In Philippine law, criminal liability is generally public and imprescriptible by private agreement because crimes are offenses against the State. However, the legal system recognizes limited avenues for amicable settlement to promote restorative justice, decongest courts, and respect the rights of private offended parties where the offense permits. These mechanisms operate at the barangay level, during court proceedings, and through specific statutory exceptions. Settlement may extinguish criminal liability only in compoundable offenses or when expressly allowed by law; otherwise, it resolves only the civil aspect.

Katarungang Pambarangay: The Primary Mechanism for Minor Criminal Cases

The Katarungang Pambarangay system, established under Presidential Decree No. 1508 and integrated into Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), serves as the first and mandatory forum for amicable settlement of most minor disputes, including criminal cases.

Coverage and Compulsory Conciliation
Under Section 408 of the Local Government Code, disputes between parties who actually reside in the same city or municipality are subject to barangay conciliation before a complaint or information may be filed in court. This includes criminal offenses cognizable by first-level courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts).

The Lupon Tagapamayapa, headed by the barangay captain, and the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo (a three-member panel) facilitate the process. Conciliation is compulsory for offenses punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year or less or a fine of Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) or less, subject to the exceptions listed in Section 408:

Cases where one party is the government or a public officer acting in official capacity;
Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year or a fine exceeding P5,000;
Offenses with no private offended party (e.g., certain public crimes);
Disputes involving real property in different localities (unless parties agree);
Cases where parties reside in non-adjoining barangays (unless agreed);
Cases excluded by subsequent laws, such as those involving violence against women and children under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Law), which are explicitly removed from barangay jurisdiction to protect victims.

Additional exclusions include cases under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and those involving intellectual property or labor disputes in certain contexts.

Procedure at the Barangay Level

The complainant files a complaint with the barangay captain (Punong Barangay).
The Punong Barangay summons the parties within the next working day and attempts mediation.
If unsuccessful within 15 days, the case is referred to the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo.
The Pangkat conducts conciliation hearings within 15 days (extendible by another 15 days upon agreement).
If settled, the parties execute a written compromise agreement (Kasunduan), attested by the Lupon chairman. This agreement is final and immediately executory. Breach allows enforcement through the regular courts via a motion for execution.
If no settlement, the Pangkat issues a Certificate to File Action (CFA), which the complainant must attach to the court complaint.

A settlement at this stage typically leads the complainant to refrain from filing criminal charges. If charges were prematurely filed, the court may dismiss upon showing of valid settlement.

Compoundable Offenses and Extinguishment of Criminal Liability

Articles 89 and 344 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) identify specific “private crimes” or compoundable offenses where the offended party’s pardon or desistance can extinguish criminal liability:

Adultery and concubinage (requires pardon by the offended spouse);
Seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness (pardon by the offended party, or parents/guardians if minor);
Other cases where the law expressly allows compromise, such as certain light felonies.

In these cases, the offended party may execute an affidavit of desistance or pardon. The public prosecutor evaluates whether the pardon is valid, voluntary, and made before the institution of the criminal action (or during its pendency for certain offenses). Courts generally dismiss the case upon a valid pardon.

For non-compoundable offenses (e.g., murder, rape, qualified theft, estafa involving large amounts, malversation), even a full settlement with the victim does not extinguish criminal liability. The State retains the right to prosecute. However, the compromise may mitigate the penalty as a circumstance or settle the civil indemnity, which can influence sentencing.

Court-Annexed Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution

Once a criminal case reaches the courts, amicable settlement remains possible through the Supreme Court’s Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) program under A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA (Rules on Court-Annexed Mediation) and subsequent issuances.

Applicability in Criminal Cases
CAM applies primarily to the civil liability arising from the crime (damages, restitution, etc.). In practice, courts refer appropriate cases—especially BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) violations, slight physical injuries, light threats, and other minor offenses—after arraignment or at the pre-trial stage.

Process

The presiding judge issues an order referring the case to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC).
A trained mediator conducts sessions (usually 30 days, extendible).
Parties discuss terms, including payment of civil liability, apology, community service, or other restorative measures.
If successful, the parties sign a Settlement Agreement.
The agreement is submitted to the court for judicial approval, becoming a judgment on compromise.
For compoundable offenses, the offended party’s desistance combined with the settlement often results in dismissal of the entire case.
For non-compoundable offenses, the criminal case proceeds, but the civil aspect is deemed satisfied.

If mediation fails, the case returns to the judge for Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) in some courts, where the judge acts as a mediator before proceeding to trial.

Plea Bargaining as a Form of Settlement

Plea bargaining under Rule 116, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (as amended) allows the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense in exchange for a lighter penalty. This is a structured form of amicable resolution between the prosecution and defense, subject to court approval.

Guidelines

The plea must be voluntary and intelligent.
The lesser offense must be necessarily included in the offense charged.
Prohibited in certain heinous crimes or where law explicitly bars it.
In drug cases, specific parameters under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC apply (e.g., quantity thresholds for allowable pleas).

Courts scrutinize plea bargains to ensure they serve the ends of justice and are not motivated by undue leniency.

Special Rules for Particular Cases

Bouncing Checks (BP 22): Settlement by full payment of the check amount, plus damages and interest, frequently leads to dismissal before arraignment or even after, per jurisprudence (e.g., People v. Laggui). Many courts dismiss upon proof of payment and desistance.
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344, as amended by RA 10630): Children in conflict with the law undergo mandatory diversion at the barangay, police, or prosecutor level. This includes mediation, family conferencing, or victim-offender mediation for offenses with imprisonment of not more than 12 years. Successful diversion results in dismissal without criminal record.
Violence Against Women and Children: Settlement is generally discouraged or invalid if it endangers the victim. RA 9262 prioritizes protection orders over conciliation.
Restorative Justice Initiatives: The Department of Justice and Supreme Court have pilot programs expanding restorative justice conferences for certain offenses, focusing on accountability, reparation, and reintegration rather than pure punishment.

Requirements for a Valid Amicable Settlement

For any settlement to be binding:

Voluntariness: Free from fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or mistake.
Capacity: Parties must have legal capacity; guardians represent minors or incapacitated persons.
Form: Written and signed; in barangay cases, attested by the Lupon.
Public Policy Compliance: The agreement must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy (Civil Code, Art. 1306).
Court Approval: In judicial compromises, the judge reviews for fairness and legality.

Breach of a court-approved compromise allows execution or revival of the original action in some cases.

Effects and Limitations of Settlement

Effects

In compoundable or covered cases: Extinguishment of criminal liability; res judicata applies.
In other cases: Settlement of civil liability only; criminal prosecution continues, though the court may consider the settlement as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13 of the RPC.
The compromise agreement is immediately executory and enforceable by writ of execution.

Limitations

Serious crimes against persons, national security, or public interest are non-negotiable.
The State, through the prosecutor, must consent where required.
Public officers cannot compromise cases involving public funds or malfeasance.
Settlements obtained through coercion are null and void and may lead to new charges (e.g., grave coercion).

Philippine jurisprudence consistently upholds that while amicable settlements are favored, they cannot defeat the State’s interest in punishing wrongdoing where the law does not permit private compromise.

This framework balances the punitive nature of criminal law with opportunities for reconciliation, particularly in minor or private offenses, reflecting the cultural preference for harmonious dispute resolution in Philippine society.