ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
|
|
PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
G.R.
No.
149453
PANFILO M. LACSON,
SEPARATE OPINION VITUG, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Petitioners argue that while Section 8, Rule 117, of the Rules of Criminal Procedure bars the revival of a case upon the lapse of the one-year period or the two-year period, as the case may be, after its provisional dismissal, the rule, however, does not contain any proscription against the filing of a new information involving the same incident so long as it is done within prescriptive period of the offense provided in Article 90 and Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code or such as may otherwise be expressed by statute. Prescription of crimes pertains to the loss or waiver by the State of its right to prosecute an act prohibited and punished by law.[1] It is the policy of the law that prosecutions should be prompt and that statutes enforcing that promptitude should be maintained, these provisions being not merely acts of grace but checks imposed by the State upon itself "to exact vigilant activity from its subalterns and to secure for criminal trials the best evidence that can be obtained."[2] Once a criminal case is instituted, the issue on prescription is addressed and the rule on prescription as a substantive provision would have then so served its purpose. Thenceforth, assuming the timely filing of the case, the rules of procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court must govern. In fine, while Article 90 and Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code fix the period when the State must file a case against an accused after the discovery of the crime by the offended party, Section 8, Rule 117, of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, applies once an action has been instituted. The substantive provisions govern the institution of the case; the procedural rules steps in thereafter. The Supreme Court is vested by the Constitution with the power to "promulgate rules concerning x x x pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts."[3] The 1987 Charter not only has deleted the authority of the legislature to repeal, alter or supplement the rules promulgated by the Court but it also expanded the Court’s rule-making power to cover the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.[4] Pursuant to this Constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court has incorporated Section 8, Rule 117, in the Rules of Criminal Procedure, viz:chanrobles virtual law library SEC. 8. Provisional dismissal. A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party.cralaw:red "The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived." In this regard, I share
the conclusions reached by my esteemed colleague, Justice Reynato S.
Puno,
that there are yet a number of factors that must first be established
and
considered mainly evidentiary, before this Court can appropriately rule
on the applicability of Section 8, Rule 117, of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
People vs. Montenegro, 68 Phil 659; People vs. Moran, 44 Phil 405.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back to Top - Back to Main Index - Back to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions - Back to Home |
|
|
