Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 149453 October 7, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, THE SECRET!R" OF #USTCE, $RECTOR
GENER!L OF THE PHLPPNE N!TON!L POLCE, CHEF ST!TE PROSECUTOR
#O%ENCTO &U'O, ST!TE PROSECUTORS PETER L. ONG ()* RU+EN !.
&!C!R!S, 2N$ !SSST!NT CT" PROSECUTOR CONR!$O M. #!MOLN ()*
CT" PROSECUTOR OF -UE&ON CT" CL!RO !RELL!NO, petitioners,
vs.
P!NFLO M. L!CSON, respondent.
R E S O L ! " O N
C!LLE#O, SR., J.:
Before the Court are the follo#in$ %otions of the respondent, to #it& 'a( O%nibus
Motion)
*
'b( Motion for Reconsideration)
+
'c( Supple%ent to Motion for
Reconsideration)
,
'd( Motion !o Set for Oral Ar$u%ents.
-
The Omnibus Motion
!he respondent see.s the reconsideration of the April +/, +00, Resolution of this Court
#hich $ranted the petitioners1 %otion for reconsideration. !he respondent thereafter
pra2s to allo# Associate 3ustices Renato C. Corona, Ma. Alicia Austria4Martine5,
Conchita C. Morales, Ro%eo 3. Calle6o, Sr., and Adolfo S. A5cuna to voluntar2 inhibit
the%selves or, absent their consent, rule that such inhibition is in order and to recuse
the% fro% further deliberatin$, discussin$ or, in an2 %anner, participatin$ in the
resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration and the Supple%ent to Motion for
Reconsideration. !he respondent points out that the aforena%ed %e%bers of the Court
#ere appointed b2 President 7loria Macapa$al4Arro2o after the 8ebruar2 */, +00+ oral
ar$u%ents and after the case at bar #as sub%itted for the decision of the Court. 9e
asserts that althou$h A.M. No. //4:40/4SC
;
specificall2 provides that it applies onl2 to
the divisions of the Court, it should li.e#ise appl2 to this case, in li$ht of the April *,
+00, Resolution of this Court #hich set aside its Resolution dated Ma2 +:, +00+, apart
fro% the constitutional issues raised b2 the respondent in his %otion for reconsideration
and its supple%ent. As such, accordin$ to the respondent, the instant case should be
unloaded b2 3ustice Calle6o, Sr. and re4raffled to an2 other %e%ber of the Court.
!he Court resolves to den2 the respondent1s %otion for lac. of %erit.
!he records sho# that as earl2 as Ma2 +-, +00+, the respondent filed an ur$ent %otion
for the recusation of 3ustices Renato C. Corona and Ma. Alicia Austria4Martine5 for the
reason that the2 #ere appointed to the Court after the 8ebruar2 */, +00+ oral
ar$u%ents and did not participate in the inte$ral portions of the proceedin$s. 3ustices
Corona and Austria4Martine5 refused to inhibit the%selves and decided to participate in
the deliberation on the petition.
<
On March *:, +00,, the respondent filed a %otion #ith
the Court for the recusation of 3ustice Ro%eo 3. Calle6o, Sr. on account of his voluntar2
inhibition #hen the case #as pendin$ before the Court of Appeals.
On March +;, +00,, this Court issued a resolution den2in$ the respondent1s Motion
dated March *:, +00,. !he respondent thereafter filed his %otion for reconsideration of
the April *, +00, Resolution of the Court in #hich he pra2ed, inter alia, for the inhibition
of 3ustice Calle6o, Sr. under A.M. No. //4:40/4SC and that the case be re4raffled to
another %e%ber of the Court #ho had actuall2 participated in the deliberation and the
rendition of its Ma2 +:, +00+ Resolution. !he respondent li.e#ise sou$ht the inhibition
of 3ustices Conchita C. Morales and Adolfo S. A5cuna, a$ain for the reason that the2
#ere appointed to the Court after the oral ar$u%ents on 8ebruar2 */, +00+ and after
the case had alread2 been sub%itted for decision.
On April +/, +00,, this Court issued a resolution den2in$ the aforesaid %otions of the
respondent.
=
!he Court ruled that A.M. No. //4:40/4SC is applicable onl2 to cases
assi$ned to the divisions of the Court&
!he respondent1s reliance on Supre%e Court Circular No. //4:40/ is %isplaced. As
ad%itted b2 the respondent, the said circular is applicable onl2 to %otions for
reconsideration in cases assi$ned to the >ivisions of the Court. 8or cases assi$ned to
the Court En Banc, the polic2 of the Court had al#a2s been and still is, if the ponente is
no lon$er #ith the Court, his replace%ent #ill act upon the %otion for reconsideration of
a part2 and participate in the deliberations thereof. !his is the reason #h2 3ustice
Calle6o, Sr. #ho had replaced retired 3ustice >e Leon, prepared the draft of the April *,
+00, Resolution of the Court.
:
!he Court also ruled that there #as no need for its ne#est %e%bers to inhibit
the%selves fro% participatin$ in the deliberation of the respondent1s Motion for
Reconsideration&
Althou$h 3ustices Conchita Carpio4Morales, Ro%eo 3. Calle6o, Sr., and Adolfo S.
A5cuna #ere not 2et %e%bers of the Court durin$ the 8ebruar2 *:, +00+
/
oral
ar$u%ents before the Court, nonetheless the2 #ere not dis?ualified to participate in the
deliberations on the petitioner1s %otion for reconsideration of the Ma2 +:, +00+
Resolution of the Court or of the instant %otion for reconsideration. Neither is 3ustice
1
Calle6o, Sr. dis?ualified to prepare the resolution of the Court on the %otion for
reconsideration of the respondent. @hen the Court deliberated on petitioners1 %otion
for reconsideration, 3ustices Conchita Carpio4Morales, Ro%eo 3. Calle6o, Sr. and
Adolfo S. A5cuna #ere alread2 %e%bers of the Court.
"t bears stressin$ that transcripts of steno$raphic notes ta.en durin$ the 8ebruar2 *:,
+00+ hearin$ and oral ar$u%ents of the parties are parts of the records of this case.
Said transcripts are available to the parties or to an2 %e%ber of the Court. Li.e#ise,
Att2s. Rene A.A. Sa$uisa$ and 8eliB Carao, 3r. %a2 not 2et have been the counsel of
the respondent on 8ebruar2 *:, +00+ but b2 readin$ the said transcripts and the
records of this case the2 are infor%ed of #hat transpired durin$ the hearin$ and oral
ar$u%ents of the parties.
*0
"t is thus clear that the $rounds cited b2 the respondent in his o%nibus %otion had
alread2 been passed upon and resolved b2 this Court. !he respondent did not %a.e
an2 ne# substantial ar$u%ents in his %otion to #arrant a reconsideration of the
aforesaid resolutions.
Besides, the respondent sou$ht the inhibition of 3ustices Conchita C. Morales and
Adolfo S. A5cuna onl2 after the2 had alread2 concurred in the Court1s Resolution dated
April *, +00,. Case la# has it that a %otion for dis?ualification %ust be denied #hen
filed after a %e%ber of the Court has alread2 $iven an opinion on the %erits of the
case, the rationale bein$ that a liti$ant cannot be per%itted to speculate upon the
action of the Court, onl2 to raise an ob6ection of this sort after a decision has been
rendered.
**
The Motion to Set the Case for Oral Arguments
!he Court denies the %otion of the respondent. !he parties have alread2 eBtensivel2
discussed the issues involved in the case. !he respondent1s %otion for reconsideration
consists of no less than a hundred pa$es, eBcludin$ the supple%ent to his %otion for
reconsideration and his repl2 to the petitioners1 co%%ent on his %otion. !here is no
lon$er a need to set the instant case for oral ar$u%ents.
The Issue as to the Application of the Time-bar under Section 8, Rule 11 of the
Re!ised Rules of Criminal "rocedure # $hether "rospecti!e or Retroacti!e
!he respondent see.s the reconsideration of the April *, +00, Resolution of the Court
and thereafter reinstate its Resolution of Ma2 +:, +00+.
9e asserts that pursuant to a lon$ line of 6urisprudence and a lon$4standin$ 6udicial
practice in appl2in$ penal la#, Section :, Rule **= of the Revised Rules of Cri%inal
Procedure 'RRCP( should be applied prospectivel2 and retroactivel2 #ithout
reservations, onl2 and solel2 on the basis of its bein$ favorable to the accused. 9e
asserts that case la# on the retroactive application of penal la#s should li.e#ise appl2
to cri%inal procedure, it bein$ a branch of cri%inal la#. !he respondent insists that
Section : #as purposel2 crafted and included as a ne# provision to reinforce the
constitutional ri$ht of the accused to a speed2 disposition of his case. "t is pri%aril2 a
chec. on the State to prosecute cri%inal cases dili$entl2 and continuousl2, lest it loses
its ri$ht to prosecute the accused ane#. !he respondent ar$ues that since Section : is
indubitabl2 a rule of procedure, there can be no other conclusion& the rule should have
retroactive application, absent an2 provision therein that it should be applied
prospectivel2. Accordin$l2, prospective application thereof #ould in effect $ive the
petitioners %ore than t#o 2ears fro% March +/, */// #ithin #hich to revive the cri%inal
cases, thus violatin$ the respondent1s ri$ht to due process and e?ual protection of the
la#.
!he respondent asserts that Section : #as %eant to reach bac. in ti%e to provide relief
to the accused. "n this case, the State had been $iven %ore than sufficient opportunit2
to prosecute the respondent ane# after the March +/, */// dis%issal of the cases b2
then 3ud$e @enceslao A$nir, 3r. and even before the RRCP too. effect on >ece%ber
*, +000. Accordin$ to the respondent, the petitioners filed the "nfor%ations #ith the
R!C in Cri%inal Cases Nos. 0*4*0**0+ to 0*4*0***+ be2ond the t#o42ear bar, in
violation of his ri$ht to a speed2 trial, and that such filin$ #as desi$ned to derail his bid
for the Senate.
"n their co%%ent on the respondent1s %otions, the petitioners assert that the
prospective application of Section : is in .eepin$ #ith Section ;';(, Article A""" of the
*/:= Constitution, #hich provides in part that the rules of procedure #hich the Court
%a2 pro%ul$ate shall not di%inish, increase or %odif2 substantial ri$hts. @hile Section
: secures the ri$hts of the accused, it does not and should not preclude the e?uall2
i%portant ri$ht of the State to public 6ustice. "f such ri$ht to public 6ustice is ta.en a#a2,
then Section : can no lon$er be said to be a procedural rule. Accordin$ to the
petitioners, if a procedural rule i%pairs a vested ri$ht, or #ould #or. in6ustice, the said
rule %a2 not be $iven a retroactive application. !he2 contend that the ri$ht of the
accused to a speed2 trial or disposition of the cri%inal cases applies onl2 to
outstandin$ and pendin$ cases and not to cases alread2 dis%issed. !he petitioners
assert that the Crefilin$ of the casesC under Section : should be ta.en to %ean as the
filin$ of the cri%inal co%plaint #ith the appropriate office for the purpose of conductin$
a preli%inar2 investi$ation, and not the actual filin$ of the cri%inal co%plaint or
infor%ation in court for trial. 8urther%ore, accordin$ to the petitioners, the offended
parties %ust be $iven notices of the %otion for provisional dis%issal of the cases under
Section : since the provision so eBpressl2 states. !hus, if the re?uisite notices to the
heirs of the deceased #ould be ta.en into consideration, the t#o42ear period had not
2et even co%%enced to run.
2
"n his consolidated repl2 to the co%%ent of the petitioners, the respondent asserts that
the State is proscribed fro% refilin$ a cri%inal case if it can be sho#n that the dela2
resulted in a violation of the ri$ht of the accused to due process. "n this case, there #as
an inordinate dela2 in the revival of the cases, considerin$ that the #itnesses in the
cri%inal cases for the State in March */// are the sa%e #itnesses in +00*. !he State
had reasonable opportunit2 to refile the cases before the t#o42ear bar but failed to do
so because of ne$li$ence) and perhaps institutional indolence. Contrar2 to the
petitioners1 contention, the respondent posits that the revival of the cases conte%plated
in Section : refers to the filin$ of the "nfor%ations or co%plaints in court for trial. !he
operational act then is the refilin$ of the "nfor%ations #ith the R!C, #hich #as done
onl2 on 3une <, +00*, clearl2 be2ond the t#o42ear bar.
!he Court finds the respondent1s contentions to be #ithout %erit.
8irst. !he Court approved the RRCP pursuant to its po#er under Article A""", Section ;,
para$raph ; of the Constitution #hich reads&
';( Pro%ul$ate rules concernin$ the protection and enforce%ent of constitutional ri$hts,
pleadin$, practice, and procedure in all courts, the ad%ission to the practice of la#, the
"nte$rated Bar, and le$al assistance to the underprivile$ed. Such rules shall provide a
si%plified and ineBpensive procedure for the speed2 disposition of cases, shall be
unifor% for all courts of the sa%e $rade, and shall not di%inish, increase, or %odif2
substantive ri$hts. Rules of procedure of special courts and ?uasi46udicial bodies shall
re%ain effective unless disapproved b2 the Supre%e Court.
!he Court is not %andated to appl2 Section : retroactivel2 si%pl2 because it is
favorable to the accused. "t %ust be noted that the ne# rule #as approved b2 the Court
not onl2 to reinforce the constitutional ri$ht of the accused to a speed2 disposition of
the case. !he ti%e4bar under the ne# rule #as fiBed b2 the Court to eBcise the %alaise
that pla$ued the ad%inistration of the cri%inal 6ustice s2ste% for the benefit of the State
and the accused) not for the accused onl2. !he Court e%phasi5ed in its assailed
resolution that&
"n the ne# rule in ?uestion, as no# construed b2 the Court, it has fiBed a ti%e4bar of
one 2ear or t#o 2ears for the revival of cri%inal cases provisionall2 dis%issed #ith the
eBpress consent of the accused and #ith a priori notice to the offended part2. !he ti%e4
bar %a2 appear, on first i%pression, unreasonable co%pared to the periods under
Article /0 of the Revised Penal Code. 9o#ever, in fiBin$ the ti%e4bar, the Court
balanced the societal interests and those of the accused for the orderl2 and speed2
disposition of cri%inal cases #ith %ini%u% pre6udice to the State and the accused. "t
too. into account the substantial ri$hts of both the State and of the accused to due
process. !he Court believed that the ti%e li%it is a reasonable period for the State to
revive provisionall2 dis%issed cases #ith the consent of the accused and notice to the
offended parties. !he ti%e4bar fiBed b2 the Court %ust be respected unless it is sho#n
that the period is %anifestl2 short or insufficient that the rule beco%es a denial of
6ustice.
*+
"n cri%inal liti$ations concernin$ constitutional issue clai%s, the Court, in the interest of
6ustice, %a2 %a.e the rule prospective #here the eBi$encies of the situation %a.e the
rule prospective. !he retroactivit2 or non4retroactivit2 of a rule is not auto%aticall2
deter%ined b2 the provision of the Constitution on #hich the dictate is based. Each
constitutional rule of cri%inal procedure has its o#n distinct functions, its o#n
bac.$round or precedent, and its o#n i%pact on the ad%inistration of 6ustice, and the
#a2 in #hich these factors co%bine %ust inevitabl2 var2 #ith the dictate involved.
*,
Matters of procedure are not necessaril2 retrospective in operation as a statute.
*-
!o
paraphrase the nited States Supre%e Court per 3ustice Ben6a%in Cardo5o, the Court
in definin$ the li%its of adherence %a2 %a.e a choice for itself bet#een the principle of
for#ard operation and that of relatin$ for#ard.
*;
!he Court approved Section : pursuant to its po#er under Article A""", Section ;,
para$raph ; of the Constitution. !his constitutional $rant to pro%ul$ate rules carries
#ith it the po#er, inter alia, to deter%ine #hether to $ive the said rules prospective or
retroactive effect. Moreover, under Rule *-- of the Rules of Court, the Court %a2 not
appl2 the rules to actions pendin$ before it if in its opinion their application #ould not be
feasible or #ould #or. in6ustice, in #hich event, the for%er procedure shall appl2.
*<
!he absence of a provision in Section : $ivin$ it prospective application onl2 does not
proscribe the prospective application thereof) nor does it i%pl2 that the Court intended
the ne# rule to be $iven retroactive and prospective effect. "f the statutor2 purpose is
clear, the provisions of the la# should be construed as is conducive to fairness and
6ustice, and in har%on2 #ith the $eneral spirit and polic2 of the rule. "t should be
construed so as not to defeat but to carr2 out such end or purpose.
*=
A statute derives
its vitalit2 fro% the purpose for #hich it is approved. !o construe it in a %anner that
disre$ards or defeats such purpose is to nullif2 or destro2 the la#.
*:
"n Co%eta v. Court
of Appeals,
*/
this Court ruled that Cthe spirit rather than the letter of the statute
deter%ines its construction) hence, a statute %ust be read accordin$ to its spirit or
intent.C
+0
@hile #e %a2 not read into the la# a purpose that is not there, #e
nevertheless have the ri$ht to read out of it the reason for its enact%ent. "n doin$ so,
#e defer not to the Cletter that .illethC but to the Cspirit that vivifieth, to $ive effect to the
la#%a.er1s #ill.C
+*
"n this case, #hen the Court approved Section :, it intended the ne# rule to be applied
prospectivel2 and not retroactivel2, for if the intention of the Court #ere other#ise, it
#ould defeat the ver2 purpose for #hich it #as intended, na%el2, to $ive the State a
period of t#o 2ears fro% notice of the provisional dis%issal of cri%inal cases #ith the
3
eBpress consent of the accused. "t #ould be a denial of the State1s ri$ht to due process
and a travest2 of 6ustice for the Court to appl2 the ne# rule retroactivel2 in the present
case as the respondent insists, considerin$ that the cri%inal cases #ere provisionall2
dis%issed b2 3ud$e A$nir, 3r. on March +/, */// before the ne# rule too. effect on
>ece%ber *, +000. A retroactive application of the ti%e4bar #ill result in absurd, un6ust
and oppressive conse?uences to the State and to the victi%s of cri%es and their heirs.
Consider this scenario& the trial court 'R!C( provisionall2 dis%issed a cri%inal case #ith
the eBpress consent of the accused in *//=. !he prosecution had the ri$ht to revive the
case #ithin the prescriptive period, under Article /0 of the Revised Penal Code, as
a%ended. On >ece%ber *, +000, the ti%e4bar rule under Section : too. effect, the
prosecution #as unable to revive the cri%inal case before then.
"f the ti%e4bar fiBed in Section : #ere to be applied retroactivel2, this #ould %ean that
the State #ould be barred fro% revivin$ the case for failure to co%pl2 #ith the said
ti%e4bar, #hich #as 2et to be approved b2 the Court three 2ears after the provisional
dis%issal of the cri%inal case. "n contrast, if the sa%e case #as dis%issed provisionall2
in >ece%ber +000, the State had the ri$ht to revive the sa%e #ithin the ti%e4bar. "n
fine, to so hold #ould i%pl2 that the State #as presu%ed to foresee and anticipate that
three 2ears after *//=, the Court #ould approve and a%end the RRCP. !he State
#ould thus be sanctioned for its failure to co%pl2 #ith a rule 2et to be approved b2 the
Court. "t %ust be stressed that the institution and prosecution of cri%inal cases are
$overned b2 eBistin$ rules and not b2 rules 2et to eBist. "t #ould be the apeB of in6ustice
to hold that Section : had a platonic or ideal eBistence before it #as approved b2 the
Court. !he past cannot be erased b2 a capricious retroactive application of the ne#
rule.
"n holdin$ that the petitioners had until >ece%ber *, +00+ #ithin #hich to revive the
cri%inal cases provisionall2 dis%issed b2 3ud$e A$nir, 3r. on March +/, *///, this
Court eBplained, thus&
!he Court a$rees #ith the petitioners that to appl2 the ti%e4bar retroactivel2 so that the
t#o42ear period co%%enced to run on March ,*, */// #hen the public prosecutor
received his cop2 of the resolution of 3ud$e A$nir, 3r. dis%issin$ the cri%inal cases is
inconsistent #ith the intend%ent of the ne# rule. "nstead of $ivin$ the State t#o 2ears
to revive provisionall2 dis%issed cases, the State had considerabl2 less than t#o 2ears
to do so. !hus, 3ud$e A$nir, 3r. dis%issed Cri%inal Cases Nos. D4//4:*<=/ to D4//4
:*<:/ on March +/, *///. !he ne# rule too. effect on >ece%ber *, +000. "f the Court
applied the ne# ti%e4bar retroactivel2, the State #ould have onl2 one 2ear and three
%onths or until March ,*, +00* #ithin #hich to revive these cri%inal cases. !he period
is short of the t#o42ear period fiBed under the ne# rule. On the other hand, if the ti%e
li%it is applied prospectivel2, the State #ould have t#o 2ears fro% >ece%ber *, +000 or
until >ece%ber *, +00+ #ithin #hich to revive the cases. !his is in consonance #ith the
intend%ent of the ne# rule in fiBin$ the ti%e4bar and thus prevent in6ustice to the State
and avoid absurd, unreasonable, oppressive, in6urious, and #ron$ful results in the
ad%inistration of 6ustice.
!he period fro% April *, */// to Nove%ber ,0, *///
++
should be eBcluded in the
co%putation of the t#o42ear period because the rule prescribin$ it #as not 2et in effect
at the ti%e and the State could not be eBpected to co%pl2 #ith the ti%e4bar. "t cannot
even be ar$ued that the State #aived its ri$ht to revive the cri%inal cases a$ainst
respondent or that it #as ne$li$ent for not revivin$ the% #ithin the t#o42ear period
under the ne# rule.1a%&'phi1(net As the nited States Supre%e Court said, per 3ustice
8eliB 8ran.furter, in 7riffin v. People, ,;* S *+ '*/;<(&
@e should not indul$e in the fiction that the la# no# announced has al#a2s been the
la# and, therefore, that those #ho did not avail the%selves of it #aived their ri$hts E
!he t#o42ear period fiBed in the ne# rule is for the benefit of both the State and the
accused. "t should not be e%asculated and reduced b2 an inordinate retroactive
application of the ti%e4bar therein provided %erel2 to benefit the accused. 8or to do so
#ould cause an Cin6ustice of hardshipC to the State and adversel2 affect the
ad%inistration of 6ustice in $eneral and of cri%inal la#s in particular.
+,
8urther ?uotin$ 3ustice 8eliB 8ran.furter1s opinion in 7riffin v. People,
+-
he said, Cit is
%uch %ore conducive to la#1s self4respect to reco$ni5e candidl2 the considerations
that $ive prospective content to a ne# pronounce%ent of la#. !hat this is consonant
#ith the spirit of our la# and 6ustified b2 those considerations of reason #hich should
do%inate the la# has been lu%inousl2 eBpounded b2 Mr. 3ustice Cardo5o shortl2
before he ca%e here and in an opinion #hich he #rote for the Court.C
Parentheticall2, the respondent hi%self ad%itted in his %otion for reconsideration that
3ud$e A$nir, 3r. could not have been eBpected to co%pl2 #ith the notice re?uire%ent
under the ne# rule #hen it 2et had to eBist&
//. Respondent sub%its that the records are still in the sa%e state of inade?uac2 and
inco%pletion. !his ho#ever is not stran$e considerin$ that Section :, Rule **= had not
eBisted on March +/, *///, #hen the cri%inal cases #ere dis%issed, and then 3ud$e
A$nir did not have its teBt to $uide his actions. 9o# could the $ood 6ud$e have
co%plied #ith the %andate of Section :, Rule **= #hen it 2et had to eBistF
+;
Statutes re$ulatin$ the procedure of the courts #ill be construed as applicable to
actions pendin$ and undeter%ined at the ti%e of their passa$e. "n that sense and to
that eBtent, procedural la#s are retroactive.
+<
Cri%inal Cases Nos. D4//4:*<=/ to D4
//4:*<:/ had lon$ been dis%issed b2 3ud$e A$nir, 3r. before the ne# rule too. effect
4
on >ece%ber *, +000. @hen the petitioners filed the "nfor%ations in Cri%inal Cases
Nos. 0*4*0**0+ to 0*4*0***+ on 3une <, +00*, Cri%inal Cases Nos. D4//4:*<=/ and
D4//4:*<:/ had lon$ since been ter%inated. !he t#o42ear bar in the ne# rule should
not be rec.oned fro% the March +/, */// dis%issal of Cri%inal Cases Nos. D4//4
:*<=/ to D4//4:*<:/ but fro% >ece%ber *, +000 #hen the ne# rule too. effect. @hile
it is true that the Court applied Section : of Rule **0
+=
of the RRCP retroactivel2, it did
so onl2 to cases still pendin$ #ith this Court and not to cases alread2 ter%inated #ith
finalit2.
!he records sho# that after the re?uisite preli%inar2 investi$ation conducted b2 the
petitioners in accordance #ith eBistin$ rules, eleven "nfor%ations in Cri%inal Cases
Nos. 0*4*0**0+ to 0*4*0***+ #ere filed #ith the R!C on 3une <, +00*, ver2 #ell #ithin
the ti%e4bar therefor. !he respondent cannot ar$ue that his ri$ht to due process and to
a speed2 disposition of the cases as enshrined in the Constitution had been violated.
+:
!he respondent1s plaint that he #as bein$ sin$led out b2 the prospective application of
the ne# rule si%pl2 because before the Court issued its April *, +00, Resolution, he
announced his candidac2 for the presidenc2 of the Republic for the +00- elections has
no factual basis #hatsoever.
+/
!he bare and irrefutable fact is that it #as in this case
#here the issue of the retroactiveGprospective application of the ne# rule #as first
raised before the Court. !he rulin$ of the Court in its April *, +00, Resolution and its
rulin$ toda2 #ould be the sa%e, re$ardless of #ho the part2 or parties involved are,
#hether a senator of the Republic or an ordinar2 citi5en.
!he respondent1s contention that the prospective application of the ne# rule #ould
den2 hi% due process and #ould violate the e?ual protection of la#s is barren of %erit.
"t proceeds fro% an erroneous assu%ption that the ne# rule #as approved b2 the Court
solel2 for his benefit, in dero$ation of the ri$ht of the State to due process. !he ne# rule
#as approved b2 the Court to enhance the ri$ht of due process of both the State and
the accused. !he State is entitled to due process in cri%inal cases as %uch as the
accused.
>ue process has never been and perhaps can never be precisel2
defined.1a%&'phi1(net "t is not a technical conception #ith a fiBed content unrelated to
ti%e, place and circu%stances. !he phrase eBpresses the re?uire%ent of funda%ental
fairness, a re?uisite #hose %eanin$ can be as opa?ue as its i%portance is loft2.
,0
"n
deter%inin$ #hat funda%ental fairness consists of in a particular situation, relevant
precedents %ust be considered and the interests that are at sta.e) private interests, as
#ell as the interests of the $overn%ent %ust be assessed. "n this case, in holdin$ that
the ne# rule has prospective and not retroactive application, the Court too. into
consideration not onl2 the interests of the respondent but all other accused, #hatever
their station in life %a2 be. !he interest of the State in the speed2, i%partial and
ineBpensive disposition of cri%inal cases #as li.e#ise considered.
The Respondent )ailed to Compl* +ith the ,ssential "rere-uisites of Section 8, Rule
11 of the Re!ised Rules of Criminal "rocedure
!he respondent ar$ues that the issue involved in the Court of Appeals is entirel2
different fro% the issue involved in the present recourse) hence, an2 ad%issions he
%ade in the court belo# are not 6udicial ad%issions in this case. 9e asserts that the
issue involved in the CA #as #hether or not he #as placed in double 6eopard2 #hen he
#as char$ed #ith %urder in Cri%inal Cases Nos. 0*4*0**0+ to 0*4*0***+ despite the
dis%issal of Cri%inal Cases Nos. D4//4:*<=/ to D4//4:*<:/) #hereas the issue in this
Court is #hether the prosecution of Cri%inal Cases Nos. 0*4*0**0+ to 0*4*0***+ #as
barred b2 Section :, Rule **= of the RRCP. !he respondent avers that the proceedin$s
in the appellate court are different fro% those in this Court.
!he respondent posits that this Court erred in $ivin$ considerable #ei$ht to the
ad%issions he %ade in his pleadin$s and durin$ the proceedin$s in the CA. 9e
stresses that 6udicial ad%issions %a2 onl2 be used a$ainst a part2 if such ad%issions
are 'a( %ade in the course of the proceedin$s in the sa%e case) and 'b( %ade
re$ardin$ a relevant fact, pursuant to Section -, Rule *+/ and Section +<, Rule *,0 of
the Rules of Evidence. 9e contends that contrar2 to the rulin$ of the Court, #hen he
filed his %otion for the 6udicial deter%ination of probable cause in Cri%inal Cases Nos.
D4//4:*<=/ to D4//4:*<:/, he thereb2 pra2ed for the dis%issal of the said cases. 9is
%otion carried #ith it, at the ver2 least, the pra2er for the dis%issal of the cri%inal
cases. Absent a findin$ of probable cause, 3ud$e A$nir, 3r. had no recourse but to
dis%iss the cri%inal cases. Moreover, the respondent avers that his %otion included
the $eneral pra2er Cfor such other reliefs as %a2 be e?uitable in the pre%ises.C !he
respondent also points out that the public prosecutor a$reed to the aver%ents in his
%otion as the latter did not even file an2 %otion for the reconsideration of 3ud$e A$nir,
3r.1s order dis%issin$ the cases.
!he respondent further contends that the Court is not a trier of facts. "t has no %eans to
ascertain or verif2 as true the contrastin$ clai%s of the parties on the factual issues, a
function best left to the trial court as the trier of facts. 9e posits that there is a need for
the case to be re%anded to the R!C to enable hi% to present evidence on #hether or
not 3ud$e A$nir, 3r. co%plied #ith the notice re?uire%ents of Section :. Echoin$ the
Ma2 +:, +00+ rulin$ of this Court, the respondent contends that it is not fair to eBpect
the ele%ent of notice under Section : to be liti$ated before 3ud$e A$nir, 3r., for the said
rule #as not 2et in eBistence at the ti%e he filed his %otion for a deter%ination of
probable cause.
!he respondent avers that the re?uire%ent for notices to the offended parties under
Section : is a for%al and not an essential re?uisite. "n cri%inal cases, the offended
part2 is the State and the role of the private co%plainant is li%ited to the deter%ination
of the civil liabilit2 of the accused. Accordin$ to the respondent, notice to the
5
prosecution provides sufficient safe$uard for the private co%plainant to recover on the
civil liabilit2 of the accused based on the delicts) after all, the prosecution of the offense
is under the control and direction of the public prosecutor.
!he contentions of the respondent have no %erit.
8irst. !he issue posed b2 the respondent in the CA and in this Court are the sa%e. !o
recall, in Civil Case No. 0*4*00/,,,
,*
the respondent
,+
sou$ht in6unctive relief fro% the
R!C of Manila on his clai% that in conductin$ a preli%inar2 investi$ation in Cri%inal
Cases Nos. 0*4*0**0+ to 0*4*0***+, the petitioners thereb2 placed hi% in double
6eopard2 under Section =, Rule **= of the RRCP.
,,
@hen the R!C denied his plea for
in6unctive relief, the respondent filed his petition for certiorari in the CA, a$ain invo.in$
his ri$ht a$ainst double 6eopard2, pra2in$ that&
*,. "nas%uch as the case sub6ect of the Cpreli%inar2 investi$ationC #as dis%issed for
the reasons %entioned, there currentl2 eBists no co%plaint upon #hich a valid
investi$ation can be had in li$ht of the clear provisions of Rule **0 #hich re?uires the
eBistence of a Cs#orn #ritten state%ent char$in$ a person #ith an offenseC as basis for
the co%%ence%ent of a preli%inar2 investi$ation under Rule **+.1a+phi1(n.t
8or petitioner, the investi$ation covers eBactl2 the sa%e offenses over #hich he had
been dul2 arrai$ned and a plea validl2 entered before the Sandi$anba2an 'in Cri%inal
Cases Nos. +,0-= to ;=( before its re%and to the DC R!C.9ence, to proceed
there#ith on si%ilar char$es #ill put hi% in 6eopard2 of bein$ t#ice punished therefor
'Article """, H+*, Constitution(.
,-
!he respondent 'petitioner therein( contended that the dis%issal of Cri%inal Cases
Nos. D4//4:*<=/ to D4//4:*<:/ b2 3ud$e A$nir, 3r. a%ounted to a 6ud$%ent of
ac?uittal) hence, he could no lon$er be char$ed and prosecuted ane# for the sa%e
offense #ithout violatin$ his ri$ht a$ainst double 6eopard2. 9o#ever, the respondent
filed a second a%ended petition #herein he invo.ed for the first ti%e Section : of Rule
**= of the RRCP&
'e( the ne# cri%inal cases for Murder filed b2 respondents a$ainst petitioner and the
other accused on 3une <, +00* 'doc.eted as Cri%inal Cases Nos. 0*4*0**0+ to 0*4
*0***+( and pendin$ before respondent 3ud$e Iadao 'AnneB B( is dis%issible on its
face as the2 involve eBactl2 the sa%e accused, facts, and offenses #hich had
previousl2 been dis%issed b2 the DC R!C in Cri%inal Cases Nos. D4//4:*<=/ to :/
on March +/, *///, hence, can no lon$er be revived t#o '+( 2ears after such dis%issal
in accordance #ith the clear provisions of Section :, Rule **=.
,;
"ndeed, the CA $ranted the respondent1s petition based on Section :, Rule **= of the
RRCP. "n this case, the respondent invo.ed the sa%e rule and the Constitution. !hus,
durin$ the oral ar$u%ents in this Court, the respondent, throu$h counsel, ad%itted that
he #as indeed invo.in$ Section : ane# and the provisions of the Constitution on
double 6eopard2&
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
Iou are sa2in$ that Sen. Lacson can no lon$er be prosecuted forever for that cri%e, for
the .illin$ of the ** in *//;F
A!!I. 8OR!N&
!hat is %2 sub%ission, Iour 9onor.
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
Let us see 2our reason for itF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
,<
8irst, are 2ou sa2in$ that double 6eopard2 applies or notF
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
,=
Allo# %e to ?ualif2 the effects of double 6eopard2 occur #ith per%anent dis%issal that
is %2 sub%ission.
A!!I. 8OR!N&
,:
No, no, " a% not tal.in$ of the effects, " a% tal.in$ of the doctrine, 2ou are not invo.in$
the doctrine of double 6eopard2F
A!!I. 8OR!N&
Iour 9onor, double 6eopard2 does not appl2 Section :, **= the2 are 'interrupted(
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
6
!hat is ri$ht.
A!!I. 8OR!N&
!he2 are t#o different clai%s.
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
!hat is #hat " a% tr2in$ to rule out so that #e do not have to discuss it.
A!!I. 8OR!N&
Aer2 #ell, Iour 9onor.
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
Iou are not invo.in$ double 6eopard2F
A!!I. 8OR!N&
As " %entioned #e are sa2in$ that the effects of a per%anent dis%issal vest the effects
'interrupted(
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
No, " a% not tal.in$ of the effects, " a% as.in$ about the application, 2ou are not as.in$
the Court to appl2 the doctrine of double 6eopard2 to prevent a prosecution of Mr.
LacsonF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
Because the ele%ent of double 6eopard2 cannot appl2 :, **=.
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
So, the ans#er is 2esF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
No, Iour 9onor, #e #ere sa2in$ that precisel2 a per%anent dis%issal vests the ri$hts
of double 6eopard2 upon the accused #ho invo.es it.
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
@hat 2ou are sa2in$ is the effects, " a% not as.in$ about the effects, " #ill as. that later.
A!!I. 8OR!N&
!he2 are t#o different 'interrupted(
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
Later, " a% as.in$ about doctrines. Since 2ou are not invo.in$ the doctrine of double
6eopard2 2ou are restin$ 2our case #in or lose, sin. or sail on the application of :,**=F
A!!I. 8OR!N&
On the constitutional ri$ht of the accused under Section *< of Article , #hich is speed2
disposition of cases #hich i%ple%ented :,:*=, that is our ar$u%ents in this bar.
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
Are 2ou not restin$ on :,**=F
A!!I. 8OR!N&
!hat and the constitutional provision, Iour 9onor.
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
So, 2ou are restin$ on :,**=F
A!!I. 8OR!N&
Not eBclusive, Iour 9onor.
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
7
And the ConstitutionF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
!he Constitution #hich $ave life to :,**=.
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
!o speed2 dispositionF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
Ies, Iour 9onor.
3S!"CE PAN7AN"BAN&
Can a Court, let us see 2our theor2 then J 2our theor2 rest on t#o provisions& first, the
Rules of Court :,**= and Second, the Constitution on speed2 dispositionF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
Ies, Iour 9onor.
,/
Second. !he respondent1s ans#ers to the ?uestions of Mada%e 3ustice 3osefina
Salon$a durin$ the hearin$ in the CA #here he ad%itted, throu$h counsel, that he $ave
no eBpress confor%it2 to the dis%issal of the cases b2 3ud$e A$nir, 3r., #ere in relation
to Section : of Rule **= and not to Section = of Rule **= on double 6eopard2, thus&
3S!"CE SALON7A&
>o #e $et it fro% 2ou that it is 2our stand that this is applicable to the case at barF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
"t is %2 sub%ission, that it is, Iour 9onor. "n addition, of course, to %2 proposition that
Mr. Lacson is covered b2 the rule on double 6eopard2 as #ell, because he had alread2
been arrai$ned before the Sandi$anba2an prior to the case bein$ re%anded to the
R!C.
3S!"CE SALON7A&
Iou are referrin$ to those cases #hich #ere dis%issed b2 the R!C of Due5on Cit2.
A!!I. 8OR!N&
Ies, Iour 9onor.
3S!"CE SALON7A&
And it is 2our stand that the dis%issal %ade b2 the Court #as provisional in natureF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
"t #as in that the accused did not as. for it. @hat the2 #anted at the onset #as si%pl2 a
6udicial deter%ination of probable cause for #arrants of arrest issued. !hen 3ud$e
A$nir, K3r.L upon the presentation b2 the parties of their #itnesses, particularl2 those
#ho had #ithdra#n their affidavits, %ade one further conclusion that not onl2 #as this
case lac.in$ in probable cause for purposes of the issuance of an arrest #arrant but
also it did not 6ustif2 proceedin$ to trial.
3S!"CE SALON7A&
And it is eBpressl2 provided under Section : that a case shall not be provisionall2
dis%issed eBcept KifL it is #ith the eBpress confor%it2 of the accused.
A!!I. 8OR!N&
!hat is correct, Iour 9onor.
3S!"CE SALON7A&
And #ith notice to the offended part2.
A!!I. 8OR!N&
!hat is correct, Iour 9onor.
3S!"CE SALON7A&
8
@as there an eBpress confor%it2 on the part of the accusedF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
!here #as none, Iour 9onor. @e #ere not as.ed to si$n an2 order, or an2 state%ent
#hich #ould nor%all2 be re?uired b2 the Court on pre4trial or on other %atters,
includin$ other provisional dis%issal. M2 ver2 li%ited practice in cri%inal courts, Iour
9onor, had tau$ht %e that a 6ud$e %ust be ver2 careful on this %atter of provisional
dis%issal. "n fact, the2 as. the accused to co%e for#ard, and the 6ud$e hi%self or
herself eBplains the i%plications of a provisional dis%issal.
-0
!he respondent, throu$h counsel, even ad%itted that despite his plea for e?uitable
relief in his %otion for a 6udicial deter%ination of probable cause in the R!C, he did not
a$ree to a provisional dis%issal of the cases. !he respondent insisted that the onl2
relief he pra2ed for before 3ud$e A$nir, 3r. #as that #arrants for his arrest be #ithheld
pendin$ a findin$ of probable cause. 9e asserted that the 6ud$e did not even re?uire
hi% to a$ree to a provisional dis%issal of the cases&
3S!"CE ROSAR"O&
Iou #ere present durin$ the proceedin$sF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
Ies, Iour 9onor.
3S!"CE ROSAR"O&
Iou represented the petitioner in this caseF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
T.(t /0 correct, "o1r Ho)or. !)* t.ere 2(0 )ot./)3 o4 t.(t 0ort 2./c. t.e 3oo*
#1*3e !3)/r, 5#r.6 2.o /0 7o0t 8)o29e*3e(b9e /) cr/7/)(9 9(2, .(* *o)e /)
re0:ect o4 :ro;/0/o)(9 */07/00(9 or t.e 7(tter o4 Mr. L(c0o) (3ree/)3 to t.e
:ro;/0/o)(9 */07/00(9 o4 t.e c(0e.
3S!"CE 7ERRERO&
No#, 2ou filed a %otion, the other accused then filed a %otion for a 6udicial
deter%ination of probable causeF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
Ies, Iour 9onor.
3S!"CE 7ERRERO&
>id 2ou %a.e an2 alternative pra2er in 2our %otion that if there is no probable cause
#hat should the Court doF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
T.(t t.e (rre0t 2(rr()t0 o)9< be 2/t..e9*. T.(t 2(0 t.e o)9< :r(<er t.(t 2e
(08e*. "n fact, " have a cop2 of that particular %otion, and if " %a2 read %2 pra2er
before the Court, it said& C@herefore, it is respectfull2 pra2ed that '*( a 6udicial
deter%ination of probable cause pursuant to Section +, Article """ of the Constitution be
conducted, and for this purpose, an order be issued directin$ the prosecution to
present private co%plainants and their #itnesses at the scheduled hearin$ for that
purpose) and '+( the #arrants for the arrest of the accused be #ithheld, or, if issued,
recalled in the %eanti%e until resolution of this incident.C
3S!"CE 7ERRERO&
!here is no $eneral pra2er for an2 further reliefF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
!here is but it si%pl2 sa2s other e?uitable reliefs are pra2ed for.
3S!"CE 7ERRERO&
>on1t 2ou sur%ise 3ud$e A$nir, K3r.L no# a %e%ber of this Court, precisel2 addressed
2our pra2er for 6ust and e?uitable relief to dis%iss the case because #hat #ould be the
net effect of a situation #here there is no #arrant of arrest bein$ issued #ithout
dis%issin$ the caseF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
9
"e0, "o1r Ho)or. 2/99 )ot 0eco)* 0(< =sic> <e0 t.e Goo* #10t/ce, b1t 2.(t /0
:9(/) /0 2e */* )ot (3ree to t.e :ro;/0/o)(9 */07/00(9, )e/t.er 2ere 2e (08e* to
0/3) ()< (00e)t to t.e :ro;/0/o)(9 */07/00(9.
3S!"CE 7ERRERO&
"f 2ou did not a$ree to the provisional dis%issal, did 2ou not file an2 %otion for
reconsideration of the order of 3ud$e A$nir, K3r.L that the case should be dis%issedF
A!!I. 8OR!N&
*/* )ot, "o1r Ho)or, bec(10e 8)e2 4199< 2e99 (t t.(t t/7e t.(t 7< c9/e)t .(*
(9re(*< bee) (rr(/3)e*, ()* t.e (rr(/3)7e)t 2(0 ;(9/* (0 4(r (0 2(0 co)cer)e*.
So, t.e */07/00(9, "o1r Ho)or, b< #1*3e !3)/r o:er(te* to be)e4/t 7e, ()*
t.ere4ore */* )ot t(8e ()< 41rt.er 0te: /) (**/t/o) to roc8/)3 t.e bo(t or
c9(r/4</)3 t.e 7(tter 41rt.er bec(10e /t :rob(b9< co19* :re?1*/ce t.e /)tere0t o4
7< c9/e)t.
3S!"CE 7ERRERO&
Continue.
-*
"n his %e%orandu%, in lieu of the oral ar$u%ent filed #ith the Court of Appeals, the
respondent declared in no uncertain ter%s that&
Soon thereafter, the SC in earl2 */// rendered a decision declarin$ the
Sandi$anba2an #ithout 6urisdiction over the cases. !he records #ere re%anded to the
DC R!C. pon raffle, the case #as assi$ned to Branch /*. Petitioner and the others
pro%ptl2 filed a %otion for 6udicial deter%ination of probable cause 'AnneB B(. 9e
as.ed that #arrants for his arrest not be issued. 9e did not %ove for the dis%issal of
the "nfor%ations, contrar2 to respondent OS71s clai%.
-+
Section -, Rule *+/ of the Revised Rules of Court reads&
Sec. -. 3udicial ad%issions. J An ad%ission, verbal or #ritten, %ade b2 a part2 in the
course of the proceedin$s in the sa%e case, does not re?uire proof. !he ad%ission
%a2 be contradicted onl2 b2 sho#in$ that it #as %ade throu$h palpable %ista.e or that
no such ad%ission #as %ade.
A 6udicial ad%ission is a for%al state%ent %ade either b2 a part2 or his or her attorne2,
in the course of 6udicial proceedin$ #hich re%oves an ad%itted fact fro% the field of
controvers2. "t is a voluntar2 concession of fact b2 a part2 or a part21s attorne2 durin$
such 6udicial proceedin$s, includin$ ad%issions in pleadin$s %ade b2 a part2.
-,
"t %a2
occur at an2 point durin$ the liti$ation process. An ad%ission in open court is a 6udicial
ad%ission.
--
A 6udicial ad%ission binds the client even if %ade b2 his counsel.
-;
As
declared b2 this Court&
... K"Ln fact, C6udicial ad%issions are fre?uentl2 those of counsel or of attorne2 of record,
#ho is, for the purpose of the trial, the a$ent of his client. @hen such ad%issions are
%ade ... for the purpose of dispensin$ #ith proof of so%e fact, ... the2 bind the client,
#hether %ade durin$, or even after the trial.C
-<
@hen the respondent ad%itted that he did not %ove for the dis%issal of Cri%inal Cases
Nos. D4//4:*<=/ to D4//4:*<:/ in his %otion for a 6udicial deter%ination of probable
cause, and that he did not $ive his eBpress consent to the provisional dis%issal of the
said cases, he in fact ad%itted that one of the essential re?uisites of Section :, Rule
**= #as absent.
!he respondent1s contention that his ad%issions %ade in his pleadin$s and durin$ the
hearin$ in the CA cannot be used in the present case as the2 #ere %ade in the course
of a different proceedin$ does not hold #ater. "t should be borne in %ind that the
proceedin$s before the Court #as b2 #a2 of an appeal under Rule -; of the Rules of
Court, as a%ended, fro% the proceedin$s in the CA) as such, the present recourse is
but a %ere continuation of the proceedin$s in the appellate court. !his is not a ne# trial,
but a revie# of proceedin$s #hich co%%enced fro% the trial court, #hich later passed
throu$h the CA. !he respondent is bound b2 the 6udicial ad%issions he %ade in the
CA, and such ad%issions so hold hi% in the proceedin$s before this Court. As
cate$oricall2 stated in 9abec.er v. Clar. E?uip%ent Co%pan2&
-=
... K3Ludicial ad%issions on issues of fact, includin$ those %ade b2 counsel on behalf of
a client durin$ a trial, are bindin$ Cfor the purpose of the case ... includin$ appeals.C
@hile it %a2 be true that the trial court %a2 provisionall2 dis%iss a cri%inal case if it
finds no probable cause, absent the eBpress consent of the accused to such
provisional dis%issal, the latter cannot thereafter invo.e Section : to bar a revival
thereof. Neither %a2 the accused do so si%pl2 because the public prosecutor did not
ob6ect to a %otion of the accused for a 6udicial deter%ination of probable cause or file a
%otion for the reconsideration of the order of dis%issal of the case. Even a cursor2
readin$ of the respondent1s %otion for a 6udicial deter%ination of probable cause #ill
sho# that it contained no alle$ation that there #as no probable cause for the issuance
of a #arrant for the respondent1s arrest as a pra2er for the dis%issal of the cases. !he
respondent #as onl2 as.in$ the court to deter%ine #hether or not there #as probable
cause for the issuance of a #arrant for his arrest and in the %eanti%e, to hold in
abe2ance the issuance of the said #arrant. Case la# has it that a pra2er for e?uitable
10
relief is of no avail, unless the petition states facts #hich #ill authori5e the court to $rant
such relief.
-:
A court cannot set itself in %otion, nor has it po#er to decide ?uestions
eBcept as presented b2 the parties in their pleadin$s. An2thin$ that is resolved or
decided be2ond the% is cora% non 6udice and void.
-/
!hird. !here is no need for the Court to re%and the instant case to the trial court to
enable the respondent to adduce post facto evidence that the re?uisite notices under
Section : had been co%plied #ith b2 3ud$e A$nir, 3r. !he Court has thorou$hl2
eBa%ined the volu%inous records fro% the Sandi$anba2an and the R!C
;0
and found
no proof that the re?uisite notices #ere even served on all the heirs of the victi%s. !he
respondent hi%self ad%itted that, as held b2 this Court, in its Ma2 +:, +00+ Resolution,
C3ud$e A$nir, 3r. could not have co%plied #ith the %andate under Section : because
said rule had 2et to eBist.C
;*
One final %atter. !he records sho# that Cri%inal Cases Nos. 0*4*0**0+ to 0*4*0***+
#ere assi$ned, throu$h the custo%ar2 raffle of cases, to Branch :* of the R!C of
Due5on Cit2, the sa%e branch #hich dis%issed Cri%inal Cases Nos. //4:*<=/ to //4
:*<:/.
;+
"n the April *, +00, Resolution of the Court, the Presidin$ 3ud$e of Branch :*
of the R!C of Due5on Cit2 #as directed to tr2 and decide Cri%inal Cases Nos. 0*4
*0**0+ to 0*4*0***+ #ith reasonable dispatch. !he Court notes, ho#ever, that in
Ad%inistrative Order No. *0-4/<, it desi$nated siB branches of the R!C of Due5on
Cit2
;,
as special courts, eBclusivel2 to tr2 and decide heinous cri%es under Rep. Act
No. =<;/. Since the accused in the said cases are char$ed #ith %urder, #hich under
Rep. Act No. =<;/, is classified as a heinous cri%e, the above cases should be
consolidated and re4raffled b2 the EBecutive 3ud$e of the R!C of Due5on Cit2 to a
branch thereof desi$nated as a special court, eBclusivel2 to tr2 and decide heinous
cri%es.
N LGHT OF !LL THE FOREGONG, respondent Panfilo M. Lacson1s O%nibus
Motion and Motion to Set for Oral Ar$u%ents are >EN"E>. !he respondent1s Motion for
Reconsideration and its Supple%ent are >EN"E> @"!9 8"NAL"!I. !he EBecutive
3ud$e of the Re$ional !rial Court of Due5on Cit2 is hereb2 >"REC!E> to
CONSOL">A!E Cri%inal Cases Nos. 0*4*0**0+ to 0*4*0***+ and to RE4RA88LE the
sa%e #ith dispatch to one of the branches of the Re$ional !rial Court of Due5on Cit2
desi$nated as a special court, eBclusivel2 to tr2 and decide heinous cri%es.
SO OR>ERE>.
11

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi