People vs. Lacson, May 28, 2002

FACTS: Soon after the announcement on May 18, 1995 that the Kuratong Baleleng gang had been slain in a shootout with the police, two witnesses surfaced providing the testimony that the said slaying was a rub-out. On June 1, 1995, Chief Superintendent Job A. Mayo, PNP Director or Investigation, filed murder charges with the Office of the Ombudsman against ninety-seven (97) officers and personnel of ABRITFG. The nextof- kin of the slain KBG members also filed murder charges against the same officers and personnel.

On November 2, 1995, after two resolutions, the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan 11 informations of murder against the defendant and 25 policemen as principals. Upon motion of the respondent, the criminal cases were remanded to the Ombudsman and in a re-investigation, the informations were amended downgrading the principal into an accessory. With the downgrading of charges, the case was later transferred from the Sandiganbayan to the RTC not due to jurisdictional questions over the suspects but due to the failure 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. Before the arraignment, the witnesses of the
prosecution recanted their statements while the seven (7) private complainants submitted their affidavits of desistance. All 26 suspects filed individual motions to (1) make a judicial determination of the existence of probable 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. The cases were dismissed.

It was on March 27, 2001 when PNP director Mendoza indorsed to the Department of Justice new affidavits of new witnesses which it began to investigate and to file with the RTC. The
respondent, invoking among others, their right against double jeopardy, then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition stating that Sec. 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
bans the revival of the murder cases against him; a petition the Court of Appeals denied. 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. The new Informations charged as principals thirty-four (34) people, including respondent Lacson and his twenty-five (25) other co-accused in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689. The defendant filed for determination of probable cause and an outright dismissal in the RTC. The CA considered the original cases to be provisionally dismissed and the new cases as mere revivals. Under Section 8 rule 117 of RRCP of 2000, the cases were dismissed.

ISSUE: Whether or not 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.

RULING: Remanded to the RTC to determine if they complied with rule and case should be dismissed. There is no question that the new rule can be given retroactive effect given article 22 of the RPC. There can be no ruling, however, due to the lack of sufficient factual bases to support such a ruling. There is need of proof to show the following facts:
(1) provisional dismissal of the case had the express consent of the accused
(2) whether it was ordered by the court after giving notice to the offended party
(3) whether the two (2) year period to revive the case has already elapsed
(4) whether there is justification for filing of the cases beyond the 2 year period.

The respondent expressed consent, however, the records do not reveal whether the notices to the offended parties were given before the cases were provisionally dismissed. Only the right to double Jeopardy by the defendant was tackled by the litigants. The records are also inconclusive with regards to the 2-year bar, if within or without. Because of this, both prosecution and defendant must be given ample time to adduce evidence on the presence or absence of the adduced evidence.