PEOPLE VS.

LIGGAYU
October 8, 1955 | Labrador, J. | Complaint and Information; By whom prosecuted

PETITIONER - Appellant: People of the Philippines

RESPONDENT: Benjamin Liggayu, Roy Franco, Leoncio Dyogi
SUMMARY: Petitioners are the husband and co-heirs of a victim of a car accident. They filed a case against Benjamin Liggayu,
but later filed another case, adding Roy Franco as one of the accused. Upon the fiscals filing of a motion to dismiss, the case was
dismissed on the part of Roy Franco. The petitioners now claim that their right to due process was violated because they were not
informed that Roy Franco filed a motion to dismiss. SC compared the former Code of Criminal Procedure to the present Rules of
Criminal Procedure, stating that no such notice to the complainants is necessary in the present rules.
DOCTRINE: Prosecution shall be under the direction and control of the fiscal without being subject to the right of intervention on
the part of the offended party. The right to appeal from an order based upon the motion of the fiscal upon the motion of the fiscal
should be denied to the offended party because such right of appeal will curtail or limit the control that the fiscal exercises over the
prosecution of a criminal case.

FACTS:
1. Justice of the Peace Court of Caloocan, Rizal charged
Benjamin Liggayu with homicide through reckless
imprudence for having run over and caused the death of
one Teresita Young de Dyogi.
2. Leoncio Dyogi, husband of the deceased, and his 9
children filed another complaint charging not only
Liggayu but also Roy Franco.
3. After the car driven by Liggayu had run over Teresita
Young, Liggayu stopped the car and ordered his coaccused Franco to drive it forward, and Franco did so in
such a negligent manner that the other wheel of the car
hit Teresita Young and aggravated her injuries.
4. Justice of peace, after conducting a preliminary
investigation remanded the case to the CFI for further
proceedings. When the case reached the CFI, the fiscal
filed a motion to dismiss the case as against the accused
Roy Franco.
5. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the case
as against Roy Franco and the bond filed by him for his
provisional release was cancelled.
6. At the same time that a motion to dismiss was filed,
the fiscal filed an information accusing Liggayu alone.
7. The husband and the children of the deceased
appealed against the order of dismissal, alleging (a) that
they were not notified of the hearing conducted by
the provincial fiscal or the motion for dismissal and
that (b) the Court erred in not holding that a prima
facie case exists against Roy Franco, and (c) in
dismissing the case against Franco.
ISSUE/S: W/N petitioners right to due process was

violated when they were not informed of the accuseds

filing of a motion to dismiss NO
RULING: Petitioners appeal was dismissed.
RATIO:
1. Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
provided 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. This provision, however, is not
carried in the revised Rules of Court.
2. Fiscal has direct control in prosecution of criminal
offenses. Notice of the motion for dismissal filed by the
fiscal to the offended party is no longer necessary.
Additional notes:
General Order No. 58
An offended party has the
right to be heard at ALL
stages of the case and can
appeal from any decision
denying that right
Right to appeal recognized
Direct

Present Code
Prosecution shall be under
the direction and control of
the fiscal
Right to
recognized
Direction

appeal

not