CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015

People v. Liggayu
October 31, 1955 Labrador, J.

SUMMARY: A complaint was filed by a member of the police force charging Liggayu for having killed one Teresita Young de Dyogi. Another complaint was filed which charged Liggayus companion Franco of the same crime. The fiscal, after conducting an investigation, filed a motion to dismiss the case against Franco, citing that it was Liggayu who was on the wheel when Teresita was ran over. DOCTRINE: All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The offended party may, as of right, intervene in the prosecution of a criminal action, but only when from the nature of the offense, he is entitled to indemnity and that he has not waived or expressly reserved the action. If the criminal action is dismissed by the court, on motion of the fiscal, on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the offended party cannot appeal from the order of dismissal. FACTS: This is an appeal of the offended parties from an order of dismissal of the case against the accused Roy Franco. The first complaint was filed by a member of the police force in the Justice of the Peace Court of Caloocan charging Benjamin Liggayu y Sion through Reckless Imprudence for running over and killing Teresita Young de Dyogi. Two weeks after, the husband of the deceased and their nine children filed another complaint, charging Roy Franco as well. It was alleged that, after Liggayu had run over Teresita, he stopped the car and told Franco to move the car forward. Franco did so negligently that Teresitas injury was aggravated. The justice of the peace of Caloocan remanded the case to the CFI for further proceedings. It was at the CFI where the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss. The motion stated that at the time the deceased was run over the accused Benjamin Liggayu was on the wheel. The court granted the motion. At the same time the motion to dismiss was filed, the fiscal filed an information accusing Liggayu alone. The offended parties appealed, alleging that: 1. That they were not notified of the hearing conducted by the provincial fiscal or of the motion for dismissal, and 2. That the court erred in not holding that a prima facie case exists against Roy Franco, and in dismissing the case against him. ISSUES: 1. 2. WON the offended party has the right to be heard at all stages of the case and can appeal from any decision denying that right. WON notification of the motion to dismiss was necessary.

RATIO: No. The appellants first assignment of error is supported by the cases of Gonzales v. CFI of Bulacan and People v. Bataller. The cases show that an offended party has the right to be heard at all stages of the case and can appeal from any decision denying that right (Sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). However, the provision being referred to was not carried in the revised Rules of Court. The new rules contain the following provisions.
Sec. 10 Who must prosecute criminal actions - all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. (Rule 106) Sec. 15. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. - Unless the offended party has waived the civil action or expressly reserved the right to institute it separately from the criminal action, and subject to the provisions of section 4 hereof, he may intervene, personally or by attorney, in the prosecution of the offense.

The right to appeal from an order of dismissal granted by the court on motion of the fiscal may now be challenged under the theory that the right of an offended party to intervene is subject to the fiscals right of control. To permit an offended party to appeal from such an order would be akin to

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | B2015

giving said party as much right to the direction and control of a criminal proceeding as that of the fiscal. Under General Orders No. 58, the direction of the prosecution was subjected to the right of the person injured to appeal from a ny decision of the court denying a legal right. The fiscal was merely to direct the prosecution, while the direction is subject to the right of the offended party. However, under the new Rules of Court, the fiscal had both direction and control. No. It would have served o purpose and would be mere idle ceremony, as the fiscal has direct control. The decision of the fiscal with regard to the insufficiency against anoher accused is not appealable.