REPUBLIC vs.

SUNGA
June 20, 1988
FACTS:

An information for Attempted Homicide was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur against
accused-private respondents Rafael Anadilla, Ariston Anadilla and Jose Anadilla. A hearing was set but
was postponed since Rafael Anadilla was not yet arrested by the authorities. The court a quo issued an
order for the arrest of said accused, and at the same time set a new trial date.

However, 4 months before the trial date, the court a quo issued the now assailed order

which reads

Considering that the offended party, Jose Dadis is no longer interested in the further

prosecution of this case and there being no objection on the part of the accused Ariston Anadilla,

Rafael Anadilla and Jose Anadilla, this case is hereby DISMISSED with costs de oficio.

Consequently, the order of arrest issued by this Court against the accused Rafael

Anadilla dated March 11, 1974, is hereby ordered lifted and has no force and effect.

The bail bond posted for the provisional liberty of the accused is hereby ordered

cancelled.

In the case of Ariston Anadilla and Jose Anadilla, the Provincial Warden is hereby

ordered to release said accused from their detention immediately upon receipt of this order.

SO ORDERED.

The order was based on an AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE which was executed and

notarized by the victim and mentioned that:

a.he was no longer interested in the further prosecution of the case

b.he had forgiven the accused

c.his material witnesses could not be located, and that without their testimonies, the

guilt of the accused could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The provincial fiscal moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, but was also denied.

Hence the petition and issue of the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court a quo may dismiss a criminal case on the basis of an affidavit of desistance
executed by the offended party, but without a motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal.

RATIO:

The court cites a similar case Crespo v. Mogul in its when it answered that the filing of a complaint or
information in Court initiates a criminal action. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case,
which is the authority to hear and determine the case. When after the filing of the complaint or
information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either
voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested, the Court thereby acquired jurisdiction
over the person of the accused.

The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a prima
facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the
information in the proper court.

The rule is that once a complaint is filed, the disposition of the accused rests in the sound discretion of
the court. The fiscal cannot impose his opinion on the court when the case has been submitted to it as
his jurisdiction ends in the direction and control of the prosecution of the case. Only the court can
decide what the best direction is for the case, as it is within its exclusive jurisdiction.

In this case, almost 10 years have elapsed since the date of the filing of the information, hence it was
not unusual that the victim could not find his witnesses, the testimonies of whom are needed to convict
the accused. The fiscal still believed that he could convict the accused without thee testimonies in his
MR!

Although the Crespo doctrine holds that it is the courts duty to judge whether a case should be
dismissed, any move of the offended part to dismiss the case, even without objection of the accused,
should first be submitted to the fiscal. It is only after the fiscals hearing that the court should exercise
its duty to continue or dismiss the case.

Petition dismissed