11. People v.

Panfilo Lacson
GR No. 149453
May 28 2002

Facts:
11 informations were filed against Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) Chief
Superintendent Lacson and 25 other accused for their involvement in the Kuratong Baleleng
Gang (KBG) shootout wherein members of the KBG were killed.
It was claimed that the killing was a rub-out or a summary execution, and not a shootout.
On March 29,1999 Judge Agnir of RTC Quezon City dismissed the criminal cases against the
accused applying the exception in Allado v. Diokno, finding no probable cause for the issuance
of the warrants of arrest or to hold trial, mainly due to the recantation of several affidavits
against the accused.
However, on May 20,2001 PNP Director Mendoza indorsed new affidavits to the DOJ, which
drove DOJ Secretary Perez to reinvestigate the KBG incident.
On May 28, 2001 Lacson filed a petition for prohibition for TRO and/or WPI with the RTC, but
was denied.
11 informations for murder were then filed with the RTC and on the same day, Lacson filed a
petition for certiorari with the CA. The CA issued a TRO enjoining the issuance of warrant of
arrest. The CA rendered the now assailed decision which characterized the termination of the
criminal cases as PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL. CA ruled that the revivalof the criminal cases
falls within the purview of the prescriptive period under Sec. 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.

Issue: Whether or not Sec. 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure on
provisional dismissal bars the filing of informations for multiple murder against respondent
Lacson.

Ruling:
The Court is not in a position to rule. Like any other favorable procedural rule, this new rule can
be given retroactive effect. However, this Court cannot rule on the jugular issue due to lack of
sufficient factual bases. There is no uncertainty with respect to the fact that the provisional
dismissal of the cases against Lacson bears his express consent, but the records however do
not reveal with equal clarity and conclusiveness whether notices to the offended parties were
given before the cases were dismissed (as required in Sec. 8, Rule 117, RRCP). The records of
this case are inconclusive on the factual issue of whether the multiple murder cases against
Lacson are being revived within or beyond the 2-year bar. The reckoning date of the 2-year bar
has to be first determined. If the cases were revived only after the 2-year bar, the state must be
given the opportunity to justify its failure to comply with said timeline. The new rule fixes a
timeline to penalize the State for its inexcusable delay in prosecuting cases already filed in
courts.
The reception of evidence on these various issues cannot be done in this Court but before the
trial court. They involve disputed facts and arguable questions of law.