People vs.

Panfilo Lacson

Facts: Petitioners sought for the motion for reconsideration of the resolution dated May 28, 2002 for the
determination of several factual issues relative to the application of Sec. 8 Rule 117 of RCP on the
dismissal of the case against the respondent and his co-accused. Respondent and his co-accused was
charged with multiple murder for the shooting and killing of 11 male person. The court ruled in its
resolution that the criminal cases No. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 was provisionally dismissed due to the
express consent of the respondent as he himself moved for said provisional dismissal when he filed his
motion for judicial determination of probable cause and for examination of witnesses. Petitioners avers
that Section 8 Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to Criminal cases No. Q-99-
81679 to Q-99-81689 because the essential requirements for its application were not present when
Judge Agnir Jr. Issued his resolution dated March 29, 1999. Petitioner disagreed to the court contending
that respondent did not give express consent to the dismissal by Judge Agnir Jr. Of the said criminal
cases. Also respondent admitted that he did not file any motion to dismiss said cases or even agreed to a
provisional dismissal thereof. Petitioner also contended that the heirs of the victims were not notified of
the said motion and hearing. Respondent, however insisted that he himself moved for a provisional
dismissal of the criminal cases. He cited the resolution of Judge Agnir Jr. That he along with his co-
accused filed a separate but identical motions for dismissal of the criminal cases if the trial court would
find no probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest against them. Respondent then added that
the heirs of the victims were notified of the motion and hearing since a public prosecutor was present
during the hearing on the motion for judicial determination of the existence of probable cause.

ISSUE: Whether or not Section 8 of Rule 117 of the revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is applicable to
Criminal Cases No. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689

RULING: NO The court found that the contention of the Petitioners meritorious. Express consent to a
provisional dismissal is given either viva voce or in writing and is a positive, direct, unequivocal consent
requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning. The mere inaction or silence of the accused
to a motion for a provisional dismissal of the case or his failure to object to a provisional dismissal does
not amount to express consent. If the criminal case was provisionally dismissed with the express consent
of the accused or over his objection the case may be revived only within the periods provided by the
new rule, however if the provisional dismissal is made without the express consent of the accused the
new rule would not apply.