Lacson  seeks  the  reconsideration  of  the  April  1,  2003  Resolution  of  the  Court 

03 People v Lacson 
(wherein  the  Court  ruled  that  the  time-bar  rule  under  Section  8  of  Rule  117  does 
NOT  apply  retroactively).  He  asserts  that  pursuant  to  a  long  line  of  jurisprudence 
GR No.149453 | October 7, 2003 | Provisional Dismissal | Binky 
and  a  long-standing  judicial  practice  in  applying  penal  law,  Section  8,  Rule  117  of 
Petitioner:  EOPLE  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES,  THE  SECRETARY  OF  JUSTICE,  the  Revised  Rules  of  Criminal  Procedure  (RRCP)  should  be  applied  prospectively 
DIRECTOR  GENERAL  OF  THE  PHILIPPINE  NATIONAL  POLICE,  CHIEF  STATE  and  retroactively  without  reservations,  only  and  solely  on  the  basis  of  its  being 
PROSECUTOR  JOVENCITO  ZUO,  STATE  PROSECUTORS  PETER  L.  ONG  and  favorable  to  the  accused.  He  asserts  that  case  law  on  the  retroactive  application 
RUBEN  A.  ZACARIAS;  2ND  ASSISTANT  CITY  PROSECUTOR  CONRADO  M.  of  penal  laws  should  likewise  apply  to  criminal  procedure,  it  being  a  branch  of 
JAMOLIN and CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY CLARO ARELLANO  criminal law.  
Respondents: PANFILO M. LACSON   
  W/N Section 8 of Rule 117 (time-bar rule) should be applied retroactively? ​NO 
Recit-Ready:  ​The  ABRITFG  is  a  composite  police  team  called  the  Anti-Bank   
Robbery  and  Intelligence  Task  Force  Group  (ABRITFG)  composed  of  elements  of  If  the  time-bar  fixed  in  Section 8 were to be applied retroactively, this would mean 
the  National  Capital  Region  Command  (NCRC)  and  headed  by  Chief  that  the  State  would be barred from reviving the case for failure to comply with the 
Superintendent  Jewel  Canson;  Traffic  Management  Command,  headed  by  Senior  said  time-bar,  which  was  yet  to  be  approved  by  the  Court  three  years  after  the 
Superintendent  Francisco  Subia,  Jr.;  Presidential  Anti-Crime  Commission  (PACC),  provisional  dismissal  of  the  criminal  case.  In  contrast,  if  the  same  case  was 
headed  by  Chief  Superintendent  Panfilo  M.  Lacson;  Central  Police  District  dismissed  provisionally  in  December  2000,  the  State  had  the  right  to  revive  the 
Command,  headed  by  Chief  Superintendent  Ricardo  de  Leon;  and  Criminal  same  within  the  time-bar.  In  fine,  to  so  hold  would  imply  that  the  State  was 
Investigation Command (CIC), headed by Chief Superintendent Romeo Acop.  presumed  to  foresee  and  anticipate  that  three  years  after  1997,  the  Court  would 
  approve and amend the RRCP. The State would thus be sanctioned for its failure to 
On  May  18,  1995,  then  PNP  Director-General  Recaredo  Sarmiento II announced, in  comply  with  a  rule  yet  to  be  approved  by  the  Court.  It  must  be  stressed  that  the 
a  press  conference,  the  killing  of  eleven  (11)  members  of  the  Kuratong  Baleleng  institution  and  prosecution  of  criminal  cases  are  governed  by  existing  rules  and 
Gang  (KBG)  in  a  shootout  with  police  elements  near  the  fly-over  along  not  by  rules  yet to exist. It would be the apex of injustice to hold that Section 8 had 
Commonwealth  Avenue,  Quezon  City  at  about  4:00  A.M.  that  day.  Delos  Reyes  a  platonic  or  ideal  existence  before  it  was approved by the Court. The past cannot 
claimed  that  the  police  team  arrested  the  eleven  (11)  gang  members  in  early  be erased by a capricious retroactive application of the new rule. 
morning  of  May  18,  1995  at  the  gang’s  safe  house  in  Superville  Subdivision,   
Parañaque.  Doctrine: 
  The  Court  is  not  mandated  to  apply  Section  8  retroactively  simply  because  it  is 
On  June  1,  1995,  PNP  Director  for  Investigation,  filed  murder  charges  with  the  favorable  to  the  accused.  It  must  be  noted  that  the  new  rule was approved by the 
Office  of  the  Ombudsman  against  ninety-seven  (97)  officers  and  personnel  of  Court  not  only  to  reinforce  the  constitutional  right  of  the  accused  to  a  speedy 
ABRITFG.  The  next-of-kin  of  the  slain  KBG  members  also  filed  murder  charges  disposition  of  the  case.  The  time-bar  under  the  new  rule  was  approved  by  the 
against  the  same  officers  and  personnel.  Ombudsman  filed  before  the  Court  to  excise  the  malaise  that  plagued  the  administration of the criminal justice 
Sandiganbayan  eleven  (11)  Informations  for  MURDER,  docketed  against  system for the benefit of the State and the accused; not for the accused only. 
respondent Panfilo M. Lacson and twenty-five (25) other accused.   
  The  time-bar  under  the  new  rule  does  not  reduce  the  periods  under  Article  90  of 
[Start of this Resolution]  the  Revised  Penal  Code,  a  substantive  law.  It  is  but  a  limitation  of  the  right of the 
Before  the  Court  are  the  following  motions  of  the  respondent,  to wit: (a) Omnibus  State  to  revive  a  criminal  case against the accused after the Information had been 
Motion;  (b)  Motion  for  Reconsideration;  (c)  Supplement  to  Motion  for  filed  but  subsequently  provisionally  dismissed  with  the  express  consent  of  the 
Reconsideration; (d) Motion To Set for Oral Arguments. All of these were d ​ enied.  accused.  Upon  the  lapse  of  the timeline under the new rule, the State is presumed, 
  albeit  disputably,  to  have  abandoned  or  waived  its  right  to  revive  the  case  and 
prosecute  the  accused.  The  dismissal  becomes  ipso  facto  permanent.  He can no 
 for  MURDER,  docketed  against  respondent  Panfilo  M.  Lacson  and 
longer  be  charged  anew  for  the  same  crime or another crime necessarily included 
twenty-five  (25)  other  accused.  All twenty-six (26) of them were charged 
therein. 
as  principals.  Amended  Informations  were  filed  against  the  same 
 
twenty-six  (26)  suspects but the participation of respondent Lacson was 
1. If  the  penalty  for  the  offense  exceeds  6  years  -  the  provisional  dismissal 
downgraded from principal to accessory. 
becomes permanent after 2 years 
2. If  the  penalty  for  the  offense  does  NOT  exceed  6  years  -  the  provisional 
Note:  If  he  asks  what’s  the  famous  name  of  this  case,  it’s  ​Kuratong 
dismissal becomes permanent after 1 year 
Baleleng Gang. 
Commencement  period:  notice  given  to the public prosecutor (not to the offended 
party)  because  it’s  the  public prosecutor who will revive the case, not the offended 
3. ITO  START  NG  RESOLUTION:  Before  the  Court  are  the  following 
party. 
motions  of  the  respondent,  to  wit:  (a)  Omnibus  Motion;  (b)  Motion  for 
Reconsideration;  (c)  Supplement  to  Motion  for  Reconsideration;  (d) 
FACTS:  [Resolution  -  the case didn’t state the full facts of the case :( But  I’ll put  Motion To Set for Oral Arguments. 
na lang a synopsis just in case he asks ]  4. OMNIBUS  MOTION:  (1)  seeks  the  reconsideration  of  the  April  29,  2003 
Resolution  of  this  Court  which  granted  the  petitioners'  motion  for 
1. SYNOPSIS:  On  May  18,  1995,  then  PNP  Director-General  Recaredo  reconsideration;  and  (2)  prays  to  allow  Associate  Justices  Renato  C. 
Sarmiento  II  announced,  in  a  press  conference,  the  killing of eleven (11)  Corona,  Ma.  Alicia  Austria-Martinez,  Conchita  C.  Morales,  Romeo  J. 
members  of  the  Kuratong Baleleng Gang (KBG) in a shootout with police  Callejo,  Sr.,  and  Adolfo  S.  Azcuna  to  voluntary  inhibit  themselves  or, 
elements  near  the  fly-over  along Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City at  absent  their  consent,  rule  that  such  inhibition  is  in  order  and  to  recuse 
about  4:00  A.M.  that  day.  Delos  Reyes  claimed  that  the  police  team  them  from  further  deliberating,  discussing  or,  in  any  manner, 
arrested the eleven (11) gang members in early morning of May 18, 1995  participating  in  the  resolution  of  the  Motion  for Reconsideration and the 
at  the  gang’s  safe  house  in  Superville  Subdivision,  Parañaque; that after  Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration = D ​ ENIED 
their  arrest,  the  gang  members  were  made  to  board  two  vans,  their  5. MOTION  TO  SET  THE  CASE  FOR  ORAL  ARGUMENTS​:  ​DENIED  =  The 
hands  tied  behind  their  backs,  and  brought  initially  to  Camp  Crame  Court  denies  the  motion  of  the  respondent.  The  parties  have  already 
where  a  decision  to  summarily  execute  them  was  made,  and  later  to  extensively  discussed  the  issues  involved  in  the  case.  The respondent's 
Commonwealth  Avenue  where  they  were  shot  to  death  by  elements  of  motion  for  reconsideration  consists  of  no  less  than  a  hundred  pages, 
ABRITFG.  The  ABRITFG  is  a  composite  police team called the Anti-Bank  excluding  the  supplement to his motion for reconsideration and his reply 
Robbery  and  Intelligence  Task  Force  Group  (ABRITFG)  composed  of  to  the  petitioners'  comment  on  his  motion.  There  is  no  longer  a need to 
elements  of  the  National  Capital  Region  Command  (NCRC)  and  headed  set the instant case for oral arguments. 
by  Chief  Superintendent  Jewel  Canson;  Traffic  Management Command,  6. MOTION  FOR  RECONSIDERATION:  Lacson  seeks the reconsideration of 
headed  by  Senior  Superintendent  Francisco  Subia,  Jr.;  Presidential  the April 1, 2003 Resolution of the Court (wherein the Court ruled that the 
Anti-Crime  Commission  (PACC), headed by Chief Superintendent Panfilo  time-bar  rule  under  Section  8  of  Rule 117 does NOT apply retroactively). 
M.  Lacson;  Central  Police  District  Command,  headed  by  Chief  He  asserts  that  pursuant  to  a  long  line  of  jurisprudence  and  a 
Superintendent  Ricardo  de  Leon;  and  Criminal  Investigation  Command  long-standing  judicial  practice  in  applying  penal  law, Section 8, Rule 117 
(CIC),  headed  by  Chief  Superintendent  Romeo  Acop.  However,  there  of  the  Revised  Rules  of  Criminal  Procedure  (RRCP)  should  be  applied 
were  assertions  that  the  killing  was  a  rubout  and  not  a  shootout,  hence  prospectively  and  retroactively  without  reservations,  only  and  solely  on 
an investigation was conducted.  the  basis  of  its  being favorable to the accused. He asserts that case law 
2. On  June  1,  1995,  PNP  Director  for  Investigation,  filed  murder  charges  on  the  retroactive  application  of  penal  laws  should  likewise  apply  to 
with the Office of the Ombudsman against ninety-seven (97) officers and  criminal procedure, it being a branch of criminal law.  
personnel  of  ABRITFG.  The  next-of-kin  of  the  slain  KBG  members  also 
filed  murder  charges  against  the  same  officers  and  personnel.  ISSUES:  W/N  Section  8  of  Rule  117  (time-bar  rule)  should  be  applied 
Ombudsman  filed  before  the  Sandiganbayan  eleven  (11)  Informations  retroactively? NO 
 Consider this scenario: the trial court (RTC) provisionally dismissed a criminal 
RATIO:  case with the express consent of the accused in 1997. The prosecution had the 
What is the time-bar rule under Section 8 of Rule 117?  right to revive the case within the prescriptive period, under Article 90 of the 
The time-bar under the new rule does not reduce the periods under Article 90 of  Revised Penal Code, as amended. On December 1, 2000, the time-bar rule under 
the Revised Penal Code, a substantive law. It is but a limitation of the right of the  Section 8 took effect, the prosecution was unable to revive the criminal case 
State to revive a criminal case against the accused after the Information had  before then. 
been filed but subsequently provisionally dismissed with the express consent of   
the accused. Upon the lapse of the timeline under the new rule, the State is  If the time-bar fixed in Section 8 were to be applied retroactively, this would 
presumed, albeit disputably, to have abandoned or waived its right to revive the  mean that the State would be barred from reviving the case for failure to comply 
case and prosecute the accused. The dismissal becomes ipso facto permanent.  with the said time-bar, which was yet to be approved by the Court three years 
He can no longer be charged anew for the same crime or another crime  after the provisional dismissal of the criminal case. In contrast, if the same case 
necessarily included therein.  was dismissed provisionally in December 2000, the State had the right to revive 
  the same within the time-bar. In fine, to so hold would imply that the State was 
1. If the penalty for the offense e
​ xceeds 6 years​ - the provisional dismissal  presumed to foresee and anticipate that three years after 1997, the Court would 
becomes permanent after ​2 years  approve and amend the RRCP. The State would thus be sanctioned for its failure 
2. If the penalty for the offense d​ oes NOT exceed 6 years​ - the provisional  to comply with a rule yet to be approved by the Court. It must be stressed that the 
dismissal becomes permanent after ​1 year  institution and prosecution of criminal cases are governed by existing rules and 
Commencement period:​ notice given to the public prosecutor (not to the  not by rules yet to exist. It would be the apex of injustice to hold that Section 8 
offended party) because it’s the public prosecutor who will revive the case, not  had a platonic or ideal existence before it was approved by the Court. The past 
the offended party.  cannot be erased by a capricious retroactive application of the new rule. 
   
Why Section 8 of Rule 117 should NOT be applied retroactively?  Lacson Failed to Comply with the Essential Prerequisites of Section 8, Rule 117 
The Court is not mandated to apply Section 8 retroactively simply because it is  of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure 
favorable to the accused. It must be noted that the new rule was approved by the  Note:​ When the case was in the level of CA, Lacson, through his counsel (Atty. 
Court not only to reinforce the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy  Fortun) admitted that he d ​ id not agree to a provisional dismissal of his case 
disposition of the case. The time-bar under the new rule was approved by the  (​judicial admission)​. 
Court to excise the malaise that plagued the administration of the criminal justice   
system for the benefit of the State and the accused; not for the accused only.  The Court stated:​ When the Lacson admitted that he did not move for the 
  dismissal of his criminal cases in his motion for a judicial determination of 
In this case, when the Court approved Section 8, it intended the new rule to be  probable cause, and that he did not give his express consent to the provisional 
applied prospectively and not retroactively, for if the intention of the Court were  dismissal of the said cases, he in fact admitted that one of the essential 
otherwise, it would defeat the very purpose for which it was intended, namely, to  requisites of Section 8, Rule 117 was absent. 
give the State a period of two years from notice of the provisional dismissal of   
criminal cases with the express consent of the accused. It would be a denial of   
the State's right to due process and a travesty of justice for the Court to apply the 
new rule retroactively in the present case as the respondent insists, considering 
that the criminal cases were provisionally dismissed by Judge Agnir, Jr. on 
March 29, 1999 before the new rule took effect on December 1, 2000. A 
retroactive application of the time-bar will result in absurd, unjust and oppressive 
consequences to the State and to the victims of crimes and their heirs.