FACTS: Before the court is the petitioner’s hearing and subsequent dismissal was given to motion of reconsideration of the resolution the heirs of the victims. dated May 23, 2002, for the determination of several factual issues relative to the application 2. WON time-bar in Sec 8 Rule 117 should be of Sec. 8 Rule 117 of RRCP on the dismissal of the applied prospectively or retroactively. cases Q-99- 81679 and Q-99-81689 against the respondent. The respondent was charged with Time-bar should not be applied retroactively. the shooting and killing of eleven male persons. Though procedural rules may be applied The court confirmed the express consent of the retroactively, it should not be if to do so would respondent in the provisional dismissal of the work injustice or would involve intricate aforementioned cases when he filed for judicial problems of due process. Statutes should be determination. The court also ruled the need to construed in light of the purposes to be achieved determine whether the other facts for its and the evils to be remedied. This is because to application are attendant. do so would be prejudicial to the State since, given that the Judge dismissed the case on March ISSUES: 29,1999, and the New rule took effect on Dec 1. Whether or not the requisites for the 1,2000, it would only in effect give them 1 year applicability of Sec. 8, Rule 117 of 2000 Rules on and three months to work instead of 2 years. At Criminal Procedure were complied with in the that time, they had no knowledge of the said rule Kuratong Baleleng cases and therefore they should not be penalized for a. Was express consent given by the respondent? that. “Indeed for justice to prevail, the scales b. Was notice for the motion, the hearing and the must balance; justice is not to be dispensed for subsequent dismissal given to the heirs of the the accused alone.” The two-year period fixed in victims? the new rule is for the benefit of both the State Section 8, Rule 117 is not applicable to the case and the accused. It should not be emasculated since the conditions for its applicability, namely: and reduced by an inordinate retroactive 1) prosecution with the express consent of the application of the time-bar therein provided accused or both of them move for provisional merely to benefit the accused. To do so would dismissal, cause an injustice of hardship to the state and 2) offended party notified, adversely affect the administration of justice. 3) court grants motion and dismisses cases provisionally, Held: Motion granted 4) public prosecutor served with copy of orders of provisional dismissal, which is the defendants burden to prove, which in this case has not been done a. The defendant never filed and denied unequivocally in his statements, through counsel at the Court of Appeals, that he filed for dismissal nor did he agree to a provisional dismissal thereof.