8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

1/19

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 149453. April 1, 2003]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE SECRETAR OF !"STICE,#IRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONALPOLICE, CHIEF STATE PROSEC"TOR !O$ENCITO %"&O,STATE PROSEC"TORS PETER L. ONG '() R"*EN A.%ACARIAS+ 2N# ASSISTANT CIT PROSEC"TORCONRA#O . !AOLIN '() CIT PROSEC"TOR OF-"E%ON CIT CLARO ARELLANO, petitioners, vs.

PANFILO . LACSON, respondent.

R E S O L " T I O N

CALLE!O, SR., J.

Before the Court is the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration1[1] of theResolution2[2]dated May 28, 22, re!andin" this case to the Re"ional #rial Court$R#C% of &ue'on City, Branch 81, for the deter!ination of se(eral factual issuesrelati(e to the application of )ection 8 of Rule 11* of the Re(ised Rules ofCri!inal +rocedure on the dis!issal of Cri!inal Cases Nos &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. filed a"ainst the respondent and his co-accused 0ith the said court nthe aforesaid cri!inal cases, the respondent and his co-accused 0ere char"ed0ith !ultiple !urder for the shootin" and illin" of ele(en !ale persons identifiedas Manuel Montero, a for!er Corporal of the +hilippine Ar!y, Rolando )iplon,)her0in A3alora, 0ho 0as 1/ years old, Ray A3alora, 0ho 0as 1. years old,4oel A!ora, 4e(y Redillas, Meleu3ren )orronda, 0ho 0as 15 years old, 6[6]

+acifico Montero, 4r, of the 55th nfantry Batallion of the +hilippine Ar!y, 7el3orElca!el, )+1 Carlito Alap-ap of the 9a!3oan"a +N+, and Ale: Neri, for!erCorporal of the 55th nfantry Batallion of the +hilippine Ar!y, 3andied as!e!3ers of the Kuratong Baleleng;an" #he respondent opposed petitioners!otion for reconsideration5[5]

#he Court ruled in the Resolution sou"ht to 3e reconsidered that thepro(isional dis!issal of Cri!inal Cases Nos &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. 0ere

1 [1]Rollo,

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

2/19

0ith the e:press consent of the respondent as he hi!self !o(ed for saidpro(isional dis!issal 0hen he filed his !otion for =udicial deter!ination ofpro3a3le cause and for e:a!ination of 0itnesses #he Court also held thereinthat althou"h )ection 8, Rule 11* of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedurecould 3e "i(en retroacti(e effect, there is still a need to deter!ine 0hether the

re>uire!ents for its application are attendant #he trial court 0as thus directed toresol(e the follo0in"?

$1% 0hether the pro(isional dis!issal of the cases had the e:pressconsent of the accused@ $2% 0hether it 0as ordered 3y the court after notice tothe offended party@ $6% 0hether the 2-year period to re(i(e it has already lapsed@$5% 0hether there is any =ustification for the filin" of the cases 3eyond the 2-yearperiod@ $% 0hether notices to the offended parties 0ere "i(en 3efore the casesof respondent acson 0ere dis!issed 3y then 4ud"e A"nir@ $/% 0hether there0ere affida(its of desistance e:ecuted 3y the relati(es of the three $6% other(icti!s@ $*% 0hether the !ultiple !urder cases a"ainst respondent acson are3ein" re(i(ed 0ithin or 3eyond the 2-year 3ar

#he Court further held that the reconin" date of the t0o-year 3ar had to 3efirst deter!ined 0hether it shall 3e fro! the date of the order of then 4ud"e

A"nir, 4r dis!issin" the cases, or fro! the dates of receipt thereof 3y the (ariousoffended parties, or fro! the date of effecti(ity of the ne0 rule Accordin" to theCourt, if the cases 0ere re(i(ed only after the t0o-year 3ar, the )tate !ust 3e"i(en the opportunity to =ustify its failure to co!ply 0ith the said ti!e-3ar te!phasi'ed that the ne0 rule fi:es a ti!e-3ar to penali'e the )tate for itsine:cusa3le delay in prosecutin" cases already filed in court o0e(er, the )tateis not precluded fro! presentin" co!pellin" reasons to =ustify the re(i(al of cases3eyond the t0o-year 3ar

n support of their Motion for Reconsideration, the petitioners contend that $a%)ection 8, Rule 11* of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure is not applica3leto Cri!inal Cases Nos &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8.@ and $3% the ti!e-3ar insaid rule should not 3e applied retroacti(ely

#he Court shall resol(e the issues seriatim

)EC#N 8, RDE 11* #EREuire!ents for its application 0ere not present0hen 4ud"e A"nir, 4r, issued his resolution of March 2., 1... Fisa"reein" 0iththe rulin" of the Court, the petitioners !aintain that the respondent did not "i(ehis e:press consent to the dis!issal 3y 4ud"e A"nir, 4r, of Cri!inal Cases Nos&-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. #he respondent alle"edly ad!itted in his pleadin"sfiled 0ith the Court of Appeals and durin" the hearin" thereat that he did not file

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

3/19

any !otion to dis!iss said cases, or e(en a"ree to a pro(isional dis!issalthereof Moreo(er, the heirs of the (icti!s 0ere alle"edly not "i(en prior noticesof the dis!issal of the said cases 3y 4ud"e A"nir, 4r Accordin" to thepetitioners, the respondents e:press consent to the pro(isional dis!issal of thecases and the notice to all the heirs of the (icti!s of the respondents !otion and

the hearin" thereon are conditions sine qua nonto the application of the ti!e-3arin the second para"raph of the ne0 rule

#he petitioners further su3!it that it is not necessary that the case 3ere!anded to the R#C to deter!ine 0hether pri(ate co!plainants 0ere notified ofthe March 22, 1... hearin" on the respondents !otion for =udicial deter!inationof the e:istence of pro3a3le cause #he records alle"edly indicate clearly thatonly the handlin" city prosecutor 0as furnished a copy of the notice of hearin" onsaid !otion #here is alle"edly no e(idence that pri(ate prosecutor Atty ;od0in

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

4/19

3efore the Court of Appeals, the respondent is 3urdened to esta3lish theessential re>uisites of the first para"raph thereof, na!ely?

1 the prosecution 0ith the e:press confor!ity of the accused or theaccused !o(es for a pro(isional $sin perjuicio% dis!issal of the case@ or 3oththe prosecution and the accused !o(e for a pro(isional dis!issal of the case@

2 the offended party is notified of the !otion for a pro(isional dis!issalof the case@

6 the court issues an order "rantin" the !otion and dis!issin" thecase pro(isionally@

5 the pu3lic prosecutor is ser(ed 0ith a copy of the order of pro(isionaldis!issal of the case

#he fore"oin" re>uire!ents are conditions sine qua nonto the application ofthe ti!e-3ar in the second para"raph of the ne0 rule #he raison d etrefor there>uire!ent of the e:press consent of the accused to a pro(isional dis!issal of acri!inal case is to 3ar hi! fro! su3se>uently assertin" that the re(i(al of thecri!inal case 0ill place hi! in dou3le =eopardy for the sa!e offense or for anoffense necessarily included therein[]

Althou"h the second para"raph of the ne0 rule states that the order ofdis!issal shall 3eco!e per!anent one year after the issuance thereof 0ithoutthe case ha(in" 3een re(i(ed, the pro(ision should 3e construed to !ean thatthe order of dis!issal shall 3eco!e per!anent one year after ser(ice of theorder of dis!issal on the pu3lic prosecutor 0ho has control of the prosecution /[/]

0ithout the cri!inal case ha(in" 3een re(i(ed #he pu3lic prosecutor cannot 3ee:pected to co!ply 0ith the ti!eline unless he is ser(ed 0ith a copy of the orderof dis!issal

E:press consent to a pro(isional dis!issal is "i(en either viva voce or in0ritin" t is a positi(e, direct, une>ui(ocal consent re>uirin" no inference ori!plication to supply its !eanin" *[*] 7here the accused 0rites on the !otion of aprosecutor for a pro(isional dis!issal of the case No objection or With myconormity, the 0ritin" a!ounts to e:press consent of the accused to apro(isional dis!issal of the case8[8] #he !ere inaction or silence of the accusedto a !otion for a pro(isional dis!issal of the case .[.]or his failure to o3=ect to apro(isional dis!issal1[1]does not a!ount to e:press consent

[]Regalado,Re!edial a0 Co!pendiu!,

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

5/19

A !otion of the accused for a pro(isional dis!issal of a case is an e:pressconsent to such pro(isional dis!issal11[11] f a cri!inal case is pro(isionallydis!issed 0ith the e:press consent of the accused, the case !ay 3e re(i(edonly 0ithin the periods pro(ided in the ne0 rule n the other hand, if a cri!inalcase is pro(isionally dis!issed 0ithout the e:press consent of the accused or

o(er his o3=ection, the ne0 rule 0ould not apply #he case !ay 3e re(i(ed orrefiled e(en 3eyond the prescri3ed periods su3=ect to the ri"ht of the accused tooppose the sa!e on the "round of dou3le =eopardy 12[12]or that such re(i(al orrefilin" is 3arred 3y the statute of li!itations 16[16]

#he case !ay 3e re(i(ed 3y the )tate 0ithin the ti!e-3ar either 3y therefilin" of the nfor!ation or 3y the filin" of a ne0 nfor!ation for the sa!eoffense or an offense necessarily included therein #here 0ould 3e no need of ane0 preli!inary in(esti"ation15[15]o0e(er, in a case 0herein after the pro(isionaldis!issal of a cri!inal case, the ori"inal 0itnesses of the prosecution or so!e ofthe! !ay ha(e recanted their testi!onies or !ay ha(e died or !ay no lon"er 3ea(aila3le and ne0 0itnesses for the )tate ha(e e!er"ed, a ne0 preli!inary

in(esti"ation1[1]!ust 3e conducted 3efore an nfor!ation is refiled or a ne0nfor!ation is filed A ne0 preli!inary in(esti"ation is also re>uired if aside fro!the ori"inal accused, other persons are char"ed under a ne0 cri!inal co!plaintfor the sa!e offense or necessarily included therein@ or if under a ne0 cri!inalco!plaint, the ori"inal char"e has 3een up"raded@ or if under a ne0 cri!inalco!plaint, the cri!inal lia3ility of the accused is up"raded fro! that as anaccessory to that as a principal #he accused !ust 3e accorded the ri"ht tosu3!it counter-affida(its and e(idence After all, Hthe fiscal is not called 3y theRules of Court to 0ait in a!3ush@ the role of a fiscal is not !ainly to prosecute3ut essentially to do =ustice to e(ery !an and to assist the court in dispensin"that =usticeI1/[1/]

n this case, the respondent has failed to pro(e that the first and secondre>uisites of the first para"raph of the ne0 rule 0ere present 0hen 4ud"e A"nir,

11 [11]Baesa v. !rovincial 'iscal o %amarines (ur,6* )CRA 56* $1.*1%

12 [12]Rule 11*, )ection 6$i% of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure

16 [16]Benes v. )nited (tates o $merica,2*/ 2d .. $1./%

15 [15] (y v. %ourt o $ppeals, 116 )CRA 66 $1.82%@ *ava v. +onales, 11 )CRA /$1./5%@ Bandiala v. %'I o -isamis ccidental,6 )CRA 26* $1.*%@ *uciano v. -ariano,5 )CRA 18* $1.*1%@ /eehan0ee v. -adayag,2* )CRA 165 $1..2%

1 [1]

)EC#N 1 !reliminary investigation deined1 2hen required. G +reli!inaryin(esti"ation is an in>uiry or proceedin" to deter!ine 0hether there is sufficient "round toen"ender a 0ell-founded 3elief that a cri!e has 3een co!!itted and the respondent ispro3a3ly "uilty thereof, and should 3e held for trial

E:cept as pro(ided in )ection * of this Rule, a preli!inary in(esti"ation is re>uired to 3econducted 3efore the filin" of a co!plaint or infor!ation for an offense 0here the penaltyprescri3ed 3y la0 is at least four $5% years, t0o $2% !onths and one $1% day 0ithout re"ardto the fine $)ection 1, Rule 112, 2 Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure%

1/ [1/]Bandiala v. %ourt, supra.

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

6/19

4r dis!issed Cri!inal Cases Nos &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. rrefra"a3ly, theprosecution did not file any !otion for the pro(isional dis!issal of the saidcri!inal cases or his part, the respondent !erely filed a !otion for =udicialdeter!ination of pro3a3le cause and for e:a!ination of prosecution 0itnessesalle"in" that under Article , )ection 2 of the Constitution and the decision of this

Court in$llado v. 3io0no,1*[1*]

a!on" other cases, there 0as a need for the trialcourt to conduct a personal deter!ination of pro3a3le cause for the issuance of a0arrant of arrest a"ainst respondent and to ha(e the prosecutions 0itnessessu!!oned 3efore the court for its e:a!ination #he respondent contendedtherein that until after the trial court shall ha(e personally deter!ined thepresence of pro3a3le cause, no 0arrant of arrest should 3e issued a"ainst therespondent and if one had already 3een issued, the 0arrant should 3e recalled3y the trial court e then prayed therein that?

1% a =udicial deter!ination of pro3a3le cause pursuant to )ection 2,Article of the Constitution 3e conducted 3y this onora3le Court, and for thispurpose, an order 3e issued directin" the prosecution to present the pri(ate

co!plainants and their 0itnesses at a hearin" scheduled therefor@ and2% 0arrants for the arrest of the accused-!o(ants 3e 0ithheld, or, if

issued, recalled in the !eanti!e until the resolution of this incident

ther e>uita3le reliefs are also prayed for 18[18]

#he respondent did not pray for the dis!issal, pro(isional or other0ise, ofCri!inal Cases Nos &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. Neither did he e(er a"ree,i!pliedly or e:pressly, to a !ere pro(isional dis!issal of the cases n fact, in hisreply filed 0ith the Court of Appeals, respondent e!phasi'ed that?

An e:a!ination of the Motion for 4udicial Feter!ination of +ro3a3leCause and for E:a!ination of +rosecution 7itnesses filed 3y the petitioner andhis other co-accused in the said cri!inal cases 0ould sho0 that the petitionerdid not pray for the dis!issal of the case n the contrary, the relies prayedor therein by the petitioner are4 567 a judicial determination o probable cause

pursuant to (ection 8, $rticle III o the %onstitution1 and 587 that 2arrants or thearrest o the accused be 2ithheld, or i issued, recalled in the meantime untilthe resolution o the motion. It cannot be said, thereore, that the dismissal othe case 2as made 2ith the consent o the petitioner. $ copy o the aoresaidmotion is hereto attached and made integral part hereo as $nne9 :$.;1.[1.]

Furin" the hearin" in the Court of Appeals on 4uly 61, 21, the respondent,throu"h counsel, cate"orically, une>ui(ocally, and definitely declared that he didnot file any !otion to dis!iss the cri!inal cases nor did he a"ree to a pro(isional

dis!issal thereof, thus?

4D)#CE )AN;A?

1* [1*]262 )CRA 1.2 $1..5%

18 [18]R#C Records,

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

7/19

And it is your stand that the dis!issal !ade 3y the Court 0as pro(isional innatureJ

A##K R#DN?

t 0as in $sic% that the accused did not as for it 7hat they 0anted at the onset0as si!ply a =udicial deter!ination of pro3a3le cause for 0arrants of arrest

issued #hen 4ud"e A"nir, upon the presentation 3y the parties of their0itnesses, particularly those 0ho had 0ithdra0n their affida(its, !ade onefurther conclusion that not only 0as this case lacin" in pro3a3le cause forpurposes of the issuance of an arrest 0arrant 3ut also it did not =ustifyproceedin" to trial

4D)#CE )AN;A?

And it is e:pressly pro(ided under )ection 8 that a case shall not 3epro(isionally dis!issed e:cept 0hen it is 0ith the e:press confor!ity of theaccused

A##K R#DN?

#hat is correct, Kour onor

4D)#CE )AN;A?

And 0ith notice to the offended party

A##K R#DN?

#hat is correct, Kour onor

4D)#CE )AN;A?

7as there an e:press confor!ity on the part of the accusedJ

A##K R#DN?

#here 0as none, Kour onor 7e 0ere not ased to si"n any order, or anystate!ent, 0hich 0ould nor!ally 3e re>uired 3y the Court on pre-trial or onother !atters, includin" other pro(isional dis!issal My (ery li!itedpractice in cri!inal courts, Kour onor, had tau"ht !e that a =ud"e !ust 3e(ery careful on this !atter of pro(isional dis!issal n fact they as theaccused to co!e for0ard, and the =ud"e hi!self or herself e:plains thei!plications of a pro(isional dis!issal +u!apaya" a 3a dito +u0ede3an" pu!ir!a aJ

4D)#CE R)AR?

Kou 0ere present durin" the proceedin"sJ

A##K R#DN?

Kes, Kour onor

4D)#CE R)AR?

Kou represented the petitioner in this caseJ

A##K R#DN?

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

8/19

#hat is correct, Kour onor And there 0as nothin" of that sort 0hich the "ood4ud"e A"nir, 0ho is !ost no0led"ea3le in cri!inal la0, had done inrespect of pro(isional dis!issal or the !atter of Mr acson a"reein" to thepro(isional dis!issal of the case

4D)#CE ;DERRER?

No0, you filed a !otion, the other accused then filed a !otion for a =udicialdeter!ination of pro3a3le causeJ

A##K R#DN?

Kes, Kour onor

4D)#CE ;DERRER?

Fid you !ae any alternati(e prayer in your !otion that if there is no pro3a3lecause 0hat should the Court doJ

A##K R#DN?

#hat the arrest 0arrants only 3e 0ithheld #hat 0as the only prayer that 0eased n fact, ha(e a copy of that particular !otion, and if !ay read !yprayer 3efore the Court, it said? H7herefore, it is respectfully prayed that $1%a =udicial deter!ination of pro3a3le cause pursuant to )ection 2, Article of the Constitution 3e conducted, and for this purpose, an order 3e issueddirectin" the prosecution to present the pri(ate co!plainants and their0itnesses at the scheduled hearin" for that purpose@ and $2% the 0arrantsfor the arrest of the accused 3e 0ithheld, or, if issued, recalled in the!eanti!e until resolution of this incident

4D)#CE ;DERRER?

#here is no "eneral prayer for any further reliefJ

A##K R#DN?

#here is 3ut it si!ply says other e>uita3le reliefs are prayed for

4D)#CE ;DERRER?

Font you sur!ise 4ud"e A"nir, no0 a !e!3er of this Court, preciselyaddressed your prayer for =ust and e>uita3le relief to dis!iss the case3ecause 0hat 0ould 3e the net effect of a situation 0here there is no0arrant of arrest 3ein" issued 0ithout dis!issin" the caseJ

A##K R#DN?

Kes, Kour onor 0ill not second say $sic% yes the ;ood 4ustice, 3ut 0hat is

plain is 0e did not a"ree to the pro(isional dis!issal, neither 0ere 0eased to si"n any assent to the pro(isional dis!issal

4D)#CE ;DERRER?

f you did not a"ree to the pro(isional dis!issal did you not file any !otion forreconsideration of the order of 4ud"e A"nir that the case should 3edis!issedJ

A##K R#DN?

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

9/19

did not, Kour onor, 3ecause ne0 fully 0ell at that ti!e that !y client hadalready 3een arrai"ned, and the arrai"n!ent 0as (alid as far as 0asconcerned )o, the dis!issal, Kour onor, 3y 4ud"e A"nir operated to3enefit !e, and therefore did not tae any further step in addition torocin" the 3oat or clarifyin" the !atter further 3ecause it pro3a3ly couldpre=udice the interest of !y client

4D)#CE ;DERRER?

Continue2[2]

n his !e!orandu! in lieu of the oral ar"u!ent filed 0ith the Court ofAppeals, the respondent declared in no uncertain ter!s that?

)oon thereafter, the )C in early 1... rendered a decision declarin" the)andi"an3ayan 0ithout =urisdiction o(er the cases #he records 0erere!anded to the &C R#C Dpon raffle, the case 0as assi"ned to Branch 81+etitioner and the others pro!ptly filed a !otion for =udicial deter!ination ofpro3a3le cause $Anne: B% e ased that 0arrants for his arrest not 3e issuede did not !o(e for the dis!issal of the nfor!ations, contrary to respondent);s clai!21[21]

#he respondents ad!issions !ade in the course of the proceedin"s in theCourt of Appeals are 3indin" and conclusi(e on hi! #he respondent is 3arredfro! repudiatin" his ad!issions a3sent e(idence of palpa3le !istae in !ain"such ad!issions22[22]

#o apply the ne0 rule in Cri!inal Cases Nos &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8.0ould 3e to add to or !ae e:ceptions fro! the ne0 rule 0hich are not e:presslyor i!pliedly included therein #his the Court cannot and should not do26[26]

#he Court also a"rees 0ith the petitioners contention that no notice of any

!otion for the pro(isional dis!issal of Cri!inal Cases Nos &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. or of the hearin" thereon 0as ser(ed on the heirs of the (icti!s at leastthree days 3efore said hearin" as !andated 3y Rule 1, )ection 5 of the Rulesof Court t !ust 3e 3orne in !ind that in cri!es in(ol(in" pri(ate interests, thene0 rule re>uires that the offended party or parties or the heirs of the (icti!s!ust 3e "i(en ade>uate a priorinotice of any !otion for the pro(isional dis!issalof the cri!inal case )uch notice !ay 3e ser(ed on the offended party or theheirs of the (icti! throu"h the pri(ate prosecutor, if there is one, or throu"h thepu3lic prosecutor 0ho in turn !ust relay the notice to the offended party or theheirs of the (icti! to ena3le the! to confer 0ith hi! 3efore the hearin" or appearin court durin" the hearin" #he proof of such ser(ice !ust 3e sho0n durin" the

hearin" on the !otion, other0ise, the re>uire!ent of the ne0 rule 0ill 3eco!eillusory )uch notice 0ill ena3le the offended party or the heirs of the (icti! the

2 [2]#)N, CA-;R )+ No /65, 4uly 61, 21, pp 16-18 $e!phasis ours%

21 [21]CA Rollo,p 6*8 $e!phasis 3y respondent%

22 [22])ection 5, Rule 12. of the Re(ised Rules on E(idence

26 [26]#ari v. 'ood 'air (tores, 16 AR6d 855 $1./5%

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

10/19

opportunity to seasona3ly and effecti(ely co!!ent on or o3=ect to the !otion on(alid "rounds, includin"? $a% the collusion 3et0een the prosecution and theaccused for the pro(isional dis!issal of a cri!inal case there3y depri(in" the)tate of its ri"ht to due process@ $3% atte!pts to !ae 0itnesses una(aila3le@ or$c% the pro(isional dis!issal of the case 0ith the conse>uent release of the

accused fro! detention 0ould ena3le hi! to threaten and ill the offended partyor the other prosecution 0itnesses or flee fro! +hilippine =urisdiction, pro(ideopportunity for the destruction or loss of the prosecutions physical and othere(idence and pre=udice the ri"hts of the offended party to reco(er on the ci(illia3ility of the accused 3y his conceal!ent or furti(e disposition of his property orthe conse>uent liftin" of the 0rit of preli!inary attach!ent a"ainst his property

n the case at 3ar, e(en if the respondents !otion for a deter!ination ofpro3a3le cause and e:a!ination of 0itnesses !ay 3e considered for the nonceas his !otion for a pro(isional dis!issal of Cri!inal Cases Nos &-..-81/*. to&-..-81/8., ho0e(er, the heirs of the (icti!s 0ere not notified thereof prior tothe hearin" on said !otion on March 22, 1... t !ust 3e stressed that the

respondent filed his !otion only on March 1*, 1... and set it for hearin" onMarch 22, 1... or 3arely fi(e days fro! the filin" thereof Althou"h the pu3licprosecutor 0as ser(ed 0ith a copy of the !otion, the records do not sho0 thatnotices thereof 0ere separately "i(en to the heirs of the (icti!s or thatsu3poenae 0ere issued to and recei(ed 3y the!, includin" those 0ho e:ecutedtheir affida(its of desistance 0ho 0ere residents of Fipolo" City or +iLan,9a!3oan"a del Norte or +alo!pon, eyte 25[25]#here is as 0ell no proof in therecords that the pu3lic prosecutor notified the heirs of the (icti!s of said !otionor of the hearin" thereof on March 22, 1... Althou"h Atty

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

11/19

Rufino )iplon, Car!elita Elca!el, Myrna A3alora, and eonora A!ora 0ho$e:cept for Rufino )iplon%2/[2/]e:ecuted their respecti(e affida(its of desistance2*[2*]

#here 0as no appearance for the heirs of Ale: Neri, +acifico Montero, 4r, andMeleu3ren )orronda #here is no proof on record that all the heirs of the (icti!s0ere ser(ed 0ith copies of the resolution of 4ud"e A"nir, 4r dis!issin" the said

cases n fine, there ne(er 0as any atte!pt on the part of the trial court, thepu3lic prosecutor andor the pri(ate prosecutor to notify all the heirs of the (icti!sof the respondents !otion and the hearin" thereon and of the resolution of4ud"e A"nir, 4r dis!issin" said cases #he said heirs 0ere thus depri(ed oftheir ri"ht to 3e heard on the respondents !otion and to protect their interestseither in the trial court or in the appellate court

)ince the conditions sine qua nonfor the application of the ne0 rule 0ere notpresent 0hen 4ud"e A"nir, 4r issued his resolution, the )tate is not 3arred 3ythe ti!e li!it set forth in the second para"raph of )ection 8 of Rule 11* of theRe(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure #he )tate can thus re(i(e or refileCri!inal Cases Nos &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. or file ne0 nfor!ations for

!ultiple !urder a"ainst the respondent

#E #ME-BAR N )EC#N 8,RDE 11* #E RE

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

12/19

e:pressly consented to a pro(isional dis!issal of Cri!inal Cases Nos &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. and all the heirs of the (icti!s 0ere notified of therespondents !otion 3efore the hearin" thereon and 0ere ser(ed 0ith copies ofthe resolution of 4ud"e A"nir, 4r dis!issin" the ele(en cases, the t0o-year 3ar in)ection 8 of Rule 11* of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure should 3e

applied prospecti(ely and not retroacti(ely a"ainst the )tate #o apply the ti!eli!it retroacti(ely to the cri!inal cases a"ainst the respondent and his co-accused 0ould (iolate the ri"ht of the +eople to due process, and unduly i!pair,reduce, and di!inish the )tates su3stanti(e ri"ht to prosecute the accused for!ultiple !urder #hey posit that under Article . of the Re(ised +enal Code, the)tate had t0enty years 0ithin 0hich to file the cri!inal co!plaints a"ainst theaccused o0e(er, under the ne0 rule, the )tate only had t0o years fro! noticeof the pu3lic prosecutor of the order of dis!issal of Cri!inal Cases Nos &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. 0ithin 0hich to re(i(e the said cases 7hen the ne0 ruletoo effect on Fece!3er 1, 2, the )tate only had one year and three !onths0ithin 0hich to re(i(e the cases or refile the nfor!ations #he period for the

)tate to char"e respondent for !ultiple !urder under Article . of the Re(ised+enal Code 0as considera3ly and ar3itrarily reduced #hey su3!it that in caseof conflict 3et0een the Re(ised +enal Code and the ne0 rule, the for!er shouldpre(ail #hey also insist that the )tate had consistently relied on the prescripti(eperiods under Article . of the Re(ised +enal Code t 0as not accorded a air2arning that it 0ould fore(er 3e 3arred 3eyond the t0o-year period 3y aretroacti(e application of the ne0 rule28[28]+etitioners thus pray to the Court to setaside its Resolution of May 28 22

or his part, the respondent asserts that the ne0 rule under )ection 8 of Rule11* of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure !ay 3e applied retroacti(elysince there is no su3stanti(e ri"ht of the )tate that !ay 3e i!paired 3y its

application to the cri!inal cases in >uestion since O[t]he )tates 0itnesses 0ereready, 0illin" and a3le to pro(ide their testi!ony 3ut the prosecution failed to acton these cases until it 3eca!e politically e:pedient in April 21 for the! to doso2.[2.]Accordin" to the respondent, penal la0s, either procedural or su3stanti(e,!ay 3e retroacti(ely applied so lon" as they fa(or the accused 6[6]e asserts thatthe t0o-year period co!!enced to run on March 2., 1... and lapsed t0o yearsthereafter 0as !ore than reasona3le opportunity for the )tate to fairly indicthi!61[61] n any e(ent, the )tate is "i(en the ri"ht under the Courts assailedResolution to =ustify the filin" of the nfor!ation in Cri!inal Cases Nos 1-1112 to 1-11112 3eyond the ti!e-3ar under the ne0 rule

#he respondent insists that )ection 8 of Rule 11* of the Re(ised Rules ofCri!inal +rocedure does not 3roaden the su3stanti(e ri"ht of dou3le =eopardy tothe pre=udice of the )tate 3ecause the prohi3ition a"ainst the re(i(al of the cases

28 [28]Rollo,

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

13/19

0ithin the one-year or t0o-year periods pro(ided therein is a le"al conceptdistinct fro! the prohi3ition a"ainst the re(i(al of a pro(isionally dis!issed case0ithin the periods stated in )ection 8 of Rule 11* Moreo(er, he clai!s that theeffects of a pro(isional dis!issal under said rule do not !odify or ne"ate theoperation of the prescripti(e period under Article . of the Re(ised +enal Code

+rescription under the Re(ised +enal Code si!ply 3eco!es irrele(ant upon theapplication of )ection 8, Rule 11* 3ecause a co!plaint or infor!ation hasalready 3een filed a"ainst the accused, 0hich filin" tolls the runnin" of theprescripti(e period under Article .62[62]

#he Court a"rees 0ith the respondent that the ne0 rule is not a statute ofli!itations )tatutes of li!itations are construed as acts of "race, and asurrender 3y the so(erei"n of its ri"ht to prosecute or of its ri"ht to prosecute atits discretion )uch statutes are considered as e>ui(alent to acts of a!nestyfounded on the li3eral theory that prosecutions should not 3e allo0ed to fer!entendlessly in the files of the "o(ern!ent to e:plode only after 0itnesses andproofs necessary for the protection of the accused ha(e 3y sheer lapse of ti!e

passed 3eyond a(aila3ility66[66] #he periods fi:ed under such statutes are=urisdictional and are essential ele!ents of the offenses co(ered65[65]

n the other hand, the ti!e-3ar under )ection 8 of Rule 11* is ain to aspecial procedural li!itation >ualifyin" the ri"ht of the )tate to prosecute !ain"the ti!e-3ar an essence of the "i(en ri"ht or as an inherent part thereof, so thatthe lapse of the ti!e-3ar operates to e:tin"uish the ri"ht of the )tate to prosecutethe accused6[6]

#he ti!e-3ar under the ne0 rule does not reduce the periods under Article .of the Re(ised +enal Code, a su3stanti(e la0 6/[6/]t is 3ut a li!itation of the ri"ht

62 [62]Id.at 12-121

66 [66]22 C4), Cri!inal a0, P 226, p *5@ )nited (tates v.

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

14/19

of the )tate to re(i(e a cri!inal case a"ainst the accused after the nfor!ationhad 3een filed 3ut su3se>uently pro(isionally dis!issed 0ith the e:press consentof the accused Dpon the lapse of the ti!eline under the ne0 rule, the )tate ispresu!ed, al3eit disputa3ly, to ha(e a3andoned or 0ai(ed its ri"ht to re(i(e thecase and prosecute the accused #he dis!issal 3eco!es ipso actoper!anent

e can no lon"er 3e char"ed ane0 for the sa!e cri!e or another cri!enecessarily included therein6*[6*]e is spared fro! the an"uish and an:iety as0ell as the e:penses in any ne0 indict!ents68[68]#he )tate !ay re(i(e a cri!inalcase 3eyond the one-year or t0o-year periods pro(ided that there is a =ustifia3lenecessity for the delay6.[6.]By the sa!e toen, if a cri!inal case is dis!issed on!otion of the accused 3ecause the trial is not concluded 0ithin the periodtherefor, the prescripti(e periods under the Re(ised +enal Code are not there3ydi!inished5[5]But 0hether or not the prosecution of the accused is 3arred 3y thestatute of li!itations or 3y the lapse of the ti!e-line under the ne0 rule, the effectis 3asically the sa!e As the )tate )upre!e Court of llinois held?

#his, in effect, enacts that 0hen the specified period shall ha(e arri(ed,

the ri"ht of the state to prosecute shall 3e "one, and the lia3ility of the offenderto 3e punishedQto 3e depri(ed of his li3ertyQshall cease ts ter!s not onlystrie do0n the ri"ht of action 0hich the state had ac>uired 3y the offense, 3utalso re!o(e the fla0 0hich the cri!e had created in the offenders title toli3erty n this respect, its lan"ua"e "oes deeper than statutes 3arrin" ci(ilre!edies usually do #hey e:pressly tae a0ay only the re!edy 3y suit, andthat inferentially is held to a3ate the ri"ht 0hich such re!edy 0ould enforce,and perfect the title 0hich such re!edy 0ould in(ade@ 3ut this statute is ai!eddirectly at the (ery ri"ht 0hich the state has a"ainst the offenderQthe ri"ht topunish, as the only lia3ility 0hich the offender has incurred, and declares thatthis ri"ht and this lia3ility are at an end 51[51]

#he Court a"rees 0ith the respondent that procedural la0s !ay 3e appliedretroacti(ely As applied to cri!inal la0, procedural la0 pro(ides or re"ulates thesteps 3y 0hich one 0ho has co!!itted a cri!e is to 3e punished n /an, =r. v. %ourt o $ppeals,52[52]this Court held that?

)tatutes re"ulatin" the procedure of the courts 0ill 3e construed asapplica3le to actions pendin" and undeter!ined at the ti!e of their passa"e+rocedural la0s are retroacti(e in that sense and to that e:tent #he fact thatprocedural statutes !ay so!eho0 affect the liti"ants ri"hts !ay not precludetheir retroacti(e application to pendin" actions #he retroacti(e application ofprocedural la0s is not (iolati(e of any ri"ht of a person 0ho !ay feel that he is

6* [6*]

!eople v. $llen,15 NE2d 6.*@ (tate v. %ra2ord,.8 )E /168 [68]Republic v. $goncillo,5 )CRA *. $1.*1%

6. [6.](tate o Kansas v. Ransom,6. AR 5th 8.2

5 [5]22 C4), supra at *, citin" !eople v. 3i 'ranco,185 NK)2d, p .*5, 1* Misc2d1**

51 [51]!eople v. Ross,1/ NE 66 $1.2*%

52 [52];R No 16/6/8, 4anuary 1/, 22, p 16

http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/2002/jan2002/136368.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/2002/jan2002/136368.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/2002/jan2002/136368.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/2002/jan2002/136368.htm

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

15/19

ad(ersely affected Nor is the retroacti(e application of procedural statutesconstitutionally o3=ectiona3le #he reason is that as a "eneral rule no (estedri"ht !ay attach to, nor arise fro!, procedural la0s t has 3een held that Haperson has no (ested ri"ht in any particular re!edy, and a liti"ant cannot insiston the application to the trial of his case, 0hether ci(il or cri!inal, of any otherthan the e:istin" rules of procedure

t further ruled therein that a procedural la0 !ay not 3e applied retroacti(elyif to do so 0ould 0or in=ustice or 0ould in(ol(e intricate pro3le!s of due processor i!pair the independence of the Court n aper curiamdecision in %ipriano v.%ity o "ouma,56[56]the Dnited )tates )upre!e Court ruled that 0here a decisionof the court 0ould produce su3stantial ine>uita3le results if applied retroacti(ely,there is a!ple 3asis for a(oidin" Hthe in=ustice of hardshipI 3y a holdin" ofnonretroacti(ity 55[55] A construction of 0hich a statute is fairly suscepti3le isfa(ored, 0hich 0ill a(oid all o3=ectiona3le, !ischie(ous, indefensi3le, 0ron"ful,and in=urious conse>uences5[5]#his Court should not adopt an interpretation of astatute 0hich produces a3surd, unreasona3le, un=ust, or oppressi(e results if

such interpretation could 3e a(oided5/[5/]

#i!e and a"ain, this Court has decreedthat statutes are to 3e construed in li"ht of the purposes to 3e achie(ed and thee(ils sou"ht to 3e re!edied n construin" a statute, the reason for theenact!ent should 3e ept in !ind and the statute should 3e construed 0ithreference to the intended scope and purpose 5*[5*]

Re!edial le"islation, or procedural rule, or doctrine of the Court desi"ned toenhance and i!ple!ent the constitutional ri"hts of parties in cri!inalproceedin"s !ay 3e applied retroacti(ely or prospecti(ely dependin" uponse(eral factors, such as the history of the ne0 rule, its purpose and effect, and0hether the retrospecti(e application 0ill further its operation, the particularconduct sou"ht to 3e re!edied and the effect thereon in the ad!inistration of

=ustice and of cri!inal la0s in particular58[58] n aper curiamdecision in (teano v.Woods,5.[5.] the Dnited )tates )upre!e Court catalo"ued the factors indeter!inin" 0hether a ne0 rule or doctrine enunciated 3y the i"h Court should3e "i(en retrospecti(e or prospecti(e effect?

H$a% the purpose to 3e ser(ed 3y the ne0 standards, $3% the e:tent of thereliance 3y la0 enforce!ent authorities on the old standards, and $c% the effecton the ad!inistration of =ustice of a retroacti(e application of the ne0standardsI

56 [56]6. D) *1 $1./.%

55 [55]Id

5 [5])rsua v. %ourt o $ppeals,2/ )CRA 15* $1../%

5/ [5/]%ity and %ounty o 3enver v. "olmes,5 +2d 1 $1./%

5* [5*]!aat v. %ourt o $ppeals,2// )CRA 1/* $1..*%

58 [58]*in0letter v. #ictor Wal0er,681 D) /18 $1./%

5. [5.]6.6 D) /6 $1./8%

http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/1997/jan1997/111107.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/1997/jan1997/111107.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/1997/jan1997/111107.htm

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

16/19

n this case, the Court a"rees 0ith the petitioners that the ti!e-3ar of t0oyears under the ne0 rule should not 3e applied retroacti(ely a"ainst the )tate

n the ne0 rule in >uestion, as no0 construed 3y the Court, it has fi:ed ati!e-3ar of one year or t0o years for the re(i(al of cri!inal cases pro(isionallydis!issed 0ith the e:press consent of the accused and 0ith a priorinotice to the

offended party #he ti!e-3ar !ay appear, on first i!pression, unreasona3leco!pared to the periods under Article . of the Re(ised +enal Code o0e(er,in fi:in" the ti!e-3ar, the Court 3alanced the societal interests and those of theaccused for the orderly and speedy disposition of cri!inal cases 0ith !ini!u!pre=udice to the )tate and the accused t too into account the su3stantial ri"htsof 3oth the )tate and of the accused to due process #he Court 3elie(ed that theti!e li!it is a reasona3le period for the )tate to re(i(e pro(isionally dis!issedcases 0ith the consent of the accused and notice to the offended parties #heti!e-3ar fi:ed 3y the Court !ust 3e respected unless it is sho0n that the periodis !anifestly short or insufficient that the rule 3eco!es a denial of =ustice [] #hepetitioners failed to sho0 a !anifest shortness or insufficiency of the ti!e-3ar

#he ne0 rule 0as conceptuali'ed 3y the Co!!ittee on the Re(ision of theRules and appro(ed 3y the Court en bancpri!arily to enhance the ad!inistrationof the cri!inal =ustice syste! and the ri"hts to due process of the )tate and theaccused 3y eli!inatin" the deleterious practice of trial courts of pro(isionallydis!issin" cri!inal cases on !otion of either the prosecution or the accused or

=ointly, either 0ith no ti!e-3ar for the re(i(al thereof or 0ith a specific or definiteperiod for such re(i(al 3y the pu3lic prosecutor #here 0ere ti!es 0hen suchcri!inal cases 0ere no lon"er re(i(ed or refiled due to causes 3eyond the controlof the pu3lic prosecutor or 3ecause of the indolence, apathy or the lacadaisicalattitude of pu3lic prosecutors to the pre=udice of the )tate and the accused

despite the !andate to pu3lic prosecutors and trial =ud"es to e:pedite cri!inalproceedin"s1[1]

t is al!ost a uni(ersal e:perience that the accused 0elco!es delay as itusually operates in his fa(or, 2[2]especially if he "reatly fears the conse>uences ofhis trial and con(iction e is hesitant to distur3 the hushed inaction 3y 0hichdo!inant cases ha(e 3een no0n to e:pire 6[6]

#he inordinate delay in the re(i(al or refilin" of cri!inal cases !ay i!pair orreduce the capacity of the )tate to pro(e its case 0ith the disappearance ornona(aila3ility of its 0itnesses +hysical e(idence !ay ha(e 3een lostMe!ories of 0itnesses !ay ha(e "ro0n di! or ha(e faded +assa"e of ti!e

!aes proof of any fact !ore difficult

5[5]

#he accused !ay 3eco!e a fu"iti(efro! =ustice or co!!it another cri!e #he lon"er the lapse of ti!e fro! the

[]+len *ivestoc0 %ompany v. %ol2ell,18 D) 5 $1.2%

1 [1] )nited (tates v. -ann, 21 )upp 28 $1./8%@ Bar0er v. Wingo, 5* D) 15$1.*2%

2 [2])nited (tates v. 'ay,616 2d /2 $1./6%

6 [6])nited (tates v. -ann, supra

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

17/19

dis!issal of the case to the re(i(al thereof, the !ore difficult it is to pro(e thecri!e

n the other side of the fulcru!, a !ere pro(isional dis!issal of a cri!inalcase does not ter!inate a cri!inal case #he possi3ility that the case !ay 3ere(i(ed at any ti!e !ay disrupt or reduce, if not derail, the chances of the

accused for e!ploy!ent, curtail his association, su3=ect hi! to pu3lic o3lo>uyand create an:iety in hi! and his fa!ily e is una3le to lead a nor!al life3ecause of co!!unity suspicion and his o0n an:iety e continues to sufferthose penalties and disa3ilities inco!pati3le 0ith the presu!ption of innocence[]e !ay also lose his 0itnesses or their !e!ories !ay fade 0ith the passa"eof ti!e n the lon" run, it !ay di!inish his capacity to defend hi!self and thusesche0 the fairness of the entire cri!inal =ustice syste! /[/]

#he ti!e-3ar under the ne0 rule 0as fi:ed 3y the Court to e:cise the !alaisethat pla"ued the ad!inistration of the cri!inal =ustice syste! for the beneit othe (tate and the accused@ not for the accused only

#he Court a"rees 0ith the petitioners that to apply the ti!e-3ar retroacti(elyso that the t0o-year period co!!enced to run on March 61, 1... 0hen thepu3lic prosecutor recei(ed his copy of the resolution of 4ud"e A"nir, 4rdis!issin" the cri!inal cases is inconsistent 0ith the intend!ent of the ne0 rulenstead of "i(in" the )tate t0o years to re(i(e pro(isionally dis!issed cases, the)tate had considera3ly less than t0o years to do so #hus, 4ud"e A"nir, 4rdis!issed Cri!inal Cases Nos &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. on March 2., 1...#he ne0 rule too effect on Fece!3er 1, 2 f the Court applied the ne0 ti!e-3ar retroacti(ely, the )tate 0ould ha(e only one year and three !onths or untilMarch 61, 21 0ithin 0hich to re(i(e these cri!inal cases #he period is shortof the t0o-year period fi:ed under the ne0 rule n the other hand, if the ti!e

li!it is applied prospecti(ely, the )tate 0ould ha(e t0o years fro! Fece!3er 1,2 or until Fece!3er 1, 22 0ithin 0hich to re(i(e the cases #his is inconsonance 0ith the intend!ent of the ne0 rule in fi:in" the ti!e-3ar and thuspre(ent in=ustice to the )tate and a(oid a3surd, unreasona3le, oppressi(e,in=urious, and 0ron"ful results in the ad!inistration of =ustice

#he period fro! April 1, 1... to No(e!3er 6, 1... should 3e e:cluded inthe co!putation of the t0o-year period 3ecause the rule prescri3in" it 0as notyet in effect at the ti!e and the )tate could not 3e e:pected to co!ply 0ith theti!e-3ar t cannot e(en 3e ar"ued that the )tate 0ai(ed its ri"ht to re(i(e thecri!inal cases a"ainst respondent or that it 0as ne"li"ent for not re(i(in" the!

0ithin the t0o-year period under the ne0 rule As the Dnited )tates )upre!eCourt said, per 4ustice eli: ranfurter, in +riin v. !eople4*[*]

5 [5]3ic0ey v. (tate o 'lorida, 6.8 D) 6 $1.*%

[]Ibid.

/ [/]Bar0er v. Winggo, supra

* [*]61 D) 12 $1./%

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

18/19

7e should not indul"e in the fiction that the la0 no0 announced hasal0ays 3een the la0 and, therefore, that those 0ho did not a(ail the!sel(es ofit 0ai(ed their ri"hts

#he t0o-year period fi:ed in the ne0 rule is for the 3enefit of 3oth the )tateand the accused t should not 3e e!asculated and reduced 3y an inordinate

retroacti(e application of the ti!e-3ar therein pro(ided !erely to 3enefit theaccused or to do so 0ould cause an Hin=ustice of hardshipI to the )tate andad(ersely affect the ad!inistration of =ustice in "eneral and of cri!inal la0s inparticular

#o re>uire the )tate to "i(e a (alid =ustification as a condition sine qua nontothe re(i(al of a case pro(isionally dis!issed 0ith the e:press consent of theaccused 3efore the effecti(e date of the ne0 rule is to assu!e that the )tate iso3li"ed to co!ply 0ith the ti!e-3ar under the ne0 rule 3efore it too effect #his0ould 3e a ran denial of =ustice #he )tate !ust 3e "i(en a period of one yearor t0o years as the case !ay 3e fro! Fece!3er 1, 2 to re(i(e the cri!inalcase 0ithout re>uirin" the )tate to !ae a (alid =ustification for not re(i(in" thecase 3efore the effecti(e date of the ne0 rule Althou"h in cri!inal cases, theaccused is entitled to =ustice and fairness, so is the )tate As the Dnited )tates)upre!e Court said, per Mr 4ustice Ben=a!in Cardo'o, in (nyder v. (tate o-assachussetts,8[8]Hthe concept of fairness !ust not 3e strained till it is narro0edto a fila!ent 7e are to eep the 3alance trueI n 3imatulac v. #illon,.[.] thisCourt e!phasi'ed that Hthe =ud"es action !ust not i!pair the su3stantial ri"htsof the accused nor the ri"ht of the )tate and offended party to due process ofla0 #his Court further said?

ndeed, for =ustice to pre(ail, the scales !ust 3alance@ =ustice is not to 3edispensed for the accused alone #he interests of society and the offended

parties 0hich ha(e 3een 0ron"ed !ust 3e e>ually considered uittal is notnecessarily a triu!ph of =ustice, for, to the society offended and the party0ron"ed, it could also !ean in=ustice 4ustice then !ust 3e rendered e(en-handedly to 3oth the accused, on one hand, and the )tate and offended party,on the other

n this case, the ele(en nfor!ations in Cri!inal Cases Nos 1-1112 to1-11112 0ere filed 0ith the Re"ional #rial Court on 4une /, 21 0ell 0ithinthe t0o-year period

n su!, this Court finds the !otion for reconsideration of petitioners!eritorious

IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petitioners Motion forReconsideration is ;RAN#EF #he Resolution of this Court, dated May 28,22, is )E# A)FE #he Fecision of the Court of Appeals, dated Au"ust 25,21, in CA-;R )+ No /65 is RE

8/13/2019 GR no. 149453 April 1, 2003

19/19

0ith the Re"ional #rial Court in Ci(il Case No 1-1.66 is F)M))EF for3ein" !oot and acade!ic #he Re"ional #rial Court of &ue'on City, Branch 81,is FREC#EF to forth0ith proceed 0ith Cri!inal Cases Nos 1-1112 to 1-11112 0ith deli3erate dispatch

No pronounce!ents as to costs

SO OR#ERE#.

3avide, =r., %.=., -endoa, !anganiban, $ustria>-artine, %orona, %arpio>-orales, and$cuna, ==., concur.

Bellosillo, =.,see separate opinion, concurrin"!uno, =, please see dissent#itug, =., see separate $dissentin"% opinion?uisumbing, =, in the result, concur 0ith 4 Bellosillos opinion&nares>(antiago, =., =oin the dissent, of 4 +uno and 4 ;utierre'.(andoval>+utierre, =.,dissent, please see dissentin" opinion%arpio, =.,no part

http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/2003/apr2003/149453_bellosillo.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/2003/apr2003/149453_puno.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/2003/apr2003/149453_vitug.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/2003/apr2003/149453_sandoval.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/2003/apr2003/149453_bellosillo.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/2003/apr2003/149453_puno.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/2003/apr2003/149453_vitug.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/2003/apr2003/149453_sandoval.htm