Barangay Conciliation Requirement for Attempted Homicide Cases in the Philippines (Everything you need to know, in one place)

I. Conceptual Overview

The Katarungang Pambarangay (KP) system is a community-based mechanism for the amicable settlement of disputes. It was first introduced by Presidential Decree 1508 (1978) and is now found in Chapter VII, Title I, Book III of the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act 7160, “LGC”). The policy is to “keep the peace in the barangay, promote swift justice, and decongest courts.”

At its core, the KP law makes conciliation before the Punong Barangay (or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo) a condition precedent to the institution of certain civil and criminal actions in court. The question is whether that condition applies to attempted homicide cases.

II. KP Jurisdiction Over Criminal Offenses

Statutory Basis	Key Rule
Sec. 408(a), LGC	KP covers crimes “punishable by imprisonment of not more than one (1) year or a fine of not more than ₱5,000*,” provided* the parties are natural persons who reside in the same city or municipality.
Sec. 408(b), LGC	Exemptions—KP does not cover: 1. Where one party is the government or a public officer acting in official capacity; 2. Offenses with a maximum penalty exceeding the one-year / ₱5,000 threshold; 3. Offenses “without a private offended party” (i.e., crimes against the State or public order); 4. Where parties live in different cities/municipalities unless they voluntarily agree; 5. Cases already pending in court or where arrest is lawful without warrant.
Sec. 410, LGC	Failure to undergo barangay conciliation when required is jurisdictional—the complaint “shall be dismissed” for being premature.

III. Attempted Homicide Under the Revised Penal Code

Element	Explanation
Legal provision	Arts. 249 (homicide) & 6 (stages of execution), RPC.
Act punished	The offender commences the commission of homicide by overt acts, does not consummate it by reason of causes independent of his will.
Penalty	Art. 51: two degrees lower than homicide. Since homicide is reclusión temporal (12 yrs & 1 day – 20 yrs), attempted homicide is prisión correccional (6 mos & 1 day – 6 yrs), medium & maximum periods.
Nature	Offense against persons; essentially a threat to life, public in character, incapable of private compromise (Art. 2034 Civil Code).

Take-away: The maximum imposable imprisonment for attempted homicide is six (6) years—well above the KP one-year ceiling.

IV. Why Barangay Conciliation Is Not Required for Attempted Homicide

Penalty Test Fails.
- KP coverage stops at crimes whose maximum penalty does not exceed one (1) year or ₱5,000 fine. Attempted homicide carries up to 6 years, disqualifying it outright.
Public-Offense Character.
- Even if the penalty were lower, crimes “with no private offended party” or which impact public order and safety are generally non-compromisable. Attempted homicide threatens the very life of a citizen; the State has a direct interest in its prosecution.
Jurisprudential Confirmation.
- People v. Rivera, G.R. 132964 (17 Oct 2002) – Conciliation unnecessary where the offense’s maximum imposable penalty exceeds one year; the trial court does not lose jurisdiction.
- Paderanga v. CA, G.R. 115407 (28 Aug 1996) – Courts should dismiss only those criminal cases covered by KP; prosecution for frustrated homicide (maximum >1 yr) valid without barangay certification.
- Dizon-Pamintuan v. Fermalde, G.R. 111872 (9 Apr 1993) – Distinguishes civil from criminal cases; barangay conciliation applies only when statute expressly requires it.
Legal Impossibility of Settlement.
- Under Art. 2034, Civil Code, the offended party may only waive or compromise a crime if it is private in nature (e.g., adultery, concubinage, seduction). Attempted homicide is not among them.

V. Practical Consequences for Practitioners

Stage	What to Watch For
Police blotter / inquest	Arrest without warrant is lawful when offense is committed in flagrante or when there is probable cause and immediate pursuit (Rule 113, Sec. 5, Rules of Court). Barangay referral is irrelevant.
Prosecutor’s Office	No “Certification to File Action” under Sec. 412(c), LGC, is needed. An information may be filed motu proprio upon finding of probable cause.
Defense Motion to Dismiss	Common—but unavailing—defense is failure to undergo KP conciliation. Cite cases above; court should deny.
Prescription	Barangay tolling rules (Sec. 410[c], LGC) do not apply. The 10-year prescriptive period for attempted homicide (prisión correccional) under Art. 90, RPC runs uninterrupted.
Plea-bargaining / civil damages	Parties may enter into civil compromise on indemnity (Art. 2035, Civil Code) without affecting criminal liability.

VI. Special Scenarios & Edge Cases

Complex Information (Attempted Homicide + Less-Serious Physical Injuries).
- If the prosecutor charges both in one information, the presence of the greater offense (attempted homicide) removes the case from KP—even if physical injuries alone would have been covered.
Residents of Different Cities / Municipalities.
- The KP law applies only when both accused and offended party reside in the same city or municipality; otherwise, there is no mandatory conciliation, even for minor crimes.
Offender is a Minor (CICL).
- The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344) emphasizes diversion programs at the barangay level for offenses where the penalty does not exceed 12 years. However, for serious crimes against persons requiring court approval, the prosecutor or court conducts diversion—not the Lupon.
Attempted Parricide/Murder.
- The same rule applies: penalty exceeds one year, hence no KP conciliation. The qualifying relationship in parricide (spouse, ascendant, descendant) does not convert it into a private offense.
Settlement after Filing but Before Arraignment.
- Prosecutor may move to withdraw the information only if the crime is legally compromisable (Rule 119, Sec. 12). Attempted homicide is not; only the civil action may be compromised.

VII. How to Document the Absence of Barangay Referral

Information Allegation. Best practice is to include a clause:

“The offense charged is not among those requiring prior barangay conciliation under Chapter VII, Title I, Book III of the Local Government Code.”
Resolution Recital. Prosecutor’s Resolution should mention why KP is inapplicable—to pre-empt dismissal motions.

VIII. Checklist for Prosecutors and Judges

✔	Item
	Confirm that maximum imposable penalty > 1 year.
	Verify parties’ residences (same city/municipality irrelevant once threshold exceeded).
	Note public nature: cannot be compromised under Art. 2034 Civil Code.
	Cite People v. Rivera (2002) or Paderanga v. CA (1996) in Orders/Resolutions.
	Deny/overrule motions invoking failure to undergo KP conciliation.

IX. Policy Rationale

Seriousness of the Threat to Life. The gravity of attempted homicide demands formal prosecution to vindicate the State’s interest in protecting life.
Need for Deterrence. Allowing community-level settlements for life-threatening violence could undermine deterrence and encourage vigilantism.
Consistent Doctrine. The Supreme Court has consistently carved out serious crimes from the ambit of barangay settlement to preserve judicial control over matters of public order.

X. Conclusion

Under existing Philippine law and jurisprudence, attempted homicide is categorically excluded from the mandatory barangay conciliation regime. The offense’s penalty exceeds the statutory threshold, its public nature precludes compromise, and Supreme Court rulings uniformly sustain the trial court’s jurisdiction absent a KP certification. Practitioners should therefore dispense with barangay referral, focusing instead on promptly prosecuting or defending the charge in the regular courts while recognizing that only the civil aspect may be amicably settled by the parties.

This article consolidates the governing statutes, rules, and case law as of June 12 2025. Any future legislative amendments or doctrinal shifts should, of course, be tracked and incorporated by practitioners.