The provisional dismissal of a criminal case becomes permanent after a year

Dear Pao,

Two years ago, the Court of First Instance granted my motion for the provisional dismissal of the case presented against me for less serious physical injuries. Until now, I have not received any notice with respect to the case. In relation to it, I want to know when and how my case will be discarded permanently. Thank you so much.

Domineering

Dear dominator,

The dismissal of the case presented against you had become permanent one year after the issuance of the provisional dismissal order. The provisional dismissal of criminal cases is governed by section 8, rule 117 of the revised criminal procedure rules, which establishes that:

“Section 8. Provisional dismissal. – A case will not be provisionally dismissed, except with the accused’s express consent and with warning to the offended party.

The provisional dismissal of crimes punished with imprisonment that does not exceed six years or a fine of any amount, or both, will become permanent a year after the issuance of the order without the case having been revived. With respect to punishable crimes with the imprisonment of more than six years, its provisional dismissal will become permanent two years after the issuance of the order without being revived. “

Taking into account that the sanction for less serious physical injuries constitutes the prison for a maximum period of six months, it will only take a year without the case having been revived so that the provisional dismissal becomes permanent.

The fact that you have not received any notice or order of the Court of First Instance since the provisional dismissal of your case is indicative that no measures have been taken to relive it. However, to ensure that there was no resurgence of the case, it must consult with the Court of First Instance on the State of its case and verify the date on which the order was delivered to the public prosecutor to consider the beginning of the one -year period, after the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the people of the Philippines vs. Panfilo M. Lacson, GR 149452, April 1, 2003, for the justice associated with the associated justice Srr., Viz, Viz.

“Although the second paragraph of the new rule establishes that the dismissal order will become permanent one year after the issuance of the same without being revived, the provision must be interpreted as the order of the order of permanent dismissal one year after the service of the order of dismiss The order of the order of the order unless it is, unless the prosecutor of the order of the order of the order is granted unless, unless the prosecutor of the order is granted.

Assuming that an adequate provisional dismissal of his case was carried out, his non -revival within the period of one year turned the dismissal into a permanent one. This permanent dismissal would constitute a bar for a greater prosecution of the case. If the charges were later presented by the same acts, you can invoke your right against the double danger because the permanent dismissal of your case is with damage to greater prosecution.

We hope we could respond to your consultations. This advice was based solely on the facts he has narrated and our appreciation of it. Our opinion can vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thanks for your continuous trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear Pao is a daily column of the public lawyer’s office. Questions for Chief Acosta can be sent to (protected email).