EN BANC

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE SECRETAR OF !"STICE, #IRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, CHIEF STATE PROSEC"TOR !O$ENCITO %"&O, STATE PROSEC"TORS PETER L. ONG '() R"*EN A. %ACARIAS+ 2N# ASSISTANT CIT PROSEC"TOR CONRA#O ,. !A,OLIN '() CIT PROSEC"TOR OF -"E%ON CIT CLARO ARELLANO, petitioners, vs. PANFILO ,. LACSON, respondent. RESOL"TION
CALLE!O, SR., J..

Before the Court is the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 28, 2 2, 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 issues relati(e to the application of )ection 8 of Rule 11* of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!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, 1n the aforesaid cri!inal cases, the respondent and his co-accused 0ere char"ed 0ith !ultiple !urder for the shootin" and 2illin" of ele(en !ale persons identified as 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, +acifico Montero, 4r,, of the 55th 1nfantry Batallion of the +hilippine Ar!y, 7el3or Elca!el, )+81 Carlito Alap-ap of the 9a!3oan"a +N+, and Ale: Neri, for!er Corporal of the 55th 1nfantry Batallion of the +hilippine Ar!y, 3andied as !e!3ers of the Kuratong Baleleng ;an", #he respondent opposed petitioners !otion for reconsideration,
1[1] 2[2] 5[5]

6[6]

#he Court ruled in the Resolution sou"ht to 3e reconsidered that the pro(isional dis!issal of Cri!inal Cases Nos, &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. 0ere
1 [1]

Rollo, <ol, 11, pp, 12 6-1228, Id. at 1186-12 ,

[2]

[6]

NB1 Report, pp, 6 . and 611, Rollo, <ol, 11, pp, 126*-12/*,

[5]

0ith the e:press consent of the respondent as he hi!self !o(ed for said pro(isional dis!issal 0hen he filed his !otion for =udicial deter!ination of pro3a3le cause and for e:a!ination of 0itnesses, #he Court also held therein that althou"h )ection 8, Rule 11* of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure could 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 to resol(e the follo0in"?
,,, $1% 0hether the pro(isional dis!issal of the cases had the e:press consent of the accused@ $2% 0hether it 0as ordered 3y the court after notice to the 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-year period@ $A% 0hether notices to the offended parties 0ere "i(en 3efore the cases of respondent Bacson 0ere dis!issed 3y then 4ud"e A"nir@ $/% 0hether there 0ere 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 Bacson are 3ein" re(i(ed 0ithin or 3eyond the 2-year 3ar,

#he Court further held that the rec2onin" date of the t0o-year 3ar had to 3e first 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 (arious offended parties, or fro! the date of effecti(ity of the ne0 rule, Accordin" to the Court, 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, 1t e!phasi'ed that the ne0 rule fi:es a ti!e-3ar to penali'e the )tate for its ine:cusa3le delay in prosecutin" cases already filed in court, Co0e(er, the )tate is not precluded fro! presentin" co!pellin" reasons to =ustify the re(i(al of cases 3eyond the t0o-year 3ar, 1n 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 applica3le to Cri!inal Cases Nos, &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8.@ and $3% the ti!e-3ar in said rule should not 3e applied retroacti(ely, #he Court shall resol(e the issues seriatim,
1, )EC#18N 8, RDBE 11* 8E #CE RE<1)EF RDBE) 8E CR1M1NAB +R8CEFDRE 1) N8# A++B1CABBE #8 CR1M1NAB CA)E) N8), &-..-81/*. #8 &-..-81/8.,

#he petitioners a(er that )ection 8, Rule 11* of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure is not applica3le to Cri!inal Cases Nos, &-..-81/*. to &..-81/8. 3ecause the essential re>uire!ents for its application 0ere not present 0hen 4ud"e A"nir, 4r,, issued his resolution of March 2., 1..., Fisa"reein" 0ith the rulin" of the Court, the petitioners !aintain that the respondent did not "i(e his 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"s filed 0ith the Court of Appeals and durin" the hearin" thereat that he did not file

any !otion to dis!iss said cases, or e(en a"ree to a pro(isional dis!issal thereof, Moreo(er, the heirs of the (icti!s 0ere alle"edly not "i(en prior notices of the dis!issal of the said cases 3y 4ud"e A"nir, 4r, Accordin" to the petitioners, the respondents e:press consent to the pro(isional dis!issal of the cases and the notice to all the heirs of the (icti!s of the respondents !otion and the hearin" thereon are conditions sine qua non to the application of the ti!e-3ar in the second para"raph of the ne0 rule, #he petitioners further su3!it that it is not necessary that the case 3e re!anded to the R#C to deter!ine 0hether pri(ate co!plainants 0ere notified of the March 22, 1... hearin" on the respondents !otion for =udicial deter!ination of the e:istence of pro3a3le cause, #he records alle"edly indicate clearly that only the handlin" city prosecutor 0as furnished a copy of the notice of hearin" on said !otion, #here is alle"edly no e(idence that pri(ate prosecutor Atty, ;od0in <alde' 0as properly retained and authori'ed 3y all the pri(ate co!plainants to represent the! at said hearin", 1t is their contention that Atty, <alde' !erely identified the purported affida(its of desistance and that he did not confir! the truth of the alle"ations therein, #he respondent, on the other hand, insists that, as found 3y the Court in its Resolution and 4ud"e A"nir, 4r, in his resolution, the respondent hi!self !o(ed for the pro(isional dis!issal of the cri!inal cases, Ce cites the resolution of 4ud"e A"nir, 4r, statin" that the respondent and the other accused filed separate 3ut identical !otions for the dis!issal of the cri!inal cases should the trial court find no pro3a3le cause for the issuance of 0arrants of arrest a"ainst the!, #he respondent further asserts that the heirs of the (icti!s, throu"h the pu3lic and pri(ate prosecutors, 0ere duly notified of said !otion and the hearin" thereof, Ce contends that it 0as sufficient that the pu3lic prosecutor 0as present durin" the March 22, 1... hearin" on the !otion for =udicial deter!ination of the e:istence of pro3a3le cause 3ecause cri!inal actions are al0ays prosecuted in the na!e of the +eople, and the pri(ate co!plainants !erely prosecute the ci(il aspect thereof, #he Court has re(ie0ed the records and has found the contention of the petitioners !eritorious, )ection 8, Rule 11* of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure reads?
)ec, 8, +ro(isional dis!issal, G A case shall not 3e pro(isionally dis!issed e:cept 0ith the e:press consent of the accused and 0ith notice to the offended party, #he pro(isional dis!issal of offenses punisha3le 3y i!prison!ent not e:ceedin" si: $/% years or a fine of any a!ount, or 3oth, shall 3eco!e per!anent one $1% year after issuance of the order 0ithout the case ha(in" 3een re(i(ed, 7ith respect to offenses punisha3le 3y i!prison!ent of !ore than si: $/% years, their pro(isional dis!issal shall 3eco!e per!anent t0o $2% years after issuance of the order 0ithout the case ha(in" 3een re(i(ed,

Ca(in" in(o2ed said rule 3efore the petitioners-panel of prosecutors and

3efore the Court of Appeals, the respondent is 3urdened to esta3lish the essential re>uisites of the first para"raph thereof, na!ely?
1, the prosecution 0ith the e:press confor!ity of the accused or the accused !o(es for a pro(isional $sin perjuicio% dis!issal of the case@ or 3oth the 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!issal of the case@ 6, the court issues an order "rantin" the !otion and dis!issin" the case pro(isionally@ 5, the pu3lic prosecutor is ser(ed 0ith a copy of the order of pro(isional dis!issal of the case,

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

Althou"h the second para"raph of the ne0 rule states that the order of dis!issal shall 3eco!e per!anent one year after the issuance thereof 0ithout the case ha(in" 3een re(i(ed, the pro(ision should 3e construed to !ean that the order of dis!issal shall 3eco!e per!anent one year after ser(ice of the order 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 3e e:pected to co!ply 0ith the ti!eline unless he is ser(ed 0ith a copy of the order of dis!issal,

/[/]

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

Regalado, Re!edial Ba0 Co!pendiu!, <ol, 11, .th Re(ised Edition, p, 552@ !eople v. Bellosillo, . )CRA 86A $1./6%,
[A] [/]

)ection A, Rule 112 of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure, !eople v. "on. #ergara, 221 )CRA A/1 $1..6%, !eople v. "inaut, 1 A +hil, 6 6 $1.A.%,

[*]

[8]

!endatum v. $ragon, .6 +hil, *.8 $1.A6%@ %aes v. Intermediate $ppellate %ourt, 1*. )CRA A5 $1.8.%,
[.] [1 ]

!eople v. &lagan, A8 +hil, 8A1 $1.66%,

A !otion of the accused for a pro(isional dis!issal of a case is an e:press consent to such pro(isional dis!issal, 1f a cri!inal case is pro(isionally dis!issed 0ith the e:press consent of the accused, the case !ay 3e re(i(ed only 0ithin the periods pro(ided in the ne0 rule, 8n the other hand, if a cri!inal case 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 or refiled e(en 3eyond the prescri3ed periods su3=ect to the ri"ht of the accused to oppose the sa!e on the "round of dou3le =eopardy or that such re(i(al or refilin" is 3arred 3y the statute of li!itations,
11[11] 12[12] 16[16]

#he case !ay 3e re(i(ed 3y the )tate 0ithin the ti!e-3ar either 3y the refilin" of the 1nfor!ation or 3y the filin" of a ne0 1nfor!ation for the sa!e offense or an offense necessarily included therein, #here 0ould 3e no need of a ne0 preli!inary in(esti"ation, Co0e(er, in a case 0herein after the pro(isional dis!issal of a cri!inal case, the ori"inal 0itnesses of the prosecution or so!e of the! !ay ha(e recanted their testi!onies or !ay ha(e died or !ay no lon"er 3e a(aila3le and ne0 0itnesses for the )tate ha(e e!er"ed, a ne0 preli!inary in(esti"ation !ust 3e conducted 3efore an 1nfor!ation is refiled or a ne0 1nfor!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!plaint for the sa!e offense or necessarily included therein@ or if under a ne0 cri!inal co!plaint, the ori"inal char"e has 3een up"raded@ or if under a ne0 cri!inal co!plaint, the cri!inal lia3ility of the accused is up"raded fro! that as an accessory to that as a principal, #he accused !ust 3e accorded the ri"ht to su3!it counter-affida(its and e(idence, After all, Hthe fiscal is not called 3y the Rules of Court to 0ait in a!3ush@ the role of a fiscal is not !ainly to prosecute 3ut essentially to do =ustice to e(ery !an and to assist the court in dispensin" that =ustice,I
15[15] 1A[1A] 1/[1/]

1n this case, the respondent has failed to pro(e that the first and second re>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* $1.*1%, Rule 11*, )ection 6$i% of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure, Benes v. )nited (tates o $merica, 2*/ E,2d .. $1./ %,

12

[12]

16

[16]

15

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

1A

)EC#18N 1, !reliminary investigation de ined1 2hen required. G +reli!inary in(esti"ation is an in>uiry or proceedin" to deter!ine 0hether there is sufficient "round to en"ender a 0ell-founded 3elief that a cri!e has 3een co!!itted and the respondent is pro3a3ly "uilty thereof, and should 3e held for trial,
[1A]

E:cept as pro(ided in )ection * of this Rule, a preli!inary in(esti"ation is re>uired to 3e conducted 3efore the filin" of a co!plaint or infor!ation for an offense 0here the penalty prescri3ed 3y la0 is at least four $5% years, t0o $2% !onths and one $1% day 0ithout re"ard to the fine, $)ection 1, Rule 112, 2 Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure%,
1/ [1/]

Bandiala v. %ourt, supra.

4r, dis!issed Cri!inal Cases Nos, &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8., 1rrefra"a3ly, the prosecution did not file any !otion for the pro(isional dis!issal of the said cri!inal cases, Eor his part, the respondent !erely filed a !otion for =udicial deter!ination of pro3a3le cause and for e:a!ination of prosecution 0itnesses alle"in" that under Article 111, )ection 2 of the Constitution and the decision of this Court in $llado v. 3io0no, a!on" other cases, there 0as a need for the trial court to conduct a personal deter!ination of pro3a3le cause for the issuance of a 0arrant of arrest a"ainst respondent and to ha(e the prosecutions 0itnesses su!!oned 3efore the court for its e:a!ination, #he respondent contended therein that until after the trial court shall ha(e personally deter!ined the presence of pro3a3le cause, no 0arrant of arrest should 3e issued a"ainst the respondent and if one had already 3een issued, the 0arrant should 3e recalled 3y the trial court, Ce then prayed therein that?
1*[1*]

1% a =udicial deter!ination of pro3a3le cause pursuant to )ection 2, Article 111 of the Constitution 3e conducted 3y this Conora3le Court, and for this purpose, an order 3e issued directin" the prosecution to present the pri(ate co!plainants and their 0itnesses at a hearin" scheduled therefor@ and 2% 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, 8ther e>uita3le reliefs are also prayed for,18[18]

#he respondent did not pray for the dis!issal, pro(isional or other0ise, of Cri!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, 1n fact, in his reply filed 0ith the Court of Appeals, respondent e!phasi'ed that?
,,, An e:a!ination of the Motion for 4udicial Feter!ination of +ro3a3le Cause and for E:a!ination of +rosecution 7itnesses filed 3y the petitioner and his other co-accused in the said cri!inal cases 0ould sho0 that the petitioner did not pray for the dis!issal of the case, .n the contrary, the relie s prayed or 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 the arrest o the accused be 2ithheld, or i issued, recalled in the meantime until the resolution o the motion. It cannot be said, there ore, that the dismissal o the case 2as made 2ith the consent o the petitioner. $ copy o the a oresaid motion is hereto attached and made integral part hereo as $nne9 :$.;1.[1.]

Furin" the hearin" in the Court of Appeals on 4uly 61, 2 1, the respondent, throu"h counsel, cate"orically, une>ui(ocally, and definitely declared that he did not file any !otion to dis!iss the cri!inal cases nor did he a"ree to a pro(isional dis!issal thereof, thus?
4D)#1CE )AB8N;A?

1*

[1*]

262 )CRA 1.2 $1..5%, R#C Records, <ol, 1 , p, 262, CA Rollo, p, 6AA,

18

[18]

1.

[1.]

And it is your stand that the dis!issal !ade 3y the Court 0as pro(isional in natureJ A##K, E8R#DN? 1t 0as in $sic% that the accused did not as2 for it, 7hat they 0anted at the onset 0as 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 their 0itnesses, particularly those 0ho had 0ithdra0n their affida(its, !ade one further conclusion that not only 0as this case lac2in" in pro3a3le cause for purposes of the issuance of an arrest 0arrant 3ut also it did not =ustify proceedin" to trial, 4D)#1CE )AB8N;A? And it is e:pressly pro(ided under )ection 8 that a case shall not 3e pro(isionally dis!issed e:cept 0hen it is 0ith the e:press confor!ity of the accused, A##K, E8R#DN? #hat is correct, Kour Conor, 4D)#1CE )AB8N;A? And 0ith notice to the offended party, A##K, E8R#DN? #hat is correct, Kour Conor, 4D)#1CE )AB8N;A? 7as there an e:press confor!ity on the part of the accusedJ A##K, E8R#DN? #here 0as none, Kour Conor, 7e 0ere not as2ed to si"n any order, or any state!ent, 0hich 0ould nor!ally 3e re>uired 3y the Court on pre-trial or on other !atters, includin" other pro(isional dis!issal, My (ery li!ited practice in cri!inal courts, Kour Conor, had tau"ht !e that a =ud"e !ust 3e (ery careful on this !atter of pro(isional dis!issal, 1n fact they as2 the accused to co!e for0ard, and the =ud"e hi!self or herself e:plains the i!plications of a pro(isional dis!issal, +u!apaya" 2a 3a dito, +u0ede 3an" pu!ir!a 2aJ 4D)#1CE R8)AR18? Kou 0ere present durin" the proceedin"sJ A##K, E8R#DN? Kes, Kour Conor, 4D)#1CE R8)AR18? Kou represented the petitioner in this caseJ A##K, E8R#DN?

#hat is correct, Kour Conor, And there 0as nothin" of that sort 0hich the "ood 4ud"e A"nir, 0ho is !ost 2no0led"ea3le in cri!inal la0, had done in respect of pro(isional dis!issal or the !atter of Mr, Bacson a"reein" to the pro(isional dis!issal of the case, 4D)#1CE ;DERRER8? No0, you filed a !otion, the other accused then filed a !otion for a =udicial deter!ination of pro3a3le causeJ A##K, E8R#DN? Kes, Kour Conor, 4D)#1CE ;DERRER8? Fid you !a2e any alternati(e prayer in your !otion that if there is no pro3a3le cause 0hat should the Court doJ A##K, E8R#DN? #hat the arrest 0arrants only 3e 0ithheld, #hat 0as the only prayer that 0e as2ed, 1n fact, 1 ha(e a copy of that particular !otion, and if 1 !ay read !y prayer 3efore the Court, it said? H7herefore, it is respectfully prayed that $1% a =udicial deter!ination of pro3a3le cause pursuant to )ection 2, Article 111 of the Constitution 3e conducted, and for this purpose, an order 3e issued directin" the prosecution to present the pri(ate co!plainants and their 0itnesses at the scheduled hearin" for that purpose@ and $2% the 0arrants for the arrest of the accused 3e 0ithheld, or, if issued, recalled in the !eanti!e until resolution of this incident, 4D)#1CE ;DERRER8? #here is no "eneral prayer for any further reliefJ A##K, E8R#DN? #here is 3ut it si!ply says other e>uita3le reliefs are prayed for, 4D)#1CE ;DERRER8? Font you sur!ise 4ud"e A"nir, no0 a !e!3er of this Court, precisely addressed your prayer for =ust and e>uita3le relief to dis!iss the case 3ecause 0hat 0ould 3e the net effect of a situation 0here there is no 0arrant of arrest 3ein" issued 0ithout dis!issin" the caseJ A##K, E8R#DN? Kes, Kour Conor, 1 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 0e as2ed to si"n any assent to the pro(isional dis!issal, 4D)#1CE ;DERRER8? 1f you did not a"ree to the pro(isional dis!issal did you not file any !otion for reconsideration of the order of 4ud"e A"nir that the case should 3e dis!issedJ A##K, E8R#DN?

1 did not, Kour Conor, 3ecause 1 2ne0 fully 0ell at that ti!e that !y client had already 3een arrai"ned, and the arrai"n!ent 0as (alid as far as 1 0as concerned, )o, the dis!issal, Kour Conor, 3y 4ud"e A"nir operated to 3enefit !e, and therefore 1 did not ta2e any further step in addition to roc2in" the 3oat or clarifyin" the !atter further 3ecause it pro3a3ly could pre=udice the interest of !y client, 4D)#1CE ;DERRER8? Continue,2 [2 ]

1n his !e!orandu! in lieu of the oral ar"u!ent filed 0ith the Court of Appeals, 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 0ere re!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 of pro3a3le cause $Anne: B%, Ce as2ed that 0arrants for his arrest not 3e issued, Ce did not !o(e for the dis!issal of the 1nfor!ations, contrary to respondent 8);s clai!,21[21]

#he respondents ad!issions !ade in the course of the proceedin"s in the Court of Appeals are 3indin" and conclusi(e on hi!, #he respondent is 3arred fro! repudiatin" his ad!issions a3sent e(idence of palpa3le !ista2e in !a2in" such ad!issions,
22[22]

#o apply the ne0 rule in Cri!inal Cases Nos, &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. 0ould 3e to add to or !a2e e:ceptions fro! the ne0 rule 0hich are not e:pressly or i!pliedly included therein, #his the Court cannot and should not do,
26[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 least three days 3efore said hearin" as !andated 3y Rule 1A, )ection 5 of the Rules of Court, 1t !ust 3e 3orne in !ind that in cri!es in(ol(in" pri(ate interests, the ne0 rule re>uires that the offended party or parties or the heirs of the (icti!s !ust 3e "i(en ade>uate a priori notice of any !otion for the pro(isional dis!issal of the cri!inal case, )uch notice !ay 3e ser(ed on the offended party or the heirs of the (icti! throu"h the pri(ate prosecutor, if there is one, or throu"h the pu3lic prosecutor 0ho in turn !ust relay the notice to the offended party or the heirs of the (icti! to ena3le the! to confer 0ith hi! 3efore the hearin" or appear in 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!e illusory, )uch notice 0ill ena3le the offended party or the heirs of the (icti! the
2 [2 ]

#)N, CA-;,R, )+ No, /A 65, 4uly 61, 2

1, pp, 16-18 $e!phasis ours%,

21

[21]

CA Rollo, p, 6*8 $e!phasis 3y respondent%, )ection 5, Rule 12. of the Re(ised Rules on E(idence, #ari v. 'ood 'air (tores, 16 A,B,R,6d 855 $1./5%,

22

[22]

26

[26]

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 the accused 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 !a2e 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 2ill the offended party or the other prosecution 0itnesses or flee fro! +hilippine =urisdiction, pro(ide opportunity for the destruction or loss of the prosecutions physical and other e(idence and pre=udice the ri"hts of the offended party to reco(er on the ci(il lia3ility of the accused 3y his conceal!ent or furti(e disposition of his property or the conse>uent liftin" of the 0rit of preli!inary attach!ent a"ainst his property, 1n the case at 3ar, e(en if the respondents !otion for a deter!ination of pro3a3le cause and e:a!ination of 0itnesses !ay 3e considered for the nonce as 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 to the hearin" on said !otion on March 22, 1..., 1t !ust 3e stressed that the respondent filed his !otion only on March 1*, 1... and set it for hearin" on March 22, 1... or 3arely fi(e days fro! the filin" thereof, Althou"h the pu3lic prosecutor 0as ser(ed 0ith a copy of the !otion, the records do not sho0 that notices thereof 0ere separately "i(en to the heirs of the (icti!s or that su3poenae 0ere issued to and recei(ed 3y the!, includin" those 0ho e:ecuted their affida(its of desistance 0ho 0ere residents of Fipolo" City or +iLan, 9a!3oan"a del Norte or +alo!pon, Beyte, #here is as 0ell no proof in the records that the pu3lic prosecutor notified the heirs of the (icti!s of said !otion or of the hearin" thereof on March 22, 1..., Althou"h Atty, <alde' entered his appearance as pri(ate prosecutor, he did so only for so!e 3ut not all the close 2ins of the (icti!s, na!ely, Nenita Alap-ap, 1!elda Montero, Mar"arita Redillas,
25[25] 2A[2A] 25 [25]

$i/0i12

A))r322 4p3r ,3)i/o L35'l R3por06 +iLan, 9a!3oan"a del Norte Miputa2, Fipolo" City Miputa2, Fipolo" City Miputa2, Fipolo" City 8s!ina )t,, Fipolo" City +iLan, 9a!3oan"a del Norte B"y, Barra, Fipolo" City +iLan, 9a!3oan"a del Norte Bo, #ina"o, +alu!pon, Beyte Miputa2, Fipolo" City No address

Manuel Montero Rolando )iplon )her0in A3alora Ray A3alora 4oel A!ora 4e(y Redillas 7el3or Elca!el Carlito Alap-ap +acifico Montero, 4r, Meleu3ren )orronda Ale: Neri $Dnidentified Male in Medico Be"al Report%

Rufino )iplon, Car!elita Elca!el, Myrna A3alora, and Beonora A!ora 0ho $e:cept for Rufino )iplon% e:ecuted their respecti(e affida(its of desistance, #here 0as no appearance for the heirs of Ale: Neri, +acifico Montero, 4r,, and Meleu3ren )orronda, #here is no proof on record that all the heirs of the (icti!s 0ere ser(ed 0ith copies of the resolution of 4ud"e A"nir, 4r, dis!issin" the said cases, 1n fine, there ne(er 0as any atte!pt on the part of the trial court, the pu3lic prosecutor andMor the pri(ate prosecutor to notify all the heirs of the (icti!s of the respondents !otion and the hearin" thereon and of the resolution of 4ud"e A"nir, 4r, dis!issin" said cases, #he said heirs 0ere thus depri(ed of their ri"ht to 3e heard on the respondents !otion and to protect their interests either in the trial court or in the appellate court,
2/[2/]

2*[2*]

)ince the conditions sine qua non for the application of the ne0 rule 0ere not present 0hen 4ud"e A"nir, 4r, issued his resolution, the )tate is not 3arred 3y the ti!e li!it set forth in the second para"raph of )ection 8 of Rule 11* of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure, #he )tate can thus re(i(e or refile Cri!inal Cases Nos, &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. or file ne0 1nfor!ations for !ultiple !urder a"ainst the respondent,
11, #CE #1ME-BAR 1N )EC#18N 8, RDBE 11* 8E #CE RE<1)EF RDBE) 8E CR1M1NAB +R8CEFDRE )C8DBF N8# BE A++B1EF RE#R8AC#1<EBK,

#he petitioners contend that e(en on the assu!ption that the respondent
2A [2A]

R#C Records, <ol, 1N, p, ., Rufino )iplon did not affi: his si"nature on the 4oint Affida(it of Fesistance, A77i'(02 A))r322 4p3r A77i)'8i0 o7 #32i20'(/36 D)# A3ono Estaca, Fipolo" City

2/

[2/]

2*

[2*]

Myra A3alora $Mother of )her0in A3alora and Ray A3alora% Beonora A!ora $Mother of 4oel A!ora% Nenita Alap-ap $7ife of Carlito Alap-ap% 1!elda Montero $7ife of Manuel Montero% Car!elita Elca!el $7ife of 7el3or Elca!el% Mar"arita Redillas $Mother of 4e(y Redillas%

B"y, )entral, Fipolo" City

668 )a"in )t, cor, A!a"a )t,, +o3lacio )anta, +iLan, 9a!3oan"a del Norte +o3lacion Norte, +iLan, 9a!3oan"a del Norte

Dpper Ficayas, Fipolo" City

B"y, +o3lacion )outh, +iLan, 9a!3oan"a del Norte

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 the respondents !otion 3efore the hearin" thereon and 0ere ser(ed 0ith copies of the 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!e li!it retroacti(ely to the cri!inal cases a"ainst the respondent and his coaccused 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 the accused, Co0e(er, under the ne0 rule, the )tate only had t0o years fro! notice of 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 rule too2 effect on Fece!3er 1, 2 , the )tate only had one year and three !onths 0ithin 0hich to re(i(e the cases or refile the 1nfor!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 case of conflict 3et0een the Re(ised +enal Code and the ne0 rule, the for!er should pre(ail, #hey also insist that the )tate had consistently relied on the prescripti(e periods under Article . of the Re(ised +enal Code, 1t 0as not accorded a air 2arning that it 0ould fore(er 3e 3arred 3eyond the t0o-year period 3y a retroacti(e application of the ne0 rule, +etitioners thus pray to the Court to set aside its Resolution of May 28 2 2,
28[28]

Eor his part, the respondent asserts that the ne0 rule under )ection 8 of Rule 11* of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure !ay 3e applied retroacti(ely since 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 0ere ready, 0illin" and a3le to pro(ide their testi!ony 3ut the prosecution failed to act on these cases until it 3eca!e politically e:pedient in April 2 1 for the! to do so, Accordin" to the respondent, penal la0s, either procedural or su3stanti(e, !ay 3e retroacti(ely applied so lon" as they fa(or the accused, Ce asserts that the t0o-year period co!!enced to run on March 2., 1... and lapsed t0o years thereafter 0as !ore than reasona3le opportunity for the )tate to fairly indict hi!, 1n any e(ent, the )tate is "i(en the ri"ht under the Courts assailed Resolution to =ustify the filin" of the 1nfor!ation in Cri!inal Cases Nos, 11 11 2 to 1-1 1112 3eyond the ti!e-3ar under the ne0 rule,
2.[2.] 6 [6 ] 61[61]

#he respondent insists that )ection 8 of Rule 11* of the Re(ised Rules of Cri!inal +rocedure does not 3roaden the su3stanti(e ri"ht of dou3le =eopardy to the pre=udice of the )tate 3ecause the prohi3ition a"ainst the re(i(al of the cases
28 [28]

Rollo, <ol, 2, pp, 12 A-1215, Id. at 125 , Id. at 1251-125*, Id.

2.

[2.]

[6 ]

61

[61]

0ithin the one-year or t0o-year periods pro(ided therein is a le"al concept distinct fro! the prohi3ition a"ainst the re(i(al of a pro(isionally dis!issed case 0ithin the periods stated in )ection 8 of Rule 11*, Moreo(er, he clai!s that the effects of a pro(isional dis!issal under said rule do not !odify or ne"ate the operation 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 the application of )ection 8, Rule 11* 3ecause a co!plaint or infor!ation has already 3een filed a"ainst the accused, 0hich filin" tolls the runnin" of the prescripti(e period under Article . ,
62[62]

#he Court a"rees 0ith the respondent that the ne0 rule is not a statute of li!itations, )tatutes of li!itations are construed as acts of "race, and a surrender 3y the so(erei"n of its ri"ht to prosecute or of its ri"ht to prosecute at its discretion, )uch statutes are considered as e>ui(alent to acts of a!nesty founded on the li3eral theory that prosecutions should not 3e allo0ed to fer!ent endlessly in the files of the "o(ern!ent to e:plode only after 0itnesses and proofs necessary for the protection of the accused ha(e 3y sheer lapse of ti!e passed 3eyond a(aila3ility, #he periods fi:ed under such statutes are =urisdictional and are essential ele!ents of the offenses co(ered,
66[66] 65[65]

8n the other hand, the ti!e-3ar under )ection 8 of Rule 11* is a2in to a special procedural li!itation >ualifyin" the ri"ht of the )tate to prosecute !a2in" the ti!e-3ar an essence of the "i(en ri"ht or as an inherent part thereof, so that the lapse of the ti!e-3ar operates to e:tin"uish the ri"ht of the )tate to prosecute the accused,
6A[6A]

#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, 1t is 3ut a li!itation of the ri"ht
6/[6/] 62 [62]

Id. at 12A -12A1,

66

22 C,4,),, Cri!inal Ba0, P 226, p, A*5@ )nited (tates v. <liopoulos, 5A E, )upp, *** $1.52%,
[66] [65]

65

!eople v. $llen, 118 +,2d .2*, 5* C,A,2d, *6A, %arpenter v. %o9, 182 )o, 816 $1.6.%,

6A

[6A]

6/

AR#, . , !rescription o crime.QCri!es punisha3le 3y death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in t2enty years.
[6/]

Cri!es punisha3le 3y other afflicti(e penalties shall prescri3e in fifteen years, #hose punisha3le 3y a correctional penalty shall prescri3e in ten years@ 0ith the e:ception of those punisha3le 3y arresto mayor, 0hich shall prescri3e in fi(e years, #he cri!e of li3el or other si!ilar offenses shall prescri3e in one year, #he offenses of oral defa!ation and slander 3y deed shall prescri3e in si: !onths, Bi"ht offenses prescri3e in t0o !onths, 7hen the penalty fi:ed 3y la0 is a co!pound one, the hi"hest penalty shall 3e !ade the 3asis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second, and third para"raph of this article,

of the )tate to re(i(e a cri!inal case a"ainst the accused after the 1nfor!ation had 3een filed 3ut su3se>uently pro(isionally dis!issed 0ith the e:press consent of the accused, Dpon the lapse of the ti!eline under the ne0 rule, the )tate is presu!ed, al3eit disputa3ly, to ha(e a3andoned or 0ai(ed its ri"ht to re(i(e the case and prosecute the accused, #he dis!issal 3eco!es ipso acto per!anent, Ce can no lon"er 3e char"ed ane0 for the sa!e cri!e or another cri!e necessarily included therein, Ce is spared fro! the an"uish and an:iety as 0ell as the e:penses in any ne0 indict!ents, #he )tate !ay re(i(e a cri!inal case 3eyond the one-year or t0o-year periods pro(ided that there is a =ustifia3le necessity for the delay, By the sa!e to2en, if a cri!inal case is dis!issed on !otion of the accused 3ecause the trial is not concluded 0ithin the period therefor, the prescripti(e periods under the Re(ised +enal Code are not there3y di!inished, But 0hether or not the prosecution of the accused is 3arred 3y the statute of li!itations or 3y the lapse of the ti!e-line under the ne0 rule, the effect is 3asically the sa!e, As the )tate )upre!e Court of 1llinois held?
6*[6*] 68[68] 6.[6.] 5 [5 ]

R #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 offender to 3e punishedQto 3e depri(ed of his li3ertyQshall cease, 1ts ter!s not only stri2e do0n the ri"ht of action 0hich the state had ac>uired 3y the offense, 3ut also re!o(e the fla0 0hich the cri!e had created in the offenders title to li3erty, 1n this respect, its lan"ua"e "oes deeper than statutes 3arrin" ci(il re!edies usually do, #hey e:pressly ta2e a0ay only the re!edy 3y suit, and that 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!ed directly at the (ery ri"ht 0hich the state has a"ainst the offenderQthe ri"ht to punish, as the only lia3ility 0hich the offender has incurred, and declares that this ri"ht and this lia3ility are at an end, R51[51]

#he Court a"rees 0ith the respondent that procedural la0s !ay 3e applied retroacti(ely, As applied to cri!inal la0, procedural la0 pro(ides or re"ulates the steps 3y 0hich one 0ho has co!!itted a cri!e is to 3e punished, 1n /an, =r. v. %ourt o $ppeals, this Court held that?
52[52]

)tatutes re"ulatin" the procedure of the courts 0ill 3e construed as applica3le 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 that procedural statutes !ay so!eho0 affect the liti"ants ri"hts !ay not preclude their retroacti(e application to pendin" actions, #he retroacti(e application of procedural 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. %ra2 ord, .8 )E /1A, Republic v. $goncillo, 5 )CRA A*. $1.*1%, (tate o Kansas v. Ransom, 6. ABR 5th 8.2,

68

[68]

6.

[6.]

22 C,4,),, supra, at A*A, citin" !eople v. 3i 'ranco, 185 N,K,),2d, p, .*5, 1* Misc,2d 1**,
[5 ] [51]

51

!eople v. Ross, 1A/ N,E, 6 6 $1.2*%, ;,R, No, 16/6/8, 4anuary 1/, 2 2, p, 16,

52

[52]

ad(ersely affected, Nor is the retroacti(e application of procedural statutes constitutionally o3=ectiona3le, #he reason is that as a "eneral rule no (ested ri"ht !ay attach to, nor arise fro!, procedural la0s, 1t has 3een held that Ha person has no (ested ri"ht in any particular re!edy, and a liti"ant cannot insist on the application to the trial of his case, 0hether ci(il or cri!inal, of any other than the e:istin" rules of procedure,

1t further ruled therein that a procedural la0 !ay not 3e applied retroacti(ely if to do so 0ould 0or2 in=ustice or 0ould in(ol(e intricate pro3le!s of due process or i!pair the independence of the Court, 1n a per curiam decision in %ipriano v. %ity o "ouma, the Dnited )tates )upre!e Court ruled that 0here a decision of 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" of nonretroacti(ity, A construction of 0hich a statute is fairly suscepti3le is fa(ored, 0hich 0ill a(oid all o3=ectiona3le, !ischie(ous, indefensi3le, 0ron"ful, and in=urious conse>uences, #his Court should not adopt an interpretation of a statute 0hich produces a3surd, unreasona3le, un=ust, or oppressi(e results if such interpretation could 3e a(oided, #i!e and a"ain, this Court has decreed that statutes are to 3e construed in li"ht of the purposes to 3e achie(ed and the e(ils sou"ht to 3e re!edied, 1n construin" a statute, the reason for the enact!ent should 3e 2ept in !ind and the statute should 3e construed 0ith reference to the intended scope and purpose,
56[56] 55[55] 5A[5A] 5/[5/] 5*[5*]

Re!edial le"islation, or procedural rule, or doctrine of the Court desi"ned to enhance and i!ple!ent the constitutional ri"hts of parties in cri!inal proceedin"s !ay 3e applied retroacti(ely or prospecti(ely dependin" upon se(eral factors, such as the history of the ne0 rule, its purpose and effect, and 0hether the retrospecti(e application 0ill further its operation, the particular conduct sou"ht to 3e re!edied and the effect thereon in the ad!inistration of =ustice and of cri!inal la0s in particular, 1n a per curiam decision in (te ano v. Woods, the Dnited )tates )upre!e Court catalo"ued the factors in deter!inin" 0hether a ne0 rule or doctrine enunciated 3y the Ci"h Court should 3e "i(en retrospecti(e or prospecti(e effect?
58[58] 5.[5.]

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

56

[56]

6.A D,), * 1 $1./.%, Id, )rsua v. %ourt o $ppeals, 2A/ )CRA 15* $1../%, %ity and %ounty o 3enver v. "olmes, 5 +,2d 1 $1./A%,

55

[55]

5A

[5A]

5/

[5/]

5*

[5*]

!aat v. %ourt o $ppeals, 2// )CRA 1/* $1..*%, *in0letter v. #ictor Wal0er, 681 D,), /18 $1./A%, 6.6 D,), /6 $1./8%,

58

[58]

5.

[5.]

1n this case, the Court a"rees 0ith the petitioners that the ti!e-3ar of t0o years under the ne0 rule should not 3e applied retroacti(ely a"ainst the )tate, 1n the ne0 rule in >uestion, as no0 construed 3y the Court, it has fi:ed a ti!e-3ar of one year or t0o years for the re(i(al of cri!inal cases pro(isionally dis!issed 0ith the e:press consent of the accused and 0ith a priori notice to the offended party, #he ti!e-3ar !ay appear, on first i!pression, unreasona3le co!pared to the periods under Article . of the Re(ised +enal Code, Co0e(er, in fi:in" the ti!e-3ar, the Court 3alanced the societal interests and those of the accused for the orderly and speedy disposition of cri!inal cases 0ith !ini!u! pre=udice to the )tate and the accused, 1t too2 into account the su3stantial ri"hts of 3oth the )tate and of the accused to due process, #he Court 3elie(ed that the ti!e li!it is a reasona3le period for the )tate to re(i(e pro(isionally dis!issed cases 0ith the consent of the accused and notice to the offended parties, #he ti!e-3ar fi:ed 3y the Court !ust 3e respected unless it is sho0n that the period is !anifestly short or insufficient that the rule 3eco!es a denial of =ustice, #he petitioners failed to sho0 a !anifest shortness or insufficiency of the ti!e-3ar,
A [A ]

#he ne0 rule 0as conceptuali'ed 3y the Co!!ittee on the Re(ision of the Rules and appro(ed 3y the Court en banc pri!arily to enhance the ad!inistration of the cri!inal =ustice syste! and the ri"hts to due process of the )tate and the accused 3y eli!inatin" the deleterious practice of trial courts of pro(isionally dis!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 definite period for such re(i(al 3y the pu3lic prosecutor, #here 0ere ti!es 0hen such cri!inal cases 0ere no lon"er re(i(ed or refiled due to causes 3eyond the control of the pu3lic prosecutor or 3ecause of the indolence, apathy or the lac2adaisical attitude 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!inal proceedin"s,
A1[A1]

1t is al!ost a uni(ersal e:perience that the accused 0elco!es delay as it usually operates in his fa(or, especially if he "reatly fears the conse>uences of his trial and con(iction, Ce is hesitant to distur3 the hushed inaction 3y 0hich do!inant cases ha(e 3een 2no0n to e:pire,
A2[A2] A6[A6]

#he inordinate delay in the re(i(al or refilin" of cri!inal cases !ay i!pair or reduce the capacity of the )tate to pro(e its case 0ith the disappearance or nona(aila3ility of its 0itnesses, +hysical e(idence !ay ha(e 3een lost, Me!ories of 0itnesses !ay ha(e "ro0n di! or ha(e faded, +assa"e of ti!e !a2es proof of any fact !ore difficult, #he accused !ay 3eco!e a fu"iti(e fro! =ustice or co!!it another cri!e, #he lon"er the lapse of ti!e fro! the
A5[A5] A [A ]

+len *ivestoc0 %ompany v. %ol2ell, 18A D,), A5 $1. 2%,

A1

)nited (tates v. -ann, 2 1 E, )upp, 2 8 $1./8%@ Bar0er v. Wingo, 5 * D,), A15 $1.*2%,
[A1] [A2]

A2

)nited (tates v. 'ay, 616 E,2d /2 $1./6%, )nited (tates v. -ann, supra,

A6

[A6]

dis!issal of the case to the re(i(al thereof, the !ore difficult it is to pro(e the cri!e, 8n the other side of the fulcru!, a !ere pro(isional dis!issal of a cri!inal case does not ter!inate a cri!inal case, #he possi3ility that the case !ay 3e re(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>uy and create an:iety in hi! and his fa!ily, Ce is una3le to lead a nor!al life 3ecause of co!!unity suspicion and his o0n an:iety, Ce continues to suffer those penalties and disa3ilities inco!pati3le 0ith the presu!ption of innocence, Ce !ay also lose his 0itnesses or their !e!ories !ay fade 0ith the passa"e of ti!e, 1n the lon" run, it !ay di!inish his capacity to defend hi!self and thus esche0 the fairness of the entire cri!inal =ustice syste!,
[AA] A/[A/]

AA

#he ti!e-3ar under the ne0 rule 0as fi:ed 3y the Court to e:cise the !alaise that pla"ued the ad!inistration of the cri!inal =ustice syste! for the bene it o the (tate and the accused@ not for the accused only, #he Court a"rees 0ith the petitioners that to apply the ti!e-3ar retroacti(ely so that the t0o-year period co!!enced to run on March 61, 1... 0hen the pu3lic prosecutor recei(ed his copy of the resolution of 4ud"e A"nir, 4r, dis!issin" the cri!inal cases is inconsistent 0ith the intend!ent of the ne0 rule, 1nstead 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, 4r, dis!issed Cri!inal Cases Nos, &-..-81/*. to &-..-81/8. on March 2., 1..., #he ne0 rule too2 effect on Fece!3er 1, 2 , 1f the Court applied the ne0 ti!e3ar retroacti(ely, the )tate 0ould ha(e only one year and three !onths or until March 61, 2 1 0ithin 0hich to re(i(e these cri!inal cases, #he period is short of the t0o-year period fi:ed under the ne0 rule, 8n 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, 2 2 0ithin 0hich to re(i(e the cases, #his is in consonance 0ith the intend!ent of the ne0 rule in fi:in" the ti!e-3ar and thus pre(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 in the co!putation of the t0o-year period 3ecause the rule prescri3in" it 0as not yet in effect at the ti!e and the )tate could not 3e e:pected to co!ply 0ith the ti!e-3ar, 1t cannot e(en 3e ar"ued that the )tate 0ai(ed its ri"ht to re(i(e the cri!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!e Court said, per 4ustice Eeli: Eran2furter, in +ri in v. !eople4
A*[A*] A5 [A5]

3ic0ey v. (tate o 'lorida, 6.8 D,), 6 $1.* %, Ibid. Bar0er v. Winggo, supra, 6A1 D,), 12 $1.A/%,

AA

[AA]

A/

[A/]

A*

[A*]

7e should not indul"e in the fiction that the la0 no0 announced has al0ays 3een the la0 and, therefore, that those 0ho did not a(ail the!sel(es of it 0ai(ed their ri"hts R,

#he t0o-year period fi:ed in the ne0 rule is for the 3enefit of 3oth the )tate and the accused, 1t should not 3e e!asculated and reduced 3y an inordinate retroacti(e application of the ti!e-3ar therein pro(ided !erely to 3enefit the accused, Eor to do so 0ould cause an Hin=ustice of hardshipI to the )tate and ad(ersely affect the ad!inistration of =ustice in "eneral and of cri!inal la0s in particular, #o re>uire the )tate to "i(e a (alid =ustification as a condition sine qua non to the re(i(al of a case pro(isionally dis!issed 0ith the e:press consent of the accused 3efore the effecti(e date of the ne0 rule is to assu!e that the )tate is o3li"ed to co!ply 0ith the ti!e-3ar under the ne0 rule 3efore it too2 effect, #his 0ould 3e a ran2 denial of =ustice, #he )tate !ust 3e "i(en a period of one year or t0o years as the case !ay 3e fro! Fece!3er 1, 2 to re(i(e the cri!inal case 0ithout re>uirin" the )tate to !a2e a (alid =ustification for not re(i(in" the case 3efore the effecti(e date of the ne0 rule, Althou"h in cri!inal cases, the accused 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, Hthe concept of fairness !ust not 3e strained till it is narro0ed to a fila!ent, 7e are to 2eep the 3alance true,I 1n 3imatulac v. #illon, this Court e!phasi'ed that Hthe =ud"es action !ust not i!pair the su3stantial ri"hts of the accused nor the ri"ht of the )tate and offended party to due process of la0, #his Court further said?
A8[A8] A.[A.]

1ndeed, for =ustice to pre(ail, the scales !ust 3alance@ =ustice is not to 3e dispensed for the accused alone, #he interests of society and the offended parties 0hich ha(e 3een 0ron"ed !ust 3e e>ually considered, <erily, a (erdict of con(iction is not necessarily a denial of =ustice@ and an ac>uittal is not necessarily a triu!ph of =ustice, for, to the society offended and the party 0ron"ed, it could also !ean in=ustice, 4ustice then !ust 3e rendered e(enhandedly to 3oth the accused, on one hand, and the )tate and offended party, on the other,

1n this case, the ele(en 1nfor!ations in Cri!inal Cases Nos, 1-1 11 2 to 1-1 1112 0ere filed 0ith the Re"ional #rial Court on 4une /, 2 1 0ell 0ithin the t0o-year period, 1n su!, this Court finds the !otion for reconsideration of petitioners !eritorious, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration is ;RAN#EF, #he Resolution of this Court, dated May 28, 2 2, is )E# A)1FE, #he Fecision of the Court of Appeals, dated Au"ust 25, 2 1, in CA-;,R, )+ No, /A 65 is RE<ER)EF, #he +etition of the Respondent
A8 [A8]

2.1 D,), .* $1.66%, 2.* )CRA /*. $1..8%,

A.

[A.]

0ith the Re"ional #rial Court in Ci(il Case No, 1-1 .66 is F1)M1))EF for 3ein" !oot and acade!ic, #he Re"ional #rial Court of &ue'on City, Branch 81, is F1REC#EF to forth0ith proceed 0ith Cri!inal Cases Nos, 1-1 11 2 to 11 1112 0ith deli3erate dispatch, No pronounce!ents as to costs, SO OR#ERE#. 3avide, =r., %.=., -endo,a, !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,