Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 172716 November 17, 2010
JASON IVLER y AGUILAR, Petitioner,
vs.
ON. MARIA RO!ENA MO"ESTO#SAN PE"RO, J$%&e o' ()e Me(ro*o+,(-. Tr,-+
Co$r(, /r-.0) 71, P-1,& C,(y, -.% EVANGELINE PONCE, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
he Case
he petition see!s the revie"
#
of the Orders
$
of the Re%ional rial Court of Pasi% Cit&
affir'in% sub(silencio a lo"er court)s rulin% findin% inapplicable the Double *eopard&
Clause to bar a second prosecution for Rec!less I'prudence Resultin% in +o'icide
and Da'a%e to Propert&. his, despite the accused)s previous conviction for Rec!less
I'prudence Resultin% in Sli%ht Ph&sical In,uries arisin% fro' the sa'e incident
%roundin% the second prosecution.
he -acts
-ollo"in% a vehicular collision in .u%ust $//0, petitioner *ason Ivler 1petitioner2 "as
char%ed before the Metropolitan rial Court of Pasi% Cit&, 3ranch 4# 1MeC2, "ith t"o
separate offenses5 1#2 Rec!less I'prudence Resultin% in Sli%ht Ph&sical In,uries
1Cri'inal Case No. 6$7842 for in,uries sustained b& respondent Evan%eline 9. Ponce
1respondent Ponce2: and 1$2 Rec!less I'prudence Resultin% in +o'icide and Da'a%e
to Propert& 1Cri'inal Case No. 6$7882 for the death of respondent Ponce)s husband
Nestor C. Ponce and da'a%e to the spouses Ponce)s vehicle. Petitioner posted bail for
his te'porar& release in both cases.
On 4 Septe'ber $//0, petitioner pleaded %uilt& to the char%e in Cri'inal Case No.
6$784 and "as 'eted out the penalt& of public censure. Invo!in% this conviction,
petitioner 'oved to ;uash the Infor'ation in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788 for placin% hi'
in ,eopard& of second punish'ent for the sa'e offense of rec!less i'prudence.
he MeC refused ;uashal, findin% no identit& of offenses in the t"o cases.
7
.fter unsuccessfull& see!in% reconsideration, petitioner elevated the 'atter to the
Re%ional rial Court of Pasi% Cit&, 3ranch #<4 1RC2, in a petition for certiorari 1S.C...
No. $6/72. Mean"hile, petitioner sou%ht fro' the MeC the suspension of proceedin%s
in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788, includin% the arrai%n'ent on #4 Ma& $//<, invo!in%
S.C... No. $6/7 as a pre,udicial ;uestion. =ithout actin% on petitioner)s 'otion, the
MeC proceeded "ith the arrai%n'ent and, because of petitioner)s absence, cancelled
his bail and ordered his arrest.
0
Seven da&s later, the MeC issued a resolution
den&in% petitioner)s 'otion to suspend proceedin%s and postponin% his arrai%n'ent
until after his arrest.
<
Petitioner sou%ht reconsideration but as of the filin% of this
petition, the 'otion re'ained unresolved.
Rel&in% on the arrest order a%ainst petitioner, respondent Ponce sou%ht in the RC the
dis'issal of S.C... No. $6/7 for petitioner)s loss of standin% to 'aintain the suit.
Petitioner contested the 'otion.
he Rulin% of the rial Court
In an Order dated $ -ebruar& $//8, the RC dis'issed S.C... No. $6/7, narro"l&
%roundin% its rulin% on petitioner)s forfeiture of standin% to 'aintain S.C... No. $6/7
arisin% fro' the MeC)s order to arrest petitioner for his non(appearance at the
arrai%n'ent in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788. hus, "ithout reachin% the 'erits of S.C...
No. $6/7, the RC effectivel& affir'ed the MeC. Petitioner sou%ht reconsideration but
this proved unavailin%.
8
+ence, this petition.
Petitioner denies abscondin%. +e e>plains that his petition in S.C... No. $6/7
constrained hi' to fore%o participation in the proceedin%s in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788.
Petitioner distin%uishes his case fro' the line of ,urisprudence sanctionin% dis'issal of
appeals for abscondin% appellants because his appeal before the RC "as a special
civil action see!in% a pre(trial relief, not a post(trial appeal of a ,ud%'ent of conviction.
4
Petitioner la'ents the RC)s failure to reach the 'erits of his petition in S.C... $6/7.
Invo!in% ,urisprudence, petitioner ar%ues that his constitutional ri%ht not to be placed
t"ice in ,eopard& of punish'ent for the sa'e offense bars his prosecution in Cri'inal
Case No. 6$788, havin% been previousl& convicted in Cri'inal Case No. 6$784 for the
sa'e offense of rec!less i'prudence char%ed in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788. Petitioner
sub'its that the 'ultiple conse;uences of such cri'e are 'aterial onl& to deter'ine
his penalt&.
1
Respondent Ponce finds no reason for the Court to disturb the RC)s decision forfeitin%
petitioner)s standin% to 'aintain his petition in S.C... $6/7. On the 'erits, respondent
Ponce calls the Court)s attention to ,urisprudence holdin% that li%ht offenses 1e.%. sli%ht
ph&sical in,uries2 cannot be co'ple>ed under .rticle 06 of the Revised Penal Code "ith
%rave or less %rave felonies 1e.%. ho'icide2. +ence, the prosecution "as obli%ed to
separate the char%e in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788 for the sli%ht ph&sical in,uries fro'
Cri'inal Case No. 6$784 for the ho'icide and da'a%e to propert&.
In the Resolution of 8 *une $//4, "e %ranted the Office of the Solicitor ?eneral)s
'otion not to file a co''ent to the petition as the public respondent ,ud%e is 'erel& a
no'inal part& and private respondent is represented b& counsel.
he Issues
"o ;uestions are presented for resolution5 1#2 "hether petitioner forfeited his standin%
to see! relief in S.C... $6/7 "hen the MeC ordered his arrest follo"in% his non(
appearance at the arrai%n'ent in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788: and 1$2 if in the ne%ative,
"hether petitioner)s constitutional ri%ht under the Double *eopard& Clause bars further
proceedin%s in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788.
he Rulin% of the Court
=e hold that 1#2 petitioner)s non(appearance at the arrai%n'ent in Cri'inal Case No.
6$788 did not divest hi' of personalit& to 'aintain the petition in S.C... $6/7: and 1$2
the protection afforded b& the Constitution shieldin% petitioner fro' prosecutions
placin% hi' in ,eopard& of second punish'ent for the sa'e offense bars further
proceedin%s in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788.
Petitioner)s Non(appearance at the .rrai%n'ent in
Cri'inal Case No. 6$788 did not Divest hi' of Standin%
to Maintain the Petition in S.C... $6/7
Dis'issals of appeals %rounded on the appellant)s escape fro' custod& or violation of
the ter's of his bail bond are %overned b& the second para%raph of Section 6, Rule
#$0,
6
in relation to Section #, Rule #$<, of the Revised Rules on Cri'inal Procedure
authori@in% this Court or the Court of .ppeals to Aalso, upon 'otion of the appellee or
'otu proprio, dis'iss the appeal if the appellant escapes fro' prison or confine'ent,
,u'ps bail or flees to a forei%n countr& durin% the pendenc& of the appeal.A he
AappealA conte'plated in Section 6 of Rule #$0 is a suit to revie" ,ud%'ents of
convictions.
he RC)s dis'issal of petitioner)s special civil action for certiorari to revie" a pre(
arrai%n'ent ancillar& ;uestion on the applicabilit& of the Due Process Clause to bar
proceedin%s in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788 finds no basis under procedural rules and
,urisprudence. he RC)s reliance on People v. Esparas
B
undercuts the co%enc& of its
rulin% because Esparas stands for a proposition contrar& to the RC)s rulin%. here, the
Court %ranted revie" to an appeal b& an accused "ho "as sentenced to death for
i'portin% prohibited dru%s even thou%h she ,u'ped bail pendin% trial and "as thus
tried and convicted in absentia. he Court in Esparas treated the 'andator& revie" of
death sentences under Republic .ct No. 48<B as an e>ception to Section 6 of Rule
#$0.
#/
he 'ischief in the RC)s treat'ent of petitioner)s non(appearance at his arrai%n'ent
in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788 as proof of his loss of standin% beco'es 'ore evident
"hen one considers the Rules of Court)s treat'ent of a defendant "ho absents hi'self
fro' post(arrai%n'ent hearin%s. Cnder Section $#, Rule ##0
##
of the Revised Rules of
Cri'inal Procedure, the defendant)s absence 'erel& renders his bonds'an potentiall&
liable on its bond 1sub,ect to cancellation should the bonds'an fail to produce the
accused "ithin 7/ da&s2: the defendant retains his standin% and, should he fail to
surrender, "ill be tried in absentia and could be convicted or ac;uitted. Indeed, the 7/(
da& period %ranted to the bonds'an to produce the accused underscores the fact that
'ere non(appearance does not ipso facto convert the accused)s status to that of a
fu%itive "ithout standin%.
-urther, the RC)s observation that petitioner provided Ano e>planation "h& he failed to
attend the scheduled proceedin%A
#$
at the MeC is belied b& the records. Da&s before
the arrai%n'ent, petitioner sou%ht the suspension of the MeC)s proceedin%s in
Cri'inal Case No. 6$788 in li%ht of his petition "ith the RC in S.C... No. $6/7.
-ollo"in% the MeC)s refusal to defer arrai%n'ent 1the order for "hich "as released
da&s after the MeC ordered petitioner)s arrest2, petitioner sou%ht reconsideration. +is
'otion re'ained unresolved as of the filin% of this petition.
Petitioner)s Conviction in Cri'inal Case No. 6$784
3ars his Prosecution in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788
he accused)s ne%ative constitutional ri%ht not to be At"ice put in ,eopard& of
punish'ent for the sa'e offenseA
#7
protects hi' fro', a'on% others, post(conviction
prosecution for the sa'e offense, "ith the prior verdict rendered b& a court of
co'petent ,urisdiction upon a valid infor'ation.
#0
It is not disputed that petitioner)s
conviction in Cri'inal Case No. 6$784 "as rendered b& a court of co'petent
,urisdiction upon a valid char%e. hus, the case turns on the ;uestion "hether Cri'inal
Case No. 6$788 and Cri'inal Case No. 6$784 involve the Asa'e offense.A Petitioner
adopts the affir'ative vie", sub'ittin% that the t"o cases concern the sa'e offense of
rec!less i'prudence. he MeC ruled other"ise, findin% that Rec!less I'prudence
2
Resultin% in Sli%ht Ph&sical In,uries is an entirel& separate offense fro' Rec!less
I'prudence Resultin% in +o'icide and Da'a%e to Propert& Aas the DlatterE re;uires
proof of an additional fact "hich the other does not.A
#<
=e find for petitioner.
Rec!less I'prudence is a Sin%le Cri'e,
its Conse;uences on Persons and
Propert& are Material Onl& to Deter'ine
the Penalt&
he t"o char%es a%ainst petitioner, arisin% fro' the sa'e facts, "ere prosecuted under
the sa'e provision of the Revised Penal Code, as a'ended, na'el&, .rticle 78<
definin% and penali@in% ;uasi(offenses. he te>t of the provision reads5
I'prudence and ne%li%ence. F .n& person "ho, b& rec!less i'prudence, shall co''it
an& act "hich, had it been intentional, "ould constitute a %rave felon&, shall suffer the
penalt& of arresto 'a&or in its 'a>i'u' period to prision correccional in its 'ediu'
period: if it "ould have constituted a less %rave felon&, the penalt& of arresto 'a&or in
its 'ini'u' and 'ediu' periods shall be i'posed: if it "ould have constituted a li%ht
felon&, the penalt& of arresto 'enor in its 'a>i'u' period shall be i'posed.
.n& person "ho, b& si'ple i'prudence or ne%li%ence, shall co''it an act "hich "ould
other"ise constitute a %rave felon&, shall suffer the penalt& of arresto 'a&or in its
'ediu' and 'a>i'u' periods: if it "ould have constituted a less serious felon&, the
penalt& of arresto 'a&or in its 'ini'u' period shall be i'posed.
=hen the e>ecution of the act covered b& this article shall have onl& resulted in
da'a%e to the propert& of another, the offender shall be punished b& a fine ran%in%
fro' an a'ount e;ual to the value of said da'a%es to three ti'es such value, but
"hich shall in no case be less than t"ent&(five pesos.
. fine not e>ceedin% t"o hundred pesos and censure shall be i'posed upon an&
person "ho, b& si'ple i'prudence or ne%li%ence, shall cause so'e "ron% "hich, if
done 'aliciousl&, "ould have constituted a li%ht felon&.
In the i'position of these penalties, the court shall e>ercise their sound discretion,
"ithout re%ard to the rules prescribed in .rticle si>t&(four.
he provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable5
#. =hen the penalt& provided for the offense is e;ual to or lo"er than those
provided in the first t"o para%raphs of this article, in "hich case the court shall
i'pose the penalt& ne>t lo"er in de%ree than that "hich should be i'posed in
the period "hich the& 'a& dee' proper to appl&.
$. =hen, b& i'prudence or ne%li%ence and "ith violation of the .uto'obile
9a", to death of a person shall be caused, in "hich case the defendant shall
be punished b& prision correccional in its 'ediu' and 'a>i'u' periods.
Rec!less i'prudence consists in voluntar&, but "ithout 'alice, doin% or failin% to do an
act fro' "hich 'aterial da'a%e results b& reason of ine>cusable lac! of precaution on
the part of the person perfor'in% or failin% to perfor' such act, ta!in% into
consideration his e'plo&'ent or occupation, de%ree of intelli%ence, ph&sical condition
and other circu'stances re%ardin% persons, ti'e and place.
Si'ple i'prudence consists in the lac! of precaution displa&ed in those cases in "hich
the da'a%e i'pendin% to be caused is not i''ediate nor the dan%er clearl& 'anifest.
he penalt& ne>t hi%her in de%ree to those provided for in this article shall be i'posed
upon the offender "ho fails to lend on the spot to the in,ured parties such help as 'a&
be in this hand to %ive.
Structurall&, these nine para%raphs are collapsible into four sub(%roupin%s relatin% to
1#2 the penalties attached to the ;uasi(offenses of Ai'prudenceA and Ane%li%enceA
1para%raphs #($2: 1$2 a 'odified penalt& sche'e for either or both ;uasi(offenses
1para%raphs 7(0, 8 and B2: 172 a %eneric rule for trial courts in i'posin% penalties
1para%raph <2: and 102 the definition of Arec!less i'prudenceA and Asi'ple i'prudenceA
1para%raphs 4(62. Conceptuall&, ;uasi(offenses penali@e Athe 'ental attitude or
condition behind the act, the dan%erous rec!lessness, lac! of care or foresi%ht, the
i'prudencia punible,A
#8
unli!e "illful offenses "hich punish the intentional cri'inal act.
hese structural and conceptual features of ;uasi(offenses set the' apart fro' the
'ass of intentional cri'es under the first #7 itles of 3oo! II of the Revised Penal
Code, as a'ended.
Indeed, the notion that ;uasi(offenses, "hether rec!less or si'ple, are distinct species
of cri'e, separatel& defined and penali@ed under the fra'e"or! of our penal la"s, is
nothin% ne". .s earl& as the 'iddle of the last centur&, "e alread& sou%ht to brin%
clarit& to this field b& re,ectin% in Gui@on v. *ustice of the Peace of Pa'pan%a the
proposition that Arec!less i'prudence is not a cri'e in itself but si'pl& a "a& of
co''ittin% it > > >A
#4
on three points of anal&sis5 1#2 the ob,ect of punish'ent in ;uasi(
cri'es 1as opposed to intentional cri'es2: 1$2 the le%islative intent to treat ;uasi(cri'es
as distinct offenses 1as opposed to subsu'in% the' under the 'iti%atin% circu'stance
3
of 'ini'al intent2 and: 172 the different penalt& structures for ;uasi(cri'es and
intentional cri'es5
he proposition 1inferred fro' .rt. 7 of the Revised Penal Code2 that Arec!less
i'prudenceA is not a cri'e in itself but si'pl& a "a& of co''ittin% it and 'erel&
deter'ines a lo"er de%ree of cri'inal liabilit& is too broad to deserve un;ualified
assent. here are cri'es that b& their structure cannot be co''itted throu%h
i'prudence5 'urder, treason, robber&, 'alicious 'ischief, etc. In truth, cri'inal
ne%li%ence in our Revised Penal Code is treated as a 'ere ;uasi offense, and dealt
"ith separatel& fro' "illful offenses. It is not a 'ere ;uestion of classification or
ter'inolo%&. In intentional cri'es, the act itself is punished: in ne%li%ence or
i'prudence, "hat is principall& penali@ed is the 'ental attitude or condition behind the
act, the dan%erous rec!lessness, lac! of care or foresi%ht, the i'prudencia punible. > >
> >
=ere cri'inal ne%li%ence but a 'odalit& in the co''ission of felonies, operatin% onl&
to reduce the penalt& therefor, then it "ould be absorbed in the 'iti%atin%
circu'stances of .rt. #7, speciall& the lac! of intent to co''it so %rave a "ron% as the
one actuall& co''itted. -urther'ore, the theor& "ould re;uire that the correspondin%
penalt& should be fi>ed in proportion to the penalt& prescribed for each cri'e "hen
co''itted "illfull&. -or each penalt& for the "illful offense, there "ould then be a
correspondin% penalt& for the ne%li%ent variet&. 3ut instead, our Revised Penal Code
1.rt. 78<2 fi>es the penalt& for rec!less i'prudence at arresto 'a&or 'a>i'u', to
prision correccional D'ediu'E, if the "illful act "ould constitute a %rave felon&,
not"ithstandin% that the penalt& for the latter could ran%e all the "a& fro' prision
'a&or to death, accordin% to the case. It can be seen that the actual penalt& for
cri'inal ne%li%ence bears no relation to the individual "illful cri'e, but is set in relation
to a "hole class, or series, of cri'es.
#6
1E'phasis supplied2
his e>plains "h& the technicall& correct "a& to alle%e ;uasi(cri'es is to state that their
co''ission results in da'a%e, either to person or propert&.
#B
.ccordin%l&, "e found the *ustice of the Peace in Gui@on "ithout ,urisdiction to hear a
case for ADa'a%e to Propert& throu%h Rec!less I'prudence,A its ,urisdiction bein%
li'ited to tr&in% char%es for Malicious Mischief, an intentional cri'e conceptuall&
inco'patible "ith the ele'ent of i'prudence obtainin% in ;uasi(cri'es.
Gui@on, rooted in Spanish la"
$/
1the nor'ative ancestr& of our present da& penal code2
and since repeatedl& reiterated,
$#
stands on solid conceptual foundation. he contrar&
doctrinal pronounce'ent in People v. -aller
$$
that ADrEec!less i'pudence is not a cri'e
in itself > > > DbutE si'pl& a "a& of co''ittin% it > > >,A
$7
has lon% been abandoned
"hen the Court en banc pro'ul%ated Gui@on in #B<< nearl& t"o decades after the
Court decided -aller in #B7B. Gui@on re,ected -aller)s conceptuali@ation of ;uasi(cri'es
b& holdin% that ;uasi(cri'es under .rticle 78< are distinct species of cri'es and not
'erel& 'ethods of co''ittin% cri'es. -aller found e>pression in post(Gui@on
,urisprudence
$0
onl& b& dint of lin%erin% doctrinal confusion arisin% fro' an
indiscri'inate fusion of cri'inal la" rules definin% .rticle 78< cri'es and the
co'ple>in% of intentional cri'es under .rticle 06 of the Revised Penal Code "hich, as
"ill be sho"n shortl&, rests on erroneous conception of ;uasi(cri'es. Indeed, the
Gui@onian conception of ;uasi(cri'es under%irded a related branch of ,urisprudence
appl&in% the Double *eopard& Clause to ;uasi(offenses, barrin% second prosecutions
for a ;uasi(offense alle%in% one resultin% act after a prior conviction or ac;uittal of a
;uasi(offense alle%in% another resultin% act but arisin% fro' the sa'e rec!less act or
o'ission upon "hich the second prosecution "as based.
Prior Conviction or .c;uittal of
Rec!less I'prudence 3ars
Subse;uent Prosecution for the Sa'e
Guasi(Offense
he doctrine that rec!less i'prudence under .rticle 78< is a sin%le ;uasi(offense b&
itself and not 'erel& a 'eans to co''it other cri'es such that conviction or ac;uittal
of such ;uasi(offense bars subse;uent prosecution for the sa'e ;uasi(offense,
re%ardless of its various resultin% acts, under%irded this Court)s unbro!en chain of
,urisprudence on double ,eopard& as applied to .rticle 78< startin% "ith People v.
Dia@,
$<
decided in #B<0. here, a full Court, spea!in% throu%h Mr. *ustice Monte'a&or,
ordered the dis'issal of a case for Ada'a%e to propert& thru rec!less i'prudenceA
because a prior case a%ainst the sa'e accused for Arec!less drivin%,A arisin% fro' the
sa'e act upon "hich the first prosecution "as based, had been dis'issed earlier.
Since then, "henever the sa'e le%al ;uestion "as brou%ht before the Court, that is,
"hether prior conviction or ac;uittal of rec!less i'prudence bars subse;uent
prosecution for the sa'e ;uasi(offense, re%ardless of the conse;uences alle%ed for
both char%es, the Court unfailin%l& and consistentl& ans"ered in the affir'ative in
People v. 3el%a
$8
1pro'ul%ated in #B<4 b& the Court en banc, per Re&es, *.2, Hap v.
9utero
$4
1pro'ul%ated in #B<B, unreported, per Concepcion, *.2, People v.
Narvas
$6
1pro'ul%ated in #B8/ b& the Court en banc, per 3en%@on *.2, People v.
Silva
$B
1pro'ul%ated in #B8$ b& the Court en banc, per Paredes, *.2, People v.
Macabuha&
7/
1pro'ul%ated in #B88 b& the Court en banc, per Ma!alintal, *.2, People v.
3uan
7#
1pro'ul%ated in #B86 b& the Court en banc, per Re&es, *.3.9., actin% C. *.2,
3uerano v. Court of .ppeals
7$
1pro'ul%ated in #B6$ b& the Court en banc, per Relova,
*.2, and People v. Cit& Court of Manila
77
1pro'ul%ated in #B67 b& the -irst Division, per
Relova, *.2. hese cases unifor'l& barred the second prosecutions as constitutionall&
i'per'issible under the Double *eopard& Clause.
he reason for this consistent stance of e>tendin% the constitutional protection under
the Double *eopard& Clause to ;uasi(offenses "as best articulated b& Mr. *ustice
*.3.9. Re&es in 3uan, "here, in barrin% a subse;uent prosecution for Aserious ph&sical
4
in,uries and da'a%e to propert& thru rec!less i'prudenceA because of the accused)s
prior ac;uittal of Asli%ht ph&sical in,uries thru rec!less i'prudence,A "ith both char%es
%rounded on the sa'e act, the Court e>plained5
70
Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or ac;uitted of a specific
act of rec!less i'prudence, the accused 'a& not be prosecuted a%ain for that sa'e
act. -or the essence of the ;uasi offense of cri'inal ne%li%ence under article 78< of the
Revised Penal Code lies in the e>ecution of an i'prudent or ne%li%ent act that, if
intentionall& done, "ould be punishable as a felon&. he la" penali@es thus the
ne%li%ent or careless act, not the result thereof. he %ravit& of the conse;uence is onl&
ta!en into account to deter'ine the penalt&, it does not ;ualif& the substance of the
offense. .nd, as the careless act is sin%le, "hether the in,urious result should affect one
person or several persons, the offense 1cri'inal ne%li%ence2 re'ains one and the
sa'e, and can not be split into different cri'es and prosecutions.
7<
> > > 1E'phasis
supplied2
Evidentl&, the Dia@ line of ,urisprudence on double ,eopard& 'erel& e>tended to its
lo%ical conclusion the reasonin% of Gui@on.
here is in our ,urisprudence onl& one rulin% %oin% a%ainst this unbro!en line of
authorit&. Precedin% Dia@ b& 'ore than a decade, El Pueblo de -ilipinas v.
Estipona,
78
decided b& the pre("ar colonial Court in Nove'ber #B0/, allo"ed the
subse;uent prosecution of an accused for rec!less i'prudence resultin% in da'a%e to
propert& despite his previous conviction for 'ultiple ph&sical in,uries arisin% fro' the
sa'e rec!less operation of a 'otor vehicle upon "hich the second prosecution "as
based. Estipona)s inconsistenc& "ith the post("ar Dia@ chain of ,urisprudence suffices
to i'pliedl& overrule it. .t an& rate, all doubts on this 'atter "ere laid to rest in #B6$ in
3uerano.
74
here, "e revie"ed the Court of .ppeals) conviction of an accused for
Ada'a%e to propert& for rec!less i'prudenceA despite his prior conviction for Asli%ht and
less serious ph&sical in,uries thru rec!less i'prudence,A arisin% fro' the sa'e act upon
"hich the second char%e "as based. he Court of .ppeals had relied on Estipona. =e
reversed on the stren%th of 3uan5
76
hDeE vie" of the Court of .ppeals "as inspired b& the rulin% of this Court in the pre("ar
case of People vs. Estipona decided on Nove'ber #0, #B0/. +o"ever, in the case of
People vs. 3uan, $$ SCR. #767 1March $B, #B862, this Court, spea!in% thru *ustice *.
3. 9. Re&es, held that I
Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or ac;uitted of a specific
act of rec!less i'prudence, the accused 'a& not be prosecuted a%ain for that sa'e
act. -or the essence of the ;uasi offense of cri'inal ne%li%ence under .rticle 78< of the
Revised Penal Code lies in the e>ecution of an i'prudent or ne%li%ent act that, if
intentionall& done, "ould be punishable as a felon&. he la" penali@es thus the
ne%li%ent or careless act, not the result thereof. he %ravit& of the conse;uence is onl&
ta!en into account to deter'ine the penalt&, it does not ;ualif& the substance of the
offense. .nd, as the careless act is sin%le, "hether the in,urious result should affect one
person or several persons, the offense 1cri'inal ne%li%ence2 re'ains one and the
sa'e, and can not be split into different cri'es and prosecutions.
> > > >
. . . the e>oneration of this appellant, *ose 3uan, b& the *ustice of the Peace 1no"
Municipal2 Court of ?ui%uinto, 3ulacan, of the char%e of sli%ht ph&sical in,uries throu%h
rec!less i'prudence, prevents his bein% prosecuted for serious ph&sical in,uries
throu%h rec!less i'prudence in the Court of -irst Instance of the province, "here both
char%es are derived fro' the conse;uences of one and the sa'e vehicular
accident, because the second accusation places the appellant in second ,eopard& for
the sa'e offense.
7B
1E'phasis supplied2
hus, for all intents and purposes, 3uerano had effectivel& overruled Estipona.
It is note"orth& that the Solicitor ?eneral in 3uerano, in a reversal of his earlier stance
in Silva, ,oined causes "ith the accused, a fact "hich did not escape the Court)s
attention5
hen Solicitor ?eneral, no" *ustice -eli> V. Ma!asiar, in his M.NI-ES.ION dated
Dece'ber #$, #B8B 1pa%e 6$ of the Rollo2 ad'its that the Court of .ppeals erred in not
sustainin% petitioner)s plea of double ,eopard& and sub'its that Aits affir'ator& decision
dated *anuar& $6, #B8B, in Cri'inal Case No. /<#$7(CR findin% petitioner %uilt& of
da'a%e to propert& throu%h rec!less i'prudence should be set aside, "ithout
costs.A +e stressed that Aif double ,eopard& e>ists "here the rec!less act resulted into
ho'icide and ph&sical in,uries. then the sa'e conse;uence 'ust perforce follo" "here
the sa'e rec!less act caused 'erel& da'a%e to propert&(not death(and ph&sical
in,uries. Veril&, the value of a hu'an life lost as a result of a vehicular collision cannot
be e;uated "ith an& a'ount of da'a%es caused to a 'otors vehicle arisin% fro' the
sa'e 'ishap.A
0/
1E'phasis supplied2
+ence, "e find 'erit in petitioner)s sub'ission that the lo"er courts erred in refusin% to
e>tend in his favor the 'antle of protection afforded b& the Double *eopard& Clause. .
'ore fittin% ,urisprudence could not be tailored to petitioner)s case than People v.
Silva,
0#
a Dia@ pro%en&. here, the accused, "ho "as also involved in a vehicular
collision, "as char%ed in t"o separate Infor'ations "ith ASli%ht Ph&sical In,uries thru
Rec!less I'prudenceA and A+o'icide "ith Serious Ph&sical In,uries thru Rec!less
I'prudence.A -ollo"in% his ac;uittal of the for'er, the accused sou%ht the ;uashal of
the latter, invo!in% the Double *eopard& Clause. he trial court initiall& denied relief,
but, on reconsideration, found 'erit in the accused)s clai' and dis'issed the second
5
case. In affir'in% the trial court, "e ;uoted "ith approval its anal&sis of the issue
follo"in% Dia@ and its pro%en& People v. 3el%a5
0$
On *une $8, #B<B, the lo"er court reconsidered its Order of Ma& $, #B<B and
dis'issed the case, holdin%5 F
DEhe Court believes that the case falls s;uarel& "ithin the doctrine of double ,eopard&
enunciated in People v. 3el%a, > > > In the case cited, Ciriaco 3el%a and *ose 3el%a
"ere char%ed in the *ustice of the Peace Court of Malilipot, .lba&, "ith the cri'e of
ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!less i'prudence arisin% fro' a collision bet"een the t"o
auto'obiles driven b& the' 1Cri'. Case No. 662. =ithout the aforesaid co'plaint
havin% been dis'issed or other"ise disposed of, t"o other cri'inal co'plaints "ere
filed in the sa'e ,ustice of the peace court, in connection "ith the sa'e collision one
for da'a%e to propert& throu%h rec!less i'prudence 1Cri'. Case No. B<2 si%ned b& the
o"ner of one of the vehicles involved in the collision, and another for 'ultiple ph&sical
in,uries throu%h rec!less i'prudence 1Cri'. Case No. B82 si%ned b& the passen%ers
in,ured in the accident. 3oth of these t"o co'plaints "ere filed a%ainst *ose 3el%a onl&.
.fter trial, both defendants "ere ac;uitted of the char%e a%ainst the' in Cri'. Case
No. 66. -ollo"in% his ac;uittal, *ose 3el%a 'oved to ;uash the co'plaint for 'ultiple
ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!less i'prudence filed a%ainst hi' b& the in,ured
passen%ers, contendin% that the case "as ,ust a duplication of the one filed b& the
Chief of Police "herein he had ,ust been ac;uitted. he 'otion to ;uash "as denied
and after trial *ose 3el%a "as convicted, "hereupon he appealed to the Court of -irst
Instance of .lba&. In the 'eanti'e, the case for da'a%e to propert& throu%h rec!less
i'prudence filed b& one of the o"ners of the vehicles involved in the collision had been
re'anded to the Court of -irst Instance of .lba& after *ose 3el%a had "aived the
second sta%e of the preli'inar& investi%ation. .fter such re'and, the Provincial -iscal
filed in the Court of -irst Instance t"o infor'ations a%ainst *ose 3el%a, one for ph&sical
in,uries throu%h rec!less i'prudence, and another for da'a%e to propert& throu%h
rec!less i'prudence. 3oth cases "ere dis'issed b& the Court of -irst Instance, upon
'otion of the defendant *ose 3el%a "ho alle%ed double ,eopard& in a 'otion to ;uash.
On appeal b& the Prov. -iscal, the order of dis'issal "as affir'ed b& the Supre'e
Court in the follo"in% lan%ua%e5 .
he ;uestion for deter'ination is "hether the ac;uittal of *ose 3el%a in the case filed
b& the chief of police constitutes a bar to his subse;uent prosecution for 'ultiple
ph&sical in,uries and da'a%e to propert& throu%h rec!less i'prudence.
In the case of PeoDpleE v. -. Dia@, ?. R. No. 9(8<#6, pro'. March 7/, #B<0, the accused
"as char%ed in the 'unicipal court of Pasa& Cit& "ith rec!less drivin% under sec. <$ of
the Revised Motor Vehicle 9a", for havin% driven an auto'obile in a fast and rec!less
'anner ... thereb& causin% an accident.) .fter the accused had pleaded not %uilt& the
case "as dis'issed in that court for failure of the ?overn'ent to prosecute). 3ut so'e
ti'e thereafter the cit& attorne& filed an infor'ation in the Court of -irst Instance of
Ri@al, char%in% the sa'e accused "ith da'a%e to propert& thru rec!less i'prudence.
he a'ount of the da'a%e "as alle%ed to be P$0B.</. Pleadin% double ,eopard&, the
accused filed a 'otion, and on appeal b& the ?overn'ent "e affir'ed the rulin%.
.'on% other thin%s "e there said throu%h Mr. *ustice Monte'a&or F
he ne>t ;uestion to deter'ine is the relation bet"een the first offense of violation of
the Motor Vehicle 9a" prosecuted before the Pasa& Cit& Municipal Court and the
offense of da'a%e to propert& thru rec!less i'prudence char%ed in the Ri@al Court of
-irst Instance. One of the tests of double ,eopard& is "hether or not the second offense
char%ed necessaril& includes or is necessaril& included in the offense char%ed in the
for'er co'plaint or infor'ation 1Rule ##7, Sec. B2. .nother test is "hether the
evidence "hich proves one "ould prove the other that is to sa& "hether the facts
alle%ed in the first char%e if proven, "ould have been sufficient to support the second
char%e and vice versa: or "hether one cri'e is an in%redient of the other. > > >
> > > >
he fore%oin% lan%ua%e of the Supre'e Court also disposes of the contention of the
prosecutin% attorne& that the char%e for sli%ht ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!less
i'prudence could not have been ,oined "ith the char%e for ho'icide "ith serious
ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!less i'prudence in this case, in vie" of the provisions of
.rt. 06 of the Revised Penal Code, as a'ended. he prosecution)s contention 'i%ht be
true. 3ut neither "as the prosecution obli%ed to first prosecute the accused for sli%ht
ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!less i'prudence before pressin% the 'ore serious char%e
of ho'icide "ith serious ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!less i'prudence. +avin% first
prosecuted the defendant for the lesser offense in the *ustice of the Peace Court of
Me&caua&an, 3ulacan, "hich ac;uitted the defendant, the prosecutin% attorne& is not
no" in a position to press in this case the 'ore serious char%e of ho'icide "ith serious
ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!less i'prudence "hich arose out of the sa'e alle%ed
rec!less i'prudence of "hich the defendant have been previousl& cleared b& the
inferior court.
07
Si%nificantl&, the Solicitor ?eneral had ur%ed us in Silva to ree>a'ine 3el%a 1and
hence, Dia@2 Afor the purpose of deli'itin% or clarif&in% its application.A
00
=e declined
the invitation, thus5
he State in its appeal clai's that the lo"er court erred in dis'issin% the case, on the
%round of double ,eopard&, upon the basis of the ac;uittal of the accused in the *P
court for Sli%ht Ph&sical In,uries, thru Rec!less I'prudence. In the sa'e breath said
State, thru the Solicitor ?eneral, ad'its that the facts of the case at bar, fall s;uarel& on
the rulin% of the 3el%a case > > >, upon "hich the order of dis'issal of the lo"er court
"as anchored. he Solicitor ?eneral, ho"ever, ur%es a re(e>a'ination of said rulin%,
6
upon certain considerations for the purpose of deli'itin% or clarif&in% its application. =e
find, nevertheless, that further elucidation or dis;uisition on the rulin% in the 3el%a case,
the facts of "hich are analo%ous or si'ilar to those in the present case, "ill &ield no
practical advanta%e to the %overn'ent. On one hand, there is nothin% "hich "ould
"arrant a deli'itation or clarification of the applicabilit& of the 3el%a case. It "as clear.
On the other, this Court has reiterated the vie"s e>pressed in the 3el%a case, in the
identical case of Hap v. +on. 9utero, etc., 9(#$88B, .pril 7/, #B<B.
0<
1E'phasis
supplied2
.rticle 06 Does not .ppl& to .cts Penali@ed
Cnder .rticle 78< of the Revised Penal Code
he confusion bedevilin% the ;uestion posed in this petition, to "hich the MeC
succu'bed, ste's fro' persistent but a"!"ard atte'pts to har'oni@e conceptuall&
inco'patible substantive and procedural rules in cri'inal la", na'el&, .rticle 78<
definin% and penali@in% ;uasi(offenses and .rticle 06 on co'ple>in% of cri'es, both
under the Revised Penal Code. .rticle 06 is a procedural device allo"in% sin%le
prosecution of 'ultiple felonies fallin% under either of t"o cate%ories5 1#2 "hen a sin%le
act constitutes t"o or 'ore %rave or less %rave felonies 1thus e>cludin% fro' its
operation li%ht felonies
08
2: and 1$2 "hen an offense is a necessar& 'eans for
co''ittin% the other. he le%islature crafted this procedural tool to benefit the accused
"ho, in lieu of servin% 'ultiple penalties, "ill onl& serve the 'a>i'u' of the penalt& for
the 'ost serious cri'e.
In contrast, .rticle 78< is a substantive rule penali@in% not an act defined as a felon&
but Athe 'ental attitude > > > behind the act, the dan%erous rec!lessness, lac! of care
or foresi%ht > > >,A
04
a sin%le 'ental attitude re%ardless of the resultin% conse;uences.
hus, .rticle 78< "as crafted as one ;uasi(cri'e resultin% in one or 'ore
conse;uences.
Ordinaril&, these t"o provisions "ill operate s'oothl&. .rticle 06 "or!s to co'bine in a
sin%le prosecution 'ultiple intentional cri'es fallin% under itles #(#7, 3oo! II of the
Revised Penal Code, "hen proper: .rticle 78< %overns the prosecution of i'prudent
acts and their conse;uences. +o"ever, the co'ple>ities of hu'an interaction can
produce a h&brid ;uasi(offense not fallin% under either 'odels I that of a sin%le cri'inal
ne%li%ence resultin% in 'ultiple non(cri'e da'a%es to persons and propert& "ith
var&in% penalties correspondin% to li%ht, less %rave or %rave offenses. he ensuin%
prosecutorial dile''a is obvious5 ho" should such a ;uasi(cri'e be prosecutedJ
Should .rticle 06)s fra'e"or! appl& to Aco'ple>A the sin%le ;uasi(offense "ith its
'ultiple 1non(cri'inal2 conse;uences 1e>cludin% those a'ountin% to li%ht offenses
"hich "ill be tried separatel&2J Or should the prosecution proceed under a sin%le
char%e, collectivel& alle%in% all the conse;uences of the sin%le ;uasi(cri'e, to be
penali@ed separatel& follo"in% the sche'e of penalties under .rticle 78<J
*urisprudence adopts both approaches. hus, one line of rulin%s 1none of "hich
involved the issue of double ,eopard&2 applied .rticle 06 b& Aco'ple>in%A one ;uasi(
cri'e "ith its 'ultiple conse;uences
06
unless one conse;uence a'ounts to a li%ht
felon&, in "hich case char%es "ere split b& %roupin%, on the one hand, resultin% acts
a'ountin% to %rave or less %rave felonies and filin% the char%e "ith the second level
courts and, on the other hand, resultin% acts a'ountin% to li%ht felonies and filin% the
char%e "ith the first level courts.
0B
E>pectedl&, this is the approach the MeC i'pliedl&
sanctioned 1and respondent Ponce invo!es2, even thou%h under Republic .ct No.
48B#,
</
the MeC has no" e>clusive ori%inal ,urisdiction to i'pose the 'ost serious
penalt& under .rticle 78< "hich is prision correccional in its 'ediu' period.
Cnder this approach, the issue of double ,eopard& "ill not arise if the Aco'ple>in%A of
acts penali@ed under .rticle 78< involves onl& resultin% acts penali@ed as %rave or less
%rave felonies because there "ill be a sin%le prosecution of all the resultin% acts. he
issue of double ,eopard& arises if one of the resultin% acts is penali@ed as a li%ht
offense and the other acts are penali@ed as %rave or less %rave offenses, in "hich case
.rticle 06 is not dee'ed to appl& and the act penali@ed as a li%ht offense is tried
separatel& fro' the resultin% acts penali@ed as %rave or less %rave offenses.
he second ,urisprudential path ni>es .rticle 06 and sanctions a sin%le prosecution of
all the effects of the ;uasi(cri'e collectivel& alle%ed in one char%e, re%ardless of their
nu'ber or severit&,
<#
penali@in% each conse;uence separatel&. hus, in .n%eles v.
*ose,
<$
"e interpreted para%raph three of .rticle 78<, in relation to a char%e alle%in%
Arec!less i'prudence resultin% in da'a%e to propert& and less serious ph&sical
in,uries,A as follo"s5
DEhe third para%raph of said article, > > > reads as follo"s5
=hen the e>ecution of the act covered b& this article shall have onl& resulted in
da'a%e to the propert& of another, the offender shall be punished b& a fine ran%in%
fro' an a'ount e;ual to the value of said da'a%e to three ti'es such value, but "hich
shall in no case be less than $< pesos.
he above(;uoted provision si'pl& 'eans that if there is onl& da'a%e to propert& the
a'ount fi>ed therein shall be i'posed, but if there are also ph&sical in,uries there
should be an additional penalt& for the latter. he infor'ation cannot be split into t"o:
one for the ph&sical in,uries, and another for the da'a%e to propert&, > > >.
<7
1E'phasis
supplied2
3& Aadditional penalt&,A the Court 'eant, lo%icall&, the penalt& sche'e under .rticle
78<.
7
Evidentl&, these approaches, "hile parallel, are irreconcilable. Coherence in this field
de'ands choosin% one fra'e"or! over the other. Either 1#2 "e allo" the Aco'ple>in%A
of a sin%le ;uasi(cri'e b& brea!in% its resultin% acts into separate offenses 1e>cept for
li%ht felonies2, thus re(conceptuali@e a ;uasi(cri'e, abandon its present fra'in% under
.rticle 78<, discard its conception under the Gui@on and Dia@ lines of cases, and treat
the 'ultiple conse;uences of a ;uasi(cri'e as separate intentional felonies defined
under itles #(#7, 3oo! II under the penal code: or 1$2 "e forbid the application of
.rticle 06 in the prosecution and sentencin% of ;uasi(cri'es, re;uire sin%le prosecution
of all the resultin% acts re%ardless of their nu'ber and severit&, separatel& penali@e
each as provided in .rticle 78<, and thus 'aintain the distinct concept of ;uasi(cri'es
as crafted under .rticle 78<, articulated in Gui@on and applied to double ,eopard&
ad,udication in the Dia@ line of cases.1avvphi1
. beco'in% re%ard of this Court)s place in our sche'e of %overn'ent den&in% it the
po"er to 'a!e la"s constrains us to !eep inviolate the conceptual distinction bet"een
;uasi(cri'es and intentional felonies under our penal code. .rticle 06 is incon%ruent to
the notion of ;uasi(cri'es under .rticle 78<. It is conceptuall& i'possible for a quasi-
offense to stand for 1#2 a sin%le act constitutin% t"o or 'ore %rave or less
%rave felonies: or 1$2 an offense "hich is a necessar& 'eans for co''ittin% another.
his is "h&, "a& bac! in #B86 in 3uan, "e re,ected the Solicitor ?eneral)s ar%u'ent
that double ,eopard& does not bar a second prosecution for sli%ht ph&sical in,uries
throu%h rec!less i'prudence alle%edl& because the char%e for that offense could not
be ,oined "ith the other char%e for serious ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!less
i'prudence follo"in% .rticle 06 of the Revised Penal Code5
he Solicitor ?eneral stresses in his brief that the char%e for sli%ht ph&sical in,uries
throu%h rec!less i'prudence could not be ,oined "ith the accusation for serious
ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!less i'prudence, because .rticle 06 of the Revised Penal
Code allo"s onl& the co'ple>in% of %rave or less %rave felonies. his sa'e ar%u'ent
"as considered and re,ected b& this Court in the case of People vs. DSilvaE > > >5
DEhe prosecution)s contention 'i%ht be true. 3ut neither "as the prosecution obli%ed to
first prosecute the accused for sli%ht ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!less i'prudence
before pressin% the 'ore serious char%e of ho'icide "ith serious ph&sical in,uries
throu%h rec!less i'prudence. +avin% first prosecuted the defendant for the lesser
offense in the *ustice of the Peace Court of Me&caua&an, 3ulacan, "hich ac;uitted the
defendant, the prosecutin% attorne& is not no" in a position to press in this case the
'ore serious char%e of ho'icide "ith serious ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!less
i'prudence "hich arose out of the sa'e alle%ed rec!less i'prudence of "hich the
defendant has been previousl& cleared b& the inferior court.
D=Ee 'ust perforce rule that the e>oneration of this appellant > > > b& the *ustice of the
Peace > > > of the char%e of sli%ht ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!less i'prudence,
prevents his bein% prosecuted for serious ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!less
i'prudence in the Court of -irst Instance of the province, "here both char%es are
derived fro' the conse;uences of one and the sa'e vehicular accident, because the
second accusation places the appellant in second ,eopard& for the sa'e
offense.
<0
1E'phasis supplied2
Indeed, this is a constitutionall& co'pelled choice. 3& prohibitin% the splittin% of
char%es under .rticle 78<, irrespective of the nu'ber and severit& of the resultin% acts,
ra'pant occasions of constitutionall& i'per'issible second prosecutions are avoided,
not to 'ention that scarce state resources are conserved and diverted to proper use.
+ence, "e hold that prosecutions under .rticle 78< should proceed fro' a sin%le
char%e re%ardless of the nu'ber or severit& of the conse;uences. In i'posin%
penalties, the ,ud%e "ill do no 'ore than appl& the penalties under .rticle 78< for each
conse;uence alle%ed and proven. In short, there shall be no splittin% of char%es under
.rticle 78<, and onl& one infor'ation shall be filed in the sa'e first level court.
<<
Our rulin% toda& secures for the accused facin% an .rticle 78< char%e a stron%er and
si'pler protection of their constitutional ri%ht under the Double *eopard& Clause. rue,
the& are thereb& denied the beneficent effect of the favorable sentencin% for'ula under
.rticle 06, but an& disadvanta%e thus caused is 'ore than co'pensated b& the
certaint& of non(prosecution for ;uasi(cri'e effects ;ualif&in% as Ali%ht offensesA 1or, as
here, for the 'ore serious conse;uence prosecuted belatedl&2. If it is so 'inded,
Con%ress can re(craft .rticle 78< b& e>tendin% to ;uasi(cri'es the sentencin% for'ula
of .rticle 06 so that onl& the 'ost severe penalt& shall be i'posed under a sin%le
prosecution of all resultin% acts, "hether penali@ed as %rave, less %rave or li%ht
offenses. his "ill still !eep intact the distinct concept of ;uasi(offenses. Mean"hile, the
lenient schedule of penalties under .rticle 78<, befittin% cri'es occup&in% a lo"er run%
of culpabilit&, should cushion the effect of this rulin%.
!ERE2ORE, "e GRANT the petition. =e REVERSE the Orders dated $ -ebruar&
$//8 and $ Ma& $//8 of the Re%ional rial Court of Pasi% Cit&, 3ranch #<4.
=e "ISMISS the Infor'ation in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788 a%ainst petitioner *ason Ivler
& .%uilar pendin% "ith the Metropolitan rial Court of Pasi% Cit&, 3ranch 4# on the
%round of double ,eopard&.
9et a cop& of this rulin% be served on the President of the Senate and the Spea!er of
the +ouse of Representatives.
SO ORDERED.
8