Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People v. Lacson
People v. Lacson
Lacson
G.R. No. 149453. April 1, 2003
Supreme Court: No. Notice to the offended party will not suffice, because it is not the
offended party who will revive the case but the public prosecutor. Therefore, Notice of
Dismissal should be given to the public prosecutor and the period will only commence to run
once the public prosecutor revives the case.
First notable feature of Section 8, Rule 117 is that it does not exactly state what a provisional
dismissal is. The modifier provisional suggests that the dismissal with Section 8 essentially
refers to those dismissals which are temporary in character and not dismissals that are
permanent. Based on the law, rules and jurisprudence, permanent dismissals are those
barred by principle of double jeopardy, by the rule on speedy trial and dismissals after plea
without express consent. Therefore, provisional dismissal does not fall on this kind of
dismissals. However, the provision provided for a lapsing of time, with proper notice of
dismissal and lapsing of time it will become permanent.
Second feature, Section 8 does not state the grounds that lead to provisional dismissal. This
is marked in contrast with a Motion to Quash that enumerates the grounds for dismissal.