On March25 29, 1999, Judge Agnir issued a
Resolution dismissing Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-
81679 to Q-99-81689, as follows:
„As already seen, the documents attached to the Informations in

support thereof have been rendered meaningless, if not absurd,
with the recantation of the principal prosecution witnesses and the
desistance of the private complainants. There is no more evidence to
show that a crime has been committed and that the accused are
probably guilty thereof. Following the doctrine above-cited, there is
no more reason to hold the accused for trial and further expose
them to an open and public accusation. It is time to write finis to
these cases and lay to rest the ghost of the incident of May 18, 1995
so that all those involved·the accused, the prosecution witnesses
and the private complainants alike·may get on with their lives.
The Court is not unmindful of the admonition in the recent case
of People vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126005, January 21, 1999,
301 SCRA 475) where the Supreme Court said that the general rule
is that Âif the Information is valid on its face and there is no
showing of manifest error, grave abuse of discretion or prejudice on
the part of the public prosecutor,
______________
23 Id., p. 1.
24 Id., pp. 8-9.
25 Ibid.
373
VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 373

People vs. Lacson
courts should not dismiss it for want of evidence, because

evidentiary matters should be presented and heard during the trial,Ê
and that the ruling in Allado vs. Diokno Âis an exception to the
general rule and may be invoked only if similar circumstances are
clearly shown to exist.Ê
This Court holds that the circumstances in the case at bench
clearly make an exception to the general rule.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds no
probable cause for the issuance of the warrants of arrest against the
accused or to hold them for trial. Accordingly, the Informations in
the above-numbered cases are hereby ordered dismissed.‰
26
SO ORDERED.‰
(20) On March 27, 2001, PNP Director Leandro R.

Mendoza indorsed to the Department of Justice the
new affidavits of P/Insp. Ysmael S. Yu and P/S Insp.
Abelardo Ramos regarding the Kuratong Baleleng
incident for preliminary investigation. On the
strength of this indorsement, Secretary of Justice
Hernando B. Perez formed a panel to investigate
the matter. On April 17, 2001, the respondent was
subpoenaed to attend the investigation27
of Criminal
Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689.
(21) On May 28, 2001, respondent Lacson, et al.,
invoking, among others, their constitutional right
against double jeopardy, filed a petition for
prohibition with application for temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
primarily to enjoin the State prosecutors from
conducting the preliminary investigation. The
petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 01-100933
and raffled to Branch 28
40, presided by Judge
Herminia V. Pasamba.
(22) The plea for temporary restraining29 order was
denied by Judge Pasamba in an Order dated June
5, 2001, viz:
„After a study, this Court submits that the dismissal of Criminal

Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 is not one on the merits and
without any recorded arraignment and entered plea on the part of
the herein peti-
______________
26 Id., p. 10.
27 Petition for Review on Certiorari, pp. 18-19; See also Annexes „F‰, „F-1‰
and „F-2‰ of the Petition.
28 Ibid.
29 Civil Case No. 01-100933; See Annex to the Petition.
374

People vs. Lacson
tioners. The dismissal was a direct consequence of the finding of the

Quezon City RTC that no probable cause exists for the issuance of
warrants of arrest against petitioners herein and to hold them for
trial. The arraignment had with the Sandiganbayan does not put
the case in a different perspective since the Sandiganbayan was
adjudged to be without any jurisdiction to try the cases. It is the
People of the Philippines who is the complainant in the Kuratong
Baleleng case and remains to be the complainant in the present
investigation initiated thru a letter of PNP Chief Mendoza dated
March 27, 2001 (Exhibit „B‰) together with the sworn statements of
witnesses Ramos and Yu (Exhibits „2‰ and „3‰·supportive of the
refiling of the case (Exhibit „9‰).
xxx xxx xxx
Above considered, this Court finds petitioners have not
preliminarily established that they have a right to be preserved
pending hearing on the injunctive relief.
WHEREFORE, the prayer for temporary restraining order is
hereby DENIED.
30
SO ORDERED.‰
(23) On June 6, 2001, eleven (11) Informations for

murder involving the killing of the same members
of the Kuratong Baleleng gang were filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and were
docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-
101112. The new Informations charged as
principals thirty-four (34) people, including
respondent Lacson and his twenty-five (25) other
coaccused in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-
99-81689. The criminal cases were assigned to
Judge Ma. Theresa L. Yadao.
(24) On the same day, respondent Lacson filed before 31
the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari
against Judge Pasamba, the Secretary of Justice,
the PNP Chief, State Prosecutors Ong and Zacarias,
2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Jamolin, and the
People of the Philippines. The said petition was
amended to implead as additional party-
respondents State Prosecutor Claro Arellano and
the RTC, Quezon City, Branch 81 in which the

Informations in Criminal
32
Cases Nos. 01-101102 to
01-101112 were filed.
______________
30 Id., at 3-4.
31 Annex „I‰ of the Petition.
32 Annex „J‰ of the Petition.
375
VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 375

People vs. Lacson
33
(25) The Second Amended Petition dated June 14,
2001 and admitted by the Court of Appeals on June
26, 2001, alleged:
„The reliefs of certiorari, prohibition and injunction against the

questioned Order (Annex „A‰) and the new Informations in
Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112 pending before
respondent Yadao (Annex „B‰) are founded upon the grave abuse of
discretion by respondent Judge Pasamba of her discretion in its
issuance, the illegality of the proceedings of the respondent State
Prosecutors as they cannot revive complaints which had been
dismissed over two (2) years from the date the dismissal order was
issued, and the invalidity of the new Informations for Murder filed
against petitioners and others, all in defiance of law and
jurisprudence as shown by the following:
(a) Respondent judge had ruled on the merits of the

main prohibition action a quo rendering the same
moot and academic by concluding that the dismissal
of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679-Q-99-81689 by
the QC RTC was not final and executory, hence, [i]
the complaints therein can be reinvestigated, and
[ii] petitionerÊs arraignment while the case had not
yet been remanded to the QC RTC and while the
Sandiganbayan had valid jurisdiction thereover
[Criminal Cases No. 23047-2048] was void,
notwithstanding that the only issue in the TRO
application was the existence or lack of a valid

complaint as defined in SI and S3, Rule 110.
(b) Respondent Judge ruled that respondent State
Prosecutors could proceed to re-investigate and
thereafter file new Informations on June 6, 2001
covering those offenses subject of Criminal Cases
Nos. Q-99-81679-Q-99-81689 on the basis of
affidavits filed after said cases were dismissed on
March 29, 1999, despite the fact that under Section
8, Rule 117, cases similar to those filed against the
petitioner and others (where the penalty imposable
is imprisonment of six (6) years or more) cannot be
revived after two (2) years from the date the
dismissal order was issued.
(c) Respondent Judge held that the petitioner had not
shown a right to be preserved despite evidence
showing the short cuts taken by respondent State
prosecutors in re-investigating a dismissed case, in
not complying with Rules in respect of its
reopening, and in insisting that a valid complaint
was filed in clear violation of the Rules and case
law thereon, and despite the fact that the petitioner
had shown that an inextendible deadline of June 5,
2001 was given him to file his counteraffidavit
without which his indictment for a non-bailable
offense is assured because of DOJ 34
Secretary
Hernando PerezÊs political schemes.‰
______________
33 Annex „K‰ of the Petition.

34 Id., pp. 13-14.
376

People vs. Lacson
(26) In the meantime, on June 8, 2001, respondent

Lacson also filed with the RTC-QC Branch 81
(presided by Judge Ma. Theresa Yadao), a Motion
for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and

in the absence thereof, to dismiss the cases
outright. Respondent Lacson, however, filed a
Manifestation and Motion dated June 13, 2001
seeking the suspension
35
of the proceedings before
the trial court.
(27) The Court of Appeals issued a temporary
restraining order enjoining Judge Yadao from
issuing a warrant of arrest or conducting any
proceeding or hearing
36
in Criminal Cases Nos. 01-
101102 to 01-101112.
(28) On August 24, 2001, the Court of Appeals (Special
Third Division), rendered the now assailed
Decision. It characterized the termination of
Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 as
„provisional dismissal,‰ and considered Criminal
Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112 as mere revivals
of the same. Applying Section 8, Rule 117 of the
2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, it
dismissed the criminal cases against the
respondent, viz:
„In sum, this Court is of the considered view that the subject
dismissal of [the] criminal cases was provisional in nature and that
the cases presently sought to be prosecuted by the respondents are
mere revival or re-opening of the dismissed cases. The present
controversy, being one involving „provisional dismissal‰ and revival
of criminal cases, falls within the purview of the prescriptive period
provided under Section 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The second paragraph of the said provision is
couched in clear, simple and categorical words. It mandates that for
offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years, as
the subject criminal cases, their provisional dismissal shall become
permanent two (2) years after the issuance of the order without the
case having been revived. It should be noted that the revival of the
subject criminal cases, even if reckoned from the DOJÊs issuance of
subpoenas to petitioner, was commenced only on April 19, 2001,
that is, more than two (2) years after the issuance, on March 29,
1999, of RTC-Quezon CityÊs Resolution, provisionally dismissing the
criminal cases now sought to be revived. Applying the clear and
categorical mandate of Section 8, Rule 117, supra, such efforts to
revive the criminal cases are now definitely barred by the two-year
prescriptive period provided therein.
______________
35 Petition, pp. 23-24.

36 Id., p. 24.
377
VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 377

People vs. Lacson
xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. As prayed for, the
Temporary Restraining Order earlier issued against the conduct of
further proceedings in Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-101112,
including the issuance of warrants of arrest against the petitioner,
PANFILO M. LACSON, is hereby made PERMANENT. Accordingly,
with respect to said accused, the proceedings conducted by
respondent State Prosecutors in respect of the said criminal cases
are declared NULL AND VOID and the corresponding
Informations, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 01-101102 to 01-
101112, entitled ÂPeople of the Philippines vs. Panfilo M. Lacson, et
al.‰ and filed before respondent Judge Maria Theresa L. Yadao of
Branch 81 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, are hereby
ordered DISMISSED.
37
SO ORDERED.‰
The issue is whether Section 8, Rule 117 bars the filing of

the eleven (11) informations against the respondent Lacson
involving the killing of some members of the Kuratong
Baleleng gang. This rule which took effect on December 1,
2000 provides:
„SEC. 8. Provisional dismissal.·A case shall not be provisionally

dismissed except with the 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.‰
Like any other favorable procedural rule, this new rule can
be given retroactive effect. However, this Court cannot rule
on this jugular issue due to the lack of sufficient factual
bases. Thus, there is need of proof of the following facts,
viz: (1) whether the provisional dismissal of the cases had
the express consent of the accused; (2) whether it was
ordered by the court after notice to the offended party; (3)
whether the 2-year period to revive has already
______________
37 CA Decision, pp. 17-22.
378

People vs. Lacson
lapsed; and (4) whether there is any justification for the

filing of the cases beyond the 2-year period.
There is no uncertainty with respect to the fact that the
provisional dismissal of the cases against respondent
Lacson bears his express consent. It was respondent
Lacson himself who moved to dismiss the subject cases for
lack of probable cause before then Judge Agnir, hence, it is
beyond argument that their dismissal bears his express
consent.
The records of the case, however, do not reveal with
equal clarity and conclusiveness whether notices to the
offended parties were given before the cases against the
respondent Lacson were dismissed by then Judge Agnir. It
appears from the resolution of then Judge Agnir that the
relatives of the victims who desisted did not appear during
the hearing to affirm their affidavits. Their affidavits of
desistance were only presented by Atty. Godwin Valdez who
testified that he assisted the private complainants in
preparing their affidavits and he signed them as a witness.
It also appears that only seven (7) persons submitted their
affidavits of desistance, namely:
a. Myrna Abalora, mother of the victims Sherwin

Abalora and Rey Abalora
b. Carmelita Elcamel, wife of Wilbur Elcamel;
c. Leonora Amora, mother of victim Joel Amora;
d. Nenita Alap-ap, wife of victim Carlito Alap-ap;
e. Imelda Montero, wife of victim Manuel Montero;
f. Margarita Redillas, mother of victim Hilario Jevy
Redillas; and
g. Rolando Siplon.
From the records of the case before us, it cannot be

determined whether there were affidavits 38
of desistance
executed by the relatives of the three (3) other victims,
namely: Meleubren Soronda, Pacifico Montero, Jr., and
Alex Neri. The same records do not show whether they
were notified of the hearing or had knowledge thereof. To
be sure, it is not fair to expect the element of notice to
______________
38 Only three (3) remain unaccounted for as Myrna Abalora desisted

for the victims Sherwin Abalora and Rey Abalora.
379
VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 379

People vs. Lacson
be litigated before then Judge Agnir for Section 8, Rule 117

was yet inexistent at that time.
The fact of notice to the offended parties was not raised
either in the petition for prohibition with application for
temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary
injunction filed by respondent Lacson in the RTC of
Manila, presided by Judge Pasamba, to enjoin the
prosecutors from reinvestigating the said cases against
him. The only question raised in said petition is whether
the reinvestigation will violate the right of respondent
Lacson against double jeopardy. Thus, the issue of whether
or not the reinvestigation is barred by Section 8, Rule 117
was not tackled by the litigants.
Nor was the fact of notice to the offended parties the

subject of proof after the eleven (11} informations for
murder against respondent Lacson and company were
revived in the RTC of Quezon City presided by Judge
Yadao. There was hardly any proceeding conducted in the
case for respondent Lacson immediately filed a petition for
certiorari in the appellate court challenging, among others,
the authority of Judge Yadao to entertain the revived
informations for multiple murder against him.
This is not to be wondered at. The applicability of
Section 8, Rule 117 was never considered in the trial court.
It was in the Court of Appeals where respondent Lacson
raised for the first time the argument that Section 8, Rule
117 bars the revival of the multiple murder cases against
him. But even then, the appellate court did not require the
parties to elucidate the crucial issue of whether notices
were given to the offended parties before Judge Agnir
ordered the dismissal of the cases against respondent
Lacson and company. To be sure, there is a statement in
the Decision of the appellate court to the effect that
„records show that the prosecution and the private
39
offended
parties were notified of the hearing x x x.‰ It is doubtful
whether this finding is supported by the records of the
case. It appears to be contrary to Judge AgnirÊs finding that
only seven (7) of the complainants submitted affidavits of
desistance.
______________
39 See page 14 of the Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 65034.
380

People vs. Lacson
Indeed, the records of this case are inconclusive on the

factual issue of whether the multiple murder cases against
respondent Lacson are being revived within or beyond the
2-year bar. The reckoning date of the 2-year bar has to be
first determined·whether it is from the date of the Order
of then Judge Agnir dismissing the cases or from the dates
the Order were received by the various offended parties or

from the date of the effectivity of the new rule.
If the cases were revived only after the 2-year bar, the
State must be given the opportunity to justify its failure to
comply with said timeline. The new rule fixes a timeline to
penalize the State for its inexcusable delay in prosecuting
cases already filed in courts. It can therefore present
compelling reasons to justify the revival of cases beyond the
2-year bar.
In light of the lack of or the conflicting evidence on the
various requirements to determine the applicability of
Section 8, Rule 117, this Court is not in a position to rule
whether or not the re-filing of the cases for multiple
murder against respondent Lacson should be enjoined.
Fundamental fairness requires that both the prosecution
and the respondent Lacson should be afforded the
opportunity to be heard and to adduce evidence on the
presence or absence of the predicate facts upon which the
application of the new rule depends. They involve disputed
facts and arguable questions of law. The reception of
evidence on these various issues cannot be done in this
Court but before the trial court.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the case at bar is
remanded to the RTC-Quezon City, Branch 81 so that the
State prosecutors and the respondent Lacson can adduce
evidence and be heard on whether the requirements of
Section 8, Rule 117 have been complied with on the basis of
the evidence of which the trial court should make a ruling
on whether the Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 01-
101102 to 01-101112 should be dismissed or not. Pending
the ruling, the trial court is restrained from issuing any
warrant of arrest against the respondent Lacson. Melo and
Carpio, JJ., take no part.
SO ORDERED.
Case remanded to Quezon City RTC, Br. 81.
381
VOL. 382, MAY 29, 2002 381

Nuñez vs. Ricafort
Notes.·The right of an accused to a speedy trial is
guaranteed to him by the Constitution, but the same shall

not be utilized to deprive the State of a reasonable
opportunity of fairly indicting criminals. (Domingo vs.
Sandiganbayan, 322 SCRA 655 [2000])
The dismissal of a criminal cases resulting in acquittal
made with the express consent of the accused or upon his
own motion will not place the accused in double jeopardy,
unless the same is due to insufficiency of evidence or would
result in denial of the right to speedy trial. (Almario vs.
Court of Appeals, 355 SCRA 1 [2001])
True, every accused has the right to a speedy trial, but
not at the expense of a miscarriage of justice·slow
deliberate justice is always preferred and pursued over
accelerated injustice. (In Re: Derogatory News Items
Charging Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G.
Demetria with Interference on Behalf of a Suspected Drug
Queen, 372 SCRA 628 [2001])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People v. Lacson

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 v. Lacson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 382 11/28/23, 12:46 AM

VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 365

G.R. No. 149453. May 28, 2002.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. vs. PANFILO M.

Criminal Procedure; Provisional Dismissals; Like any other

and conclusiveness whether notices to the offended parties were

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Lacson

persons submitted their affidavits of desistance, namely: a. Myrna

VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 367

People vs. Lacson

both the prosecution and the respondent Lacson should be afforded

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

Before us is a petition for review 1 on certiorari seeking to

1 Penned by Associate Justice Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr. and concurred

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

pines v. Panfilo Lacson, et al.‰ pending before Branch 81 of

(1) On May 18, 1995, then PNP Director-General

3 Resolution of Judge Wenceslao Agnir, Jr. in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-

VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 369

gations of delos Reyes. Dela Cruz claimed that she

(8) Ombudsman Desierto referred the resolution for

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

No. 23049; Jevy Redillas in Crim. Case No. 23050;

reinvestigation. On March 1, 1996, Amended

11 Ibid. See also CA Decision dated August 24, 2001, p. 5.

VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 371

nonetheless ordered the transfer of the criminal

15 Mother of victims Sherwin Abalora and Ray Abalora in Crim. Cases

372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

able cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest; (2)

81679 to Q-99-81689, as follows:

„As already seen, the documents attached to the Informations in

VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 373

courts should not dismiss it for want of evidence, because

(20) On March 27, 2001, PNP Director Leandro R.

„After a study, this Court submits that the dismissal of Criminal

374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tioners. The dismissal was a direct consequence of the finding of the

(23) On June 6, 2001, eleven (11) Informations for

the RTC, Quezon City, Branch 81 in which the

VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 375

„The reliefs of certiorari, prohibition and injunction against the

(a) Respondent judge had ruled on the merits of the

application was the existence or lack of a valid

33 Annex „K‰ of the Petition.

376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

(26) In the meantime, on June 8, 2001, respondent

for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and

prescriptive period provided therein.

35 Petition, pp. 23-24.

VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 377

xxx xxx xxx

The issue is whether Section 8, Rule 117 bars the filing of

„SEC. 8. Provisional dismissal.·A case shall not be provisionally

provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after

37 CA Decision, pp. 17-22.

378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

lapsed; and (4) whether there is any justification for the

a. Myrna Abalora, mother of the victims Sherwin

From the records of the case before us, it cannot be

38 Only three (3) remain unaccounted for as Myrna Abalora desisted

VOL. 382, MAY 28, 2002 379