TOPIC: Rule 117

PEOPLE, et al. v. LACSON

G.R. No. 149453, April 1, 2003
FACTS: Before the court is the petitioners motion of reconsideration of the
resolution dated May 23, 2002, for the determination of several factual issues
relative to the application of Sec. 8 Rule 117 of RRCP on the dismissal of the cases
Q-99- 81679 and Q-99-81689 against the respondent. The respondent was charged
with the shooting and killing of eleven male persons. The court confirmed the
express consent of the respondent in the provisional dismissal of the
aforementioned cases when he filed for judicial determination. The court also ruled
the need to determine whether the other facts for its application are attendant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the requisites for the applicability of Sec. 8, Rule 117 of
2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure were complied with in the Kuratong Baleleng
cases
a. Was express consent given by the respondent?
b. Was notice for the motion, the hearing and the subsequent dismissal given
to the heirs of the victims?
HELD: No.
Section 8, Rule 117 is not applicable to the case since the conditions for its
applicability, namely: 1) prosecution with the express consent of the accused or
both of them move for provisional dismissal, 2) offended party notified, 3) court
grants motion and dismisses cases provisionally, 4) public prosecutor served with
copy of orders of provisional dismissal, which is the defendants burden to prove,
which in this case has not been done.
a. The defendant never filed and denied unequivocally in his statements, through
counsel at the Court of Appeals, that he filed for dismissal nor did he agree to a
provisional dismissal thereof.
b. No notice of motion for provisional dismissal, hearing and subsequent dismissal
was given to the heirs of the victims.