Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 104 views

    7 Republic Vs Sunga

    Uploaded by

    Celedonio Manubag
    The court dismissed a criminal case for attempted homicide based solely on an affidavit of desistance from the victim without a motion to dismiss from the prosecuting fiscal. The Supreme Court ruled this was improper, as once a complaint is filed the case is under the court's jurisdiction and it is the court, not the victim, that decides the proper disposition. While the court has discretion to dismiss a case, it should not do so based only on the victim's affidavit without first allowing the fiscal to be heard, as the fiscal's role is to determine if there is a prima facie case and guide prosecution. The petition was therefore dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    7 Republic Vs Sunga

    Uploaded by

    Celedonio Manubag
    104 views2 pages
    The court dismissed a criminal case for attempted homicide based solely on an affidavit of desistance from the victim without a motion to dismiss from the prosecuting fiscal. The Supreme Court ruled this was improper, as once a complaint is filed the case is under the court's jurisdiction and it is the court, not the victim, that decides the proper disposition. While the court has discretion to dismiss a case, it should not do so based only on the victim's affidavit without first allowing the fiscal to be heard, as the fiscal's role is to determine if there is a prima facie case and guide prosecution. The petition was therefore dismissed.

    Original Description:

    xxxxxx

    Original Title

    7 Republic vs Sunga

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court dismissed a criminal case for attempted homicide based solely on an affidavit of desistance from the victim without a motion to dismiss from the prosecuting fiscal. The Supreme Court ruled this was improper, as once a complaint is filed the case is under the court's jurisdiction and it is the court, not the victim, that decides the proper disposition. While the court has discretion to dismiss a case, it should not do so based only on the victim's affidavit without first allowing the fiscal to be heard, as the fiscal's role is to determine if there is a prima facie case and guide prosecution. The petition was therefore dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    104 views2 pages

    7 Republic Vs Sunga

    Uploaded by

    Celedonio Manubag
    The court dismissed a criminal case for attempted homicide based solely on an affidavit of desistance from the victim without a motion to dismiss from the prosecuting fiscal. The Supreme Court ruled this was improper, as once a complaint is filed the case is under the court's jurisdiction and it is the court, not the victim, that decides the proper disposition. While the court has discretion to dismiss a case, it should not do so based only on the victim's affidavit without first allowing the fiscal to be heard, as the fiscal's role is to determine if there is a prima facie case and guide prosecution. The petition was therefore dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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

    You might also like