GR L 593; (December, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-593, December 10, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellant, vs. JOAQUIN FERNANDEZ Y HERRERIAS, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
A criminal case for calumny was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo upon a complaint filed by the private prosecutor, Cirilio Mapa, as the injured party. The defendants filed a demurrer to the information. The court, on November 4, 1901, issued an order overruling the demurrer and directing the defendants to plead. Subsequently, on the same date, the defendants moved to dismiss the information, arguing that the complaint was filed by an unauthorized person and that the provincial fiscal had abandoned the prosecution by failing to reply to their demurrer within three days. After a hearing, the lower court, by order dated November 23, 1901, dismissed the case, effectively excluding the private prosecutor’s answer to the demurrer and concluding that the fiscal had abandoned the action. The prosecution appealed this order of dismissal.
ISSUE:
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the criminal case based on the provincial fiscal’s failure to file a written reply to the defendants’ demurrer, thereby concluding that the prosecution had been abandoned.
RULING:
Yes, the lower court erred. The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal. The Court held that the provincial fiscal’s failure to file a written answer to the demurrer did not constitute an abandonment of the prosecution. The record showed the fiscal’s continuous participation in the case, including receiving notices, appearing at hearings, and joining the appeal. Furthermore, the demurrer had already been overruled by a prior court order, which mandated that the defendants plead and the prosecution continue. The complaint was validly filed by the private prosecutor as the injured party, pursuant to Section 107 of General Orders No. 58, to enforce civil liability. The criminal action, being a public offense, must be prosecuted in the name of the United States, but the private prosecutor’s initiation of the case was proper. The case was remanded to the lower court for continuation of the proceedings.