Criminal Appeal and Testimonial Evidence: The Impact of Cassation Ruling No. 15874/2025 on Article 603, Paragraph 3-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The procedural system thrives on a delicate balance between the need for stability in acquittal decisions and the prosecution's right to seek a new review in the appeal judgment. The recent ruling No. 15874/2025 by the Court of Cassation – Third Criminal Section – intervenes precisely on this edge, clarifying when the Public Prosecutor's appeal can be considered admissible in the absence of an indication of witnesses to be re-examined. The issue concerns the interpretation of Article 603, paragraph 3-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by the "Cartabia reform" to limit the overturning of acquittals on appeal based on a different assessment of testimonial evidence.

The Regulatory Framework of Article 603, Paragraph 3-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The provision requires the second-instance judge, if intending to disregard an acquittal judgment based on a different consideration of the credibility of witnesses or defendants, to proceed with the renewal of the examination. However, the provision does not expressly regulate the content of the appeal document, which continues to be governed by Article 581 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (grounds, conclusions, and, for the Public Prosecutor, indication of the contested ruling).

The Principle Affirmed in Ruling No. 15874/2025

In matters of appeal, the omission to indicate the declarants to be examined in the second-instance judgment does not constitute grounds for inadmissibility of the Public Prosecutor's appeal against an acquittal for reasons relating to the assessment of testimonial evidence, as the provision of Article 603, paragraph 3-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not regulate the modalities of the appeal, but establishes a procedural rule that must be observed by the second-instance judge in the event of overturning an acquittal based on a different appreciation of the credibility of testimonial evidence.

The Court, referring to consistent precedents (Cass. S.U. No. 14426/2019; No. 11586/2022), clarifies that Article 603, paragraph 3-bis, does not impose an additional burden of "specifying the witnesses" within the appeal document. This requirement, in fact, pertains to the decision-making phase and rests with the judge, who is called upon to order the renewal of the investigation if they intend to overturn the acquittal for reasons related to the credibility of the statements.

Operational Implications for Defense and Prosecution

The ruling under comment offers some useful indications:

• The Public Prosecutor can focus the appeal document on the critique of the evidence assessment without having to individually name the witnesses to be re-heard.
• The defendant's defense still retains the possibility of objecting, in the second instance, to the potential failure to renew the examination if the judge intends to convict.
• The appellate judge, if wishing to overturn the acquittal, must provide grounds for the necessity of renewing the investigation and proceeding with the direct examination of the declarants, under penalty of violation of Article 603 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and potential annulment by the Court of Cassation.

In essence, the drafting practice for appeal documents does not change: the specificity of the grounds and the precise reference to the evidentiary elements on which the request for reform is based remain central.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 15874/2025 reiterates that the admissibility filter for appeals is still based on the requirements of Article 581 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without overlap with Article 603, paragraph 3-bis. This reinforces the distinction between the appeal phase and the decision-making phase: the former concerns the submission of grounds, the latter the potential "renewal" of testimonial evidence. For legal professionals, the lesson is twofold: the Public Prosecutor's appeal powers are not curtailed, while the defense can ensure that any re-evaluation of witness credibility occurs with respect for the adversarial principle. The principle contributes to making appellate judgments more predictable, setting limits on purely formal challenges and focusing the Court of Cassation's review on issues of effective guarantee.