Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1902 > December 1902 Decisions > G.R. No. 593 December 10, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN FERNANDEZ Y HERRERIAS ET AL.

001 Phil 539:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 593. December 10, 1902. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellant, v. JOAQUIN FERNANDEZ Y HERRERIAS ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellant.

Basilio R. Mapa, for Private Prosecutor.

Aylett R. Cotton, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; COMPLAINT; PRIVATE PROSECUTOR. — The injured party who seeks civil redress in a criminal action has the right to institute such action by filing a complaint.

2. ID.; DISMISSAL; ABANDONMENT. — The failure of the prosecuting attorney to file written answer to the demurrer in a criminal action does not indicate abandonment nor justify a dismissal.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


Case No. 47 was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on June 23, 1901, upon a complaint filed by Cirilo Mapa, attorney at law, charging Francisca Zulueta and her husband, Joaquin Fernandez Herrerias, with the crime of calumny. The defendants appeared before the court, and, having been arraigned upon the charge, on the 13th of August filed in due form a demurrer to the information. Upon this the private prosecutor filed an answer, and, without further proceedings by the provincial fiscal, who was duly notified, the incident was decided by an order dated the 4th of November, 1901, by which the demurrer of the defendants was overruled, and, in accordance with the provisions of section 24 of General Orders, No. 58, the defendants were directed to plead to the charge at the day and hour designated.

On the 4th of November, 1901, the attorney for the defendants moved the court to dismiss the information, upon the ground, among others, that the same was presented by a person not authorized to represent the United States, and not a party to the proceedings; that the action had not been prosecuted by the provincial fiscal, and had been abandoned, inasmuch as he had failed to make reply within three days to the demurrer and the argument in support thereof filed by the defendants.

The court below, by an order of the same date, November 4, 1901, after service of notice upon the provincial fiscal and upon the private prosecutor, ordered the parties to appear on the morning of the 8th of November. The hearing took place on that day, and after oral argument by the attorney for the defendants, the private prosecutor, and the provincial fiscal, on the 23d of November the order appealed from was entered.

By the order of the 4th of November the court below overruled the demurrer of the defendants to the information upon which this prosecution was instituted. The judge could not subsequently enter an order of dismissal, and order the answer filed by the private prosecutor against the demurrer to be excluded because he considered that the provincial fiscal had abandoned the prosecution of the case.

The fact that the provincial fiscal did not reply to the demurrer taken by the attorney for the defendants was not sufficient ground to authorize the dismissal of the case, because as the demurrer was overruled by the order referred to, the prosecution of the case should have been continued and the defendants ordered to plead, in accordance with section 24 of General Orders, No. 58, dated April 23, 1900, as was expressly directed by the order referred to of November 4.

It is necessary to hold constantly in mind the provisions of section 107 of General Orders No. 58, when considering the rights of the party injured by the commission of the offense, and further that all public offenses tried before the Courts of First Instance must be prosecuted by complaint or information, in accordance with section 3 of the general order cited. As the private prosecutor, Cirilo Mapa, filed a complaint in his capacity as the party injured and entitled to take part in the prosecution of the crime of which the defendants are charged, and for the purpose of enforcing against them their civil liability, it is evident that the case was properly commenced by the filing of the said complaint.

There was no abandonment of the penal action by the provincial fiscal, as it appears from the record that since the preliminary investigation was had that officer has constantly participated in the prosecution, and that notice was served upon him of the order overruling the demurrer, and that notice was served upon him of the orders made by the judge for the prosecution of the case. This, apart from the petition filed by him, and which appears on page 10 of the record, and the fact that he was present when the defendants appeared, and that he addressed the court at the time they were arraigned in the hearing upon the motion, and that he joined the private prosecutor in his appeal to this court against the order referred to. If the provincial fiscal failed to answer in writing to the demurrer filed by the attorney for the defendants, this was possibly due to the fact that no copy of the demurrer, or of the argument in support of it, was served upon him, and in the order on page 30 of the record the judge did nothing more than to direct that notice of the order be served upon the provincial fiscal. But however that may be, the failure on the part of the fiscal to so reply or answer would under no circumstances be sufficient to authorize the dismissal of the prosecution, or to support the conclusion that the representative of the Government had abandoned the case, when several other acts of that officer demonstrate the contrary; further more, section 38 authorizes the appointment of a practicing attorney to perform the duties of the fiscal, should he be absent during the trial.

Upon these grounds, therefore, we are of the opinion that the order of the 23rd of November, 1901, should be reversed, and that the case should be returned to the court below for a continuation of the prosecution, in accordance with the procedural law.

Arellano, C.J. Cooper, Smith, Willard and Ladd, JJ., concur.

Mapa, J., disqualified.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1902 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 970 December 1, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORO REYES

    001 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 571 December 3, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. THOMAS E. KEPNER

    001 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 1005 December 3, 1902 - JOSE V. L. GONZAGA v. W.F. NORRIS

    001 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 1035 December 4, 1902 - MARIA DEL CARMEN VIUDA DE BUSTILLOS v. ROQUE GARBANZOS

    001 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. 21 December 8, 1902 - SIMONA BRILLANTES v. MANUEL BRILLANTES ET AL.

    001 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 1120 December 8, 1902 - DY CHUAN LENG, ET AL. v. BYRON S. AMBLER

    001 Phil 535

  • G.R. No. 926 December 9, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. PAULO CATEQUISTA

    001 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 593 December 10, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN FERNANDEZ Y HERRERIAS ET AL.

    001 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 891 December 11, 1902 - JUANA DOMINGO v. WARDEN OF BILIBID PRISON

    001 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 919 December 11, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTELO

    001 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 868 December 15, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SANTIAGO

    001 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 1026 December 15, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORINO CORREA ET AL.

    001 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 1078 December 15, 1902 - JOHN W. HOEY v. R. S. BALDWIN

    001 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 574 December 17, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO MODAMA

    001 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 513 December 19, 1902 - BENITO LEGARDA Y TUASON v. VICENTE GARCIA VALDEZ

    001 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 944 December 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. UBALDO BORNALES

    001 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 945 December 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. MELCHOR ABELINDE ET AL

    001 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 960 December 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. BIBIANO CAPISONDA

    001 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 991 December 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO NAVA

    001 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 861 December 20, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO VIERA

    001 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 850 December 23, 1902 - LOS HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. ERIBERTO MIJARES

    001 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. 1003 December 23, 1902 - PIO LABAYEN v. ROSENDO HERNAEZ

    001 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. 551 December 24, 1902 - MARIANO DEVEZA v. SIMEON GUINOO

    001 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 81 December 27, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. RAMON GOMEZ RICOY

    001 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 34 December 31, 1902 - PABLO PALMA v. JUAN CAÑIZARES

    001 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 483 December 31, 1902 - DAMIAN HERMITAÑO v. MARCELINO CLARITO

    001 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 496 December 31, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM FOWLER ET AL.

    001 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 899 December 31, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. FELICITAS ORTIZ

    001 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 932 December 31, 1902 - PEDRO REGALADO v. LUCHSINGER & CO.

    001 Phil 619