Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 234 views

    Co V New Prosperity Plastic Products

    Uploaded by

    Hariette Kim Tiongson
    1) The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding whether the provisional dismissal of criminal cases against William Co had become permanent. 2) Key facts of the case are that the criminal cases were provisionally dismissed in June 2003, but the motion to revive them was filed in July 2004. 3) The Supreme Court held that the provisional dismissal had not become permanent because the requisites for the time-bar were not met, as the private complainant and public prosecutor were not properly notified of the motion and order of provisional dismissal as required by the Rules of Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Co V New Prosperity Plastic Products

    Uploaded by

    Hariette Kim Tiongson
    234 views1 page
    1) The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding whether the provisional dismissal of criminal cases against William Co had become permanent. 2) Key facts of the case are that the criminal cases were provisionally dismissed in June 2003, but the motion to revive them was filed in July 2004. 3) The Supreme Court held that the provisional dismissal had not become permanent because the requisites for the time-bar were not met, as the private complainant and public prosecutor were not properly notified of the motion and order of provisional dismissal as required by the Rules of Court.

    Original Description:

    Co v New Prosperity Plastic Products

    Original Title

    Co v New Prosperity Plastic Products

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding whether the provisional dismissal of criminal cases against William Co had become permanent. 2) Key facts of the case are that the criminal cases were provisionally dismissed in June 2003, but the motion to revive them was filed in July 2004. 3) The Supreme Court held that the provisional dismissal had not become permanent because the requisites for the time-bar were not met, as the private complainant and public prosecutor were not properly notified of the motion and order of provisional dismissal as required by the Rules of Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    234 views1 page

    Co V New Prosperity Plastic Products

    Uploaded by

    Hariette Kim Tiongson
    1) The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding whether the provisional dismissal of criminal cases against William Co had become permanent. 2) Key facts of the case are that the criminal cases were provisionally dismissed in June 2003, but the motion to revive them was filed in July 2004. 3) The Supreme Court held that the provisional dismissal had not become permanent because the requisites for the time-bar were not met, as the private complainant and public prosecutor were not properly notified of the motion and order of provisional dismissal as required by the Rules of Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    [RULE 117, SEC.

    8] The essential requisites of the first paragraph of Section 8, the prosecution without the criminal case having been revived. Correlatively,
    Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, are conditions sine qua non to the application when a party is represented by a counsel, notices of all kinds emanating from
    of the time-bar in the second paragraph. In this case, there is no notice of any the court should be sent to the latter at his/her given address pursuant to
    motion for the provisional dismissal or of the hearing which was served on the Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules. The public prosecutor cannot be expected to
    private complainant. comply with the timeline unless he is served with a copy of the order of
    dismissal. Also, the contention that both the filing of the motion to revive the
    CO VS. NEW PROSPERITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS case and the court order reviving it must be made prior to the expiration of
    June 30, 2014, G.R. No. 183994 the one-year period is not found in the Rules. Further, the fact that year 2004
    PERALTA, J. was a leap year is inconsequential to determine the timeliness of Uy's motion
    to revive the criminal cases. Even if the Court will consider that 2004 is a leap
    FACTS: Respondent New Prosperity Plastic Products, represented by Elizabeth year and that the one-year period to revive the case should be reckoned
    Uy, filed a complaint for violation of B.P. 22 against petitioner William Co. In the from the date of receipt of the order of provisional dismissal by Uy.
    absence of Uy and the private counsel, the cases were provisionally dismissed
    on June 9, 2003 in open court pursuant to Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised
    Rules of Criminal Procedure. Uy received a copy of the June 9, 2003 Order on
    July 2, 2003, while her counsel-of-record received a copy a day after. On July
    2, 2004, Uy, through counsel, filed a Motion to Revive the Criminal Cases which
    was granted. Co filed a petition challenging the revival of the criminal cases.
    He argues that the June 9, 2003 Order provisionally dismissing the criminal
    cases should be considered as a final dismissal on the ground that his right to
    speedy trial was denied. Assuming that the criminal cases were only
    provisionally dismissed, Co further posits that such dismissal became
    permanent one year after the issuance of the June 9, 2003 Order, not after
    notice to the offended party. He also insists that both the filing of the motion to
    revive and the trial court's issuance of the order granting the revival must be
    within the one-year period. Even assuming that the one-year period to revive
    the criminal cases started on July 2, 2003 when Uy received the June 9, 2003
    Order, Co asserts that the motion was filed one day late since year 2004 was a
    leap year.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the provisional dismissal of the criminal case has
    become permanent (NO)

    HELD: NO. The essential requisites of the first paragraph of Section 8, Rule 117
    of the Rules of Court, which are conditions sine qua non to the application of
    the time-bar in the second paragraph thereof are: (1) the prosecution with the
    express conformity of the accused or the accused moves for a provisional (sin
    perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or both the prosecution and the accused
    move for a provisional dismissal of the case; (2) the offended party is notified
    of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case; (3) the court issues an
    order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally; (4) the public
    prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of the
    case. In this case, there is no notice of any motion for the provisional dismissal
    or of the hearing which was served on the private complainant at least 3 days
    before said hearing as mandated by Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules.
    Furthermore, the second paragraph of the new rule should be construed to
    mean that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after
    service of the order of dismissal on the public prosecutor who has control of

    You might also like