G.R. No. L-8224 October 31, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. BENJAMIN LIGGAYU, ET AL., defendants. ROY FRANCO, defendant-appellee, LEONCIO DYOGI, ET AL., complainants-appellants.

FACTS

A complaint was initially filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of Caloocan, Rizal, charging Benjamin Liggayu with homicide through reckless imprudence for running over and causing the death of Teresita Young de Dyogi. Two weeks later, Leoncio Dyogi (the husband of the deceased) and his nine children filed another complaint charging both Liggayu and Roy Franco. The complaint against Franco alleged that after Liggayu ran over the victim, Liggayu stopped the car and ordered Franco to drive it forward, which Franco did in a negligent manner, causing another wheel to hit the victim and aggravate her injuries. After a preliminary investigation, the justice of the peace remanded the case to the Court of First Instance. The provincial fiscal then filed a motion to dismiss the case against Roy Franco, stating that based on his investigation, Franco had no criminal responsibility, as Liggayu admitted sole responsibility and the evidence showed Liggayu was driving at the time of the incident. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case against Franco. The offended parties (the husband and children of the deceased) appealed the order of dismissal, arguing they were not notified of the hearing conducted by the fiscal or of the motion for dismissal, and that a prima facie case existed against Franco.

ISSUE

Whether the offended parties have the right to appeal from an order of dismissal of a criminal case against one of the accused, based on the fiscal’s motion, under the Revised Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that under Section 4, Rule 106 of the Revised Rules of Court, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. This represents a change from the old Code of Criminal Procedure (General Orders No. 58, Section 107), which allowed the offended party to appeal from any decision denying a legal right. The new Rules subject the offended party’s right to intervene (under Section 15, Rule 106) to the fiscal’s direction and control. Therefore, allowing an offended party to appeal from an order of dismissal upon the fiscal’s motion would undermine the fiscal’s control over the prosecution. The Court cited precedents (People vs. Lipana and People vs. Florendo) establishing that if a criminal action is dismissed by the court on the fiscal’s motion due to insufficiency of evidence, the offended party has no right to appeal, as the fiscal has the ultimate power to decide on the evidence. The Court found the fiscal conducted an actual investigation and decided the evidence against Franco was insufficient. Notification to the offended party would have served no purpose, as the fiscal’s control is paramount. The offended parties’ remedy, if any, is a separate civil action.