PEOPLE VS.
LACSON purpose of conducting a preliminary
FACTS:
1. In 1995, 11 people were allegedly killed by
Sen. Panfilo Lacson. 11 Criminal Cases were filed
with the RTC of Quezon City against the
respondent. However, in March 29, 1999, then
RTC Judge Agnir, Jr., dismissed the cases.
2. In June 6, 2001, the 11 Criminal Cases against
him were refiled or revived with RTC of QC
under Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure.
3. Respondent Lacson then files motion for
reconsideration and contends that Section 8
should be applied retroactively and
prospectively without reservations only and
solely on the basis of its being favorable to the
accused.
He asserts that retroactive application of penal
laws should likewise apply to criminal
procedure, as it is a branch of criminal law. And
since Section 8 is a rule of procedure, the rule
should have retroactive application, absent any
provision therein that it should be applied
prospectively. Lacson further contends that
Section 8 was meant to reach back in time to
provide relief to the accused. And that the State
was already given sufficient time to prosecute
him since the March 29, 1999 dismissal. And
that the refiling of the Criminal cases were
already beyond the 2-year bar and thus,
constitute a violation of his right to a speedy
trial, designed to derail his bid for the Senate.
4. Meanwhile, petitioners assert in their
comment that as a procedural rule, Section 8
must be applied prospectively pursuant to Sec 5
(5) of Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution, as it
does not only secure the rights of the accused
but also the equally important right of the State
to public justice. If a procedural rule impairs a
vested right, or would work injustice, said rule
may not be given a retroactive application.
5. Additionally, petitioners contend that the
right of the accused to a speedy trial or
disposition of the criminal cases applies only to
outstanding and pending cases and not to
dismissed cases . The petitioners assert that the
"refiling of the cases" under Section 8 should be
taken to mean as the filing of the criminal
complaint with the appropriate office for the
investigation, and not the actual filing of the
criminal complaint or information in court for
trial. Furthermore, according to the petitioners,
the two-year period has not yet commenced as
it will run when the offended parties received
notices of the motion for provisional dismissal
of the cases under Section 8 since the provision
so expressly states.
6. In his consolidated reply, Lacson asserts that
the State is proscribed from refiling a criminal
case if it can be shown that the delay resulted in
a violation of the right of the accused to due
process. He further adds that State had
opportunity to refile the cases before the two-
year bar but failed to do so because of
negligence. Contrary to petitioners’ contention,
the respondent posits that the revival of the
cases contemplated in Section 8 refers to the
filing of the Informations or complaints in court
for trial. Therefore, the refiling of the
Informations with the RTC, which was done on
June 6, 2001 was clearly beyond the two-year
bar.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 8, Rule 117 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure must
be given a retroactive application?
HELD: No. Court has held that Section 8, Rule
117 of the RRCP must be given a prospective
application. And that respondent’s contentions
lack merit.
Court is not mandated to apply Section 8
retroactively simply because it is favorable to
the accused. The Court approved Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure under constitutional
grant to promulgate simplified inexpensive rules
of procedure in all courts for the speedy
disposition of cases. It shall not in any way
diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.
The time-bar of one year or two years for the
revival of provisionally dismissed criminal cases
was fixed by the Court to excise the malaise that
plagued the administration of the criminal
justice system for the benefit of both the State
and the accused.
In criminal litigations concerning constitutional
issue claims, the Cour may make the rule
prospective where the exigencies of the
situation make the rule prospective. The
retroactivity or non-retroactivity of a rule is not
automatically determined by the provision of
the Constitution on which the dictate is based. adversely affect the administration of justice in
Each constitutional rule of criminal procedure general and of criminal laws in particular.
has its own distinct functions, its own
background or precedent, and its own impact
on the administration of justice, and the way in
which these factors combine must inevitably
vary with the dictate involved.

Therefore, the Court has held that if the

statutory purpose is clear, the provisions of the
law should be construed conducive to fairness
and justice, and in harmony with the general
spirit and policy of the rule. It should be
construed not to defeat it’s purpose for
enactment. To construe it in a manner that
disregards or defeats such purpose is to nullify
or destroy the law. In Cometa v. Court of
Appeals, this Court ruled that "the spirit rather
than the letter of the statute determines its
construction; hence, a statute must be read
according to its spirit or intent."

In this case, when the Court approved Section 8,

its intention was to apply it prospectively, for if
the intention of the Court were otherwise, it
would defeat the very purpose of giving the
State two years from notice of the provisional
dismissal of criminal cases with the express
consent of the accused. It would be a denial of
the State’s right to due process and a travesty of
justice for the Court to apply the new rule
retroactively in the present case as the
respondent insists. A retroactive application of
the time-bar will result in absurd, unjust and
oppressive consequences to the State and to
the victims of crimes and their heirs.

Court held that petitioners had until December

1, 2002 to revive the criminal cases provisionally
dismissed by Judge Agnir, Jr. on March 29, 1999,
as it was only on December 1, 2000 when the
new rule of Sec 8 Rule 117 of RRCP took effect.
If the Court applied the new time-bar
retroactively, the State would have only one
year and three months to revive the criminal
cases which is short of the two-year period fixed
under the new rule. On the other hand, if the
time limit is applied prospectively, it will be in
consonance with the intendment of the new
rule to prevent injustice to the State and avoid
absurd, unreasonable, oppressive, injurious, and
wrongful results in the administration of justice.

The two-year period fixed in the new rule is for

the benefit of both the State and the accused.
To be given a retroactive application would
cause an "injustice of hardship" to the State and