THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF, VS. ANTONIO BATALLER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. CONSTANCIO BARCOMA IN BEHALF OF HIS DAUGHTER SOCORRO BARCOMA, OFFENDED PARTY AND A…

Upon
complaint filed by Constancio Barcoma in behalf of his minor daughter
Socorro Barcoma, the appellee Antonio Bataller was tried and convicted
by the justice of the peace of Bacacay, Province of Albay, of slight
physical injuries, as defined and penalized by article 266, clause 2,
of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer ten days
imprisonment, and to pay the costs of suit. From this judgment Bataller
appealed to the Court of First Instance.

While the case was
thus pending on appeal, the acting provincial fiscal filed a motion
asking for the dismissal of the case on the ground that Bataller was
not criminally liable for the act complained of. This motion was
granted and the case dismissed with costs de oficio. In due
time, Constancio Barcoma moved for a reconsideration of the order of
dismissal, but his motion was denied. Hence this appeal.

The
question presented is whether the court below erred in dismissing the
case. Upon this point, section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
relevant. That section contains the following provisions:

“The
privileges now secured by law to the person claiming to be injured by
the commission of an offense to take part in the prosecution of the
offense and to recover damages for the injury sustained by reason of
the same shall not be held to be abridged by the provisions of this
order; but such person may appear and shall be heard either
individually or by attorney at all stages of the case, and the court
upon conviction of the accused may enter judgment against him for the
damages occasioned by his wrongful act. It shall, however, be the duty
of the promoter fiscal to direct the prosecution, subject to the right
of the person injured to appeal from any decision of the court denying
him a legal right.”

From the foregoing
provisions of law, it is clear that the person claiming to be injured
by the commission of an offense has the right to be heard at all stages
of the case, and he can appeal from any decision denying him that right.

The case now before us was dismissed by the court below without giving
the injured party opportunity to be heard. He was thus deprived of the
right granted him by the codal provisions above quoted. His right to
appeal from the order of dismissal is clear. This conclusion is in line
with the decision of this court in Gonzalez vs. Court of First
Instance of Bulacan (36 Off. Gaz., 2059). The crime of slight physical
injuries involves civil liability. The injured party has the right to
present evidence to support a claim for damages.

The order
appealed from is set aside, and the case is remanded to the court below
for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.