GR 1329; (April, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1329 : April 15, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellant, vs. RAFAEL SAMIO, defendant-appellee.
FACTS:
A complaint for estafa was filed against Rafael Samio in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The trial court acquitted him on December 8, 1902. The prosecuting attorney appealed the judgment of acquittal. Subsequently, on May 26, 1903, the Solicitor-General filed a notice to withdraw the appeal and requested that the case be returned to the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether, under the accusatorial system of criminal procedure established by General Orders No. 58 and Act No. 194 , the Solicitor-General (or Attorney-General) has the authority to withdraw an appeal taken by a provincial fiscal from a judgment of acquittal, and whether the court can require the Solicitor-General to state the reasons for such withdrawal.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the Solicitor-General’s motion to withdraw the appeal and ordered the case remanded to the trial court.
The Court explained the transition from the inquisitorial system of criminal procedure, where judgments required review by a supreme court, to the accusatorial system introduced by General Orders No. 58. Under the accusatorial system, a judgment becomes final if no appeal is taken within the prescribed period. The Court held that the prosecuting officers (the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General) possess broad discretion under this system. Their authority to withdraw an appeal taken by a subordinate provincial fiscal is inherent and analogous to their power to withdraw an information before trial. A withdrawal of an appeal signifies the prosecuting officer’s concurrence with the trial court’s judgment and a conclusion that the appeal was not sustainable.
The Court further ruled that it is not necessary for the Solicitor-General to state the reasons for the withdrawal in the notice. The statement that the appeal is not considered sustainable is sufficient. The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review the propriety of such a withdrawal, as it cannot examine a case where a final judgment has been rendered and the parties have not appealed. The principles of the accusatorial system and the provisions of Act No. 194 compel the court to permit the withdrawal.