PEOPLE, et al. v.

Lacson, April 1, 2003 rules may be applied retroactively, it should not be if to do so would
work injustice or would involve intricate problems of due process.
FACTS: Before the court is the petitioner’s motion of reconsideration Statutes should be construed in light of the purposes to be achieved
of the resolution dated May 23, 2002, for the determination of several and the evils to be remedied. This is because to do so would be
factual issues relative to the application of Sec. 8 Rule 117 of RRCP prejudicial to the State since, given that the Judge dismissed the
on the dismissal of the cases Q-99- 81679 and Q-99-81689 against case on March 29,1999, and the New rule took effect on Dec 1,2000,
the respondent. The respondent was charged with the shooting and it would only in effect give them 1 year and three months to work
killing of eleven male persons. The court confirmed the express instead of 2 years. At that time, they had no knowledge of the said
consent of the respondent in the provisional dismissal of the rule and therefore they should not be penalized for that. “Indeed for
aforementioned cases when he filed for judicial determination. The justice to prevail, the scales must balance; justice is not to be
court also ruled the need to determine whether the other facts for its dispensed for the accused alone.” The two-year period fixed in the
application are attendant. new rule is for the benefit of both the State and the accused. It
should not be emasculated and reduced by an inordinate retroactive
ISSUES: application of the time-bar therein provided merely to benefit the
1. Whether or not the requisites for the applicability of Sec. 8, Rule accused. To do so would cause an injustice of hardship to the state
117 of 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure were complied with in the and adversely affect the administration of justice.
Kuratong Baleleng cases
a. Was express consent given by the respondent? Held: Motion granted
b. Was notice for the motion, the hearing and the subsequent
dismissal given to the heirs of the victims?
Section 8, Rule 117 is not applicable to the case since the conditions
for its applicability, namely: 1) prosecution with the express consent
of the accused or both of them move for provisional dismissal,
2) offended party notified,
3) court grants motion and dismisses cases provisionally,
4) public prosecutor served with copy of orders of provisional
dismissal, which is the defendants burden to prove, which in this
case has not been done
a. The defendant never filed and denied unequivocally in his
statements, through counsel at the Court of Appeals, that he filed for
dismissal nor did he agree to a provisional dismissal thereof.
b. No notice of motion for provisional dismissal, hearing and
subsequent dismissal was given to the heirs of the victims.

2. WON time-bar in Sec 8 Rule 117 should be applied prospectively

or retroactively.

Time-bar should not be applied retroactively. Though procedural