In the Philippine adversarial system, the resolution of criminal cases for physical injuries—ranging from Slight to Serious Physical Injuries under the Revised Penal Code (RPC)—often moves from the courtroom to the negotiating table. While the state technically has the sole authority to prosecute crimes, the practical reality is that an out-of-court settlement between the victim and the accused is the most frequent catalyst for the dismissal of these cases.

1. The Legal Framework of Physical Injuries

Physical injury cases are classified based on the period of medical attendance or incapacity for labor:

Slight Physical Injuries (Art. 266, RPC): 1 to 9 days of incapacity.
Less Serious Physical Injuries (Art. 265, RPC): 10 to 30 days of incapacity.
Serious Physical Injuries (Art. 263, RPC): Exceeding 30 days, or resulting in deformity, loss of limb, or illness.

While these are crimes against persons, they also carry civil liability (ex delicto). This dual nature—criminal and civil—is what makes out-of-court settlements possible.

2. The Mechanism of Dismissal: The Affidavit of Desistance

An out-of-court settlement does not automatically terminate a criminal case. Instead, it leads to the execution of an Affidavit of Desistance.

In this document, the complainant declares that they are no longer interested in prosecuting the case, often citing a "misunderstanding" or that they have been "fully compensated" for their injuries.

Judicial Discretion and Desistance

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has consistently ruled that an Affidavit of Desistance, by itself, is not a ground for dismissal. The state is the offended party in criminal law, not just the individual. However, in practice:

Slight/Less Serious Injuries: Courts are highly likely to dismiss these upon settlement because they are often viewed as "private" in nature or minor enough that the state's interest is satisfied by the restitution.
Serious Injuries: The court may be more scrutinizing, but without the victim’s testimony (which the victim refuses to give after settling), the prosecution loses its "star witness," leading to a dismissal based on insufficiency of evidence.

3. The Role of the Katarungang Pambarangay

Under Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), most physical injury cases (especially Slight and Less Serious) are subject to mandatory mediation at the Barangay level (Lupon Tagapamayapa).

Pre-condition to Filing: A criminal complaint can be dismissed or archived if the parties did not undergo Barangay conciliation first.
Amicable Settlement: If a settlement is reached here, it has the force and effect of a final judgment of a court after 10 days, effectively preventing the case from ever reaching the Prosecutor's Office.

4. The Civil vs. Criminal Distinction

It is a fundamental principle in Philippine law that criminal liability is not subject to compromise, but civil liability is.

Article 2034, Civil Code: "There may be a compromise upon the civil liability arising from an offense; but such compromise shall not extinguish the public action for the imposition of the legal penalty."

While the law says the criminal case survives, the reality is that the "public action" depends on the private complainant's cooperation. Once the civil indemnity (medical bills, moral damages) is paid out-of-court, the victim’s refusal to testify creates a "procedural dead end" for the prosecutor.

5. Effects of Dismissal via Settlement

When a case is dismissed due to an out-of-court settlement, several legal consequences follow:

A. Double Jeopardy

If the dismissal occurs after the accused has been arraigned and the dismissal is not "provisional" or made with the express consent of the accused in a way that waives the right, it may ground a plea of Double Jeopardy. This prevents the state from re-filing the same injury case in the future.

B. Extinction of Civil Liability

A settlement typically includes a "Release, Waiver, and Quitclaim." This prevents the victim from filing a separate civil action for the same injuries in the future.

C. Record of the Accused

A dismissal based on desistance does not result in a conviction. Therefore, the accused maintains a "clean" record regarding that specific charge, which is crucial for NBI and Police clearances.

6. Policy Implications: Declogging the Dockets

The Philippine judiciary encourages out-of-court settlements through Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR). By allowing settlements to lead to dismissals, the state recognizes that:

Healing and restitution are often more important to victims than incarceration.
The court system is overburdened; resolving physical injury cases through compromise allows the state to focus on more heinous crimes.

Summary Table: Effect by Injury Type

Injury Type	Ease of Dismissal via Settlement	Primary Reason for Dismissal
Slight	Very High	Often viewed as a private matter; lack of witness interest.
Less Serious	High	Mandatory Barangay conciliation; civil compromise.
Serious	Moderate	Insufficiency of evidence due to witness desistance.