REPUBLIC vs.

SUNGA June 20, 1988 FACTS: An information for Attempted Homicide was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of CamarinesSur against accused-private respondents Rafael Anadilla, Ariston Anadilla and Jose Anadilla. Ahearing 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 newtrial 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 ofdesistance executed by the offended party, but without a motion to dismiss filed by theprosecuting fiscal. RATIO: The court cites a similar case Crespo v. Mogul in its when it answered that the filing of acomplaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The Court thereby acquiresjurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear and determine the case. When after thefiling of the complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trialcourt and the accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested, theCourt thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose ofdetermining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accusedis 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 sounddiscretion of the court. The fiscal cannot impose his opinion on the court when the case has beensubmitted 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 areneeded to convict the accused. The fiscal still believed that he could convict the accused withoutthee testimonies in his MR!

Although the Crespo doctrine holds that it is the courts duty to judge whether acase should be dismissed, any move of the offended part to dismiss the case, evenwithout objection of the accused, should first be submitted to the fiscal. It is only after thefiscals hearing that the court should exercise its duty to continue or dismiss the case. Petition dismissed