Practice question
Assume all requirements of a qualifying provisional dismissal are established. A proper motion to revive is filed within the applicable period, properly reckoned from the required notice. The judge acts only after the period ends. Applying Co, is revival barred solely because the judge's order came later?
- Yes, filing the motion on time is irrelevant
- No; Co rejects requiring both the timely motion and the court's revival order within the period
- Yes, every judicial delay automatically acquits
- No, because revival has no time limits in any case
- Yes, unless the accused waives all defenses
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.