he Supreme Court has recently reversed a
decision of a regional trial court on a 2004
vehicular accident involving Jason Ivler who
cited the double jeopardy clause on a reckless
imprudence case.
Ivler is the same road rage suspect in a 2009
case that killed a former Malacañang official's
son.
In a 28-page decision penned by Associate
Justice Antonio Carpio dated November 17,
2010, the Supreme Court Second Division
reversed the orders of a Regional Trial Court
(RTC) which affirmed a lower court's ruling that
considered Ivler's defense of a "double
jeopardy" was not applicable.
The case stemmed from an August 2004 road
accident where one of the 2 victims, Evangeline
Ponce, sustained injuries. Ivler was charged
with reckless imprudence resulting in slight
physical injuries before the Metropolitan Trial
Court (MeTC) in Pasig City.
He pleaded guilty and was penalized with public
censure. He then asked the MeTC to quash the
second case invoking his conviction.
The second criminal case--reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide and damage to property--
was filed against Ivler for the death of Ponce's
husband, Nestor.
Ivler cited "double jeopardy," maintaining that
"the second information placed him in jeopardy
of second punishment for the same offense of
reckless imprudence."
When the MeTC refused to quash the second
information, Ivler elevated his case to the Pasig
City RTC Branch 157. He also asked the MeTC
to suspend the proceedings in the first criminal
case.
The MeTC, however, proceeded with the
arraignment despite Ivler's absence.
MeTC Judge Maria Rowena Modesto-San
Pedro then cancelled his bail and ordered his
arrest. Seven days later, the MeTC formally
denied Ivler's Motion.
The RTC, in an Order dated February 2, 2006,
dismissed Ivler's Petition for Certiorari citing
"forfeiture of standing" due to his non-
appearance at the arraignment.
The RTC "effectively affirmed the MeTC,"
hence the petition before the High Court
where Ivler denies absconding.
Ivler insisted his appeal before the RTC "was a
special civil action seeking a pre-trial relief, not
a post-trial appeal of a judgment for
conviction".
The Supreme Court's Second Division held that
(1) petitioner's non-appearance at the
arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366 did not
divest him of personality to maintain the
petition....
(2) the protection afforded by the Constitution
shielding the petitioner from prosecutions
placing him in jeopardy of second punishment
for the same offense bars further proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 82366
The Court further said that Ivler's non-
appearance at his arraignment "merely renders
his bondsman potentially liable on its bond"
since the accused has 30 days to appear at the
court before the bond is cancelled.
But while Ivler failed to surrender, could be
tried in absentia and could be convicted or
acquitted, the High Court also said "the
accused's negative constitutional right not to be
'twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense' protects him from, among others,
post-conviction prosecution for the same
offense...," citing Section 7, Rule 117 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Reckless imprudence is considered a single
quasi-offense under the Revised Penal Code. It
is not a merely a means to commit other crimes
"such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-
offense bars subsequent prosecution for the
same quasi-offense, regardless of its various
resulting acts, undergirded this Court's unbroken
chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy," the
High Court stressed.