Practice question
A qualifying provisional dismissal order is dated earlier than the date the private offended party's counsel actually receives it. In circumstances governed by Co, the accused calculates the time bar solely from issuance and disregards counsel's later receipt. Which is correct?
- Issuance always controls regardless of service
- The accused may choose any date
- Receipt by counsel is irrelevant whenever a court order exists
- Co requires attention to actual notice and states that, where the offended party is represented by private counsel, reckoning runs from counsel's actual notification
- The period begins only after final conviction
Legal references
- Rule 117, Section 8; Co v. New Prosperity Plastic Products, G.R. No. 183994, June 30, 2014; Los Baños v. Pedro, G.R. No. 173588, April 22, 2009, main decisions.
- Reviewed primary authority, Rule 117, Section 8: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html
- Reviewed primary authority, Main decision, prerequisites, notice reckoning and timely revival motion: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183994_2014.html
- Reviewed primary authority, Main decision, distinction from quashal: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.