Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 70 views

    People VS Lacson - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jhuniven Orantes
    The Supreme Court ruled that procedural laws may be applied retroactively. The respondent argued that the two-year period for the provisional dismissal of criminal cases to become permanent under Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should apply retroactively to his cases that were provisionally dismissed. The Court agreed, citing previous rulings that procedural laws regulating court procedures can be applied to pending cases, as procedural laws do not impair substantive rights and litigants have no vested right in particular remedies or procedures.

    Copyright:

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

    People VS Lacson - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jhuniven Orantes
    70 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that procedural laws may be applied retroactively. The respondent argued that the two-year period for the provisional dismissal of criminal cases to become permanent under Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should apply retroactively to his cases that were provisionally dismissed. The Court agreed, citing previous rulings that procedural laws regulating court procedures can be applied to pending cases, as procedural laws do not impair substantive rights and litigants have no vested right in particular remedies or procedures.

    Original Title

    15. PEOPLE VS LACSON - DIGEST.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that procedural laws may be applied retroactively. The respondent argued that the two-year period for the provisional dismissal of criminal cases to become permanent under Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should apply retroactively to his cases that were provisionally dismissed. The Court agreed, citing previous rulings that procedural laws regulating court procedures can be applied to pending cases, as procedural laws do not impair substantive rights and litigants have no vested right in particular remedies or procedures.

    Copyright:

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

    People VS Lacson - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jhuniven Orantes
    The Supreme Court ruled that procedural laws may be applied retroactively. The respondent argued that the two-year period for the provisional dismissal of criminal cases to become permanent under Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should apply retroactively to his cases that were provisionally dismissed. The Court agreed, citing previous rulings that procedural laws regulating court procedures can be applied to pending cases, as procedural laws do not impair substantive rights and litigants have no vested right in particular remedies or procedures.

    Copyright:

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

    People v.

    Lacson

    G.R. No. 149453. April 1, 2003 Criminal Procedure, Provisional Dismissal

    FEBRUARY 7, 2019

    FACTS:

    Respondent and his co-accused were charged with multiple murder for the shooting and killing of eleven
    persons who were claimed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang.

    The said cases docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 were provisionally dismissed
    with the express consent of the respondent as he himself moved for said provisional dismissal when he filed
    his motion for judicial determination of probable cause and for examination of witnesses.

    Respondent asserts that the new rule under Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
    may be applied retroactively since there is no substantive right of the State that may be impaired by its
    application to the criminal cases in question.

    According to the respondent, penal laws, either procedural or substantive, may be retroactively applied so
    long as they favor the accused. He asserts that the two-year period commenced to run on March 29, 1999 and
    lapsed two years thereafter was more than reasonable opportunity for the State to fairly indict him.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not procedural laws may be applied retroactively.

    RULING:

    The Court agrees with the respondent that procedural laws may be applied retroactively. As applied to
    criminal law, procedural law provides or regulates the steps by which one who has committed a crime is to be
    punished.

    In Tan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that:

    Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and
    undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent. The
    fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants rights may not preclude their retroactive
    application to pending actions. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a
    person who may feel that he is adversely affected. Nor is the retroactive application of procedural statutes
    constitutionally objectionable. The reason is that as a general rule no vested right may attach to, nor arise
    from, procedural laws. It has been held that a person has no vested right in any particular remedy, and a
    litigant cannot insist on the application to the trial of his case, whether civil or criminal, of any other than the
    existing rules of procedure.

    *****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.

    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.

    You might also like