01 Aguilar v. San Pedro (2010)

8/11/2019 01 Aguilar v. San Pedro (2010)

1/8

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME 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-) 71, P-& 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'icideand Da'a%e to Propert&. his, despite the accused)s previous conviction for Rec!lessI'prudence Resultin% in Sli%ht Ph&sical Inuries 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 "aschar%ed before the Metropolitan rial Court of Pasi% Cit&, 3ranch 4# 1MeC2, "ith t"oseparate offenses5 1#2 Rec!less I'prudence Resultin% in Sli%ht Ph&sical Inuries1Cri'inal Case No. 6$7842 for inuries sustained b& respondent Evan%eline 9. Ponce1respondent Ponce2: and 1$2 Rec!less I'prudence Resultin% in +o'icide and Da'a%eto Propert& 1Cri'inal Case No. 6$7882 for the death of respondent Ponce)s husbandNestor C. Ponce and da'a%e to the spouses Ponce)s vehicle. Petitioner posted bail forhis 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 theRe%ional rial Court of Pasi% Cit&, 3ranch #


2/8

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, respondentPonce calls the Court)s attention to urisprudence holdin% that li%ht offenses 1e.%. sli%htph&sical inuries2 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 toseparate the char%e in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788 for the sli%ht ph&sical inuries 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& ano'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$2the protection afforded b& the Constitution shieldin% petitioner fro' prosecutionsplacin% hi' in eopard& of second punish'ent for the sa'e offense bars furtherproceedin%s in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788.

Petitioner)s Non(appearance at the rrai%n'ent inCri'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 ofthe ter's of his bail bond are %overned b& the second para%raph of Section 6, Rule#$0,6in relation to Section #, Rule #$planation "h& he failed toattend the scheduled proceedin%A#$at the MeC is belied b& the records. Da&s beforethe arrai%n'ent, petitioner sou%ht the suspension of the MeC)s proceedin%s inCri'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 releasedda&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& ofpunish'ent for the sa'e offenseA#7protects hi' fro', a'on% others, post(convictionprosecution for the sa'e offense, "ith the prior verdict rendered b& a court ofco'petent urisdiction upon a valid infor'ation.#0It is not disputed that petitioner)sconviction in Cri'inal Case No. 6$784 "as rendered b& a court of co'petenturisdiction upon a valid char%e. hus, the case turns on the ;uestion "hether Cri'inalCase No. 6$788 and Cri'inal Case No. 6$784 involve the Asa'e offense.A Petitioneradopts the affir'ative vie", sub'ittin% that the t"o cases concern the sa'e offense ofrec!less i'prudence. he MeC ruled other"ise, findin% that Rec!less I'prudence

2
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt14


3/8

Resultin% in Sli%ht Ph&sical Inuries is an entirel& separate offense fro' Rec!lessI'prudence Resultin% in +o'icide and Da'a%e to Propert& Aas the latter re;uiresproof of an additional fact "hich the other does not.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 inits 'ini'u' and 'ediu' periods shall be i'posed: if it "ould have constituted a li%htfelon&, 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 "ouldother"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&, thepenalt& 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 inda'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, ifdone '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 thoseprovided in the first t"o para%raphs of this article, in "hich case the court shalli'pose the penalt& ne>t lo"er in de%ree than that "hich should be i'posed inthe period "hich the& 'a& dee' proper to appl&.

$. =hen, b& i'prudence or ne%li%ence and "ith violation of the uto'obile9a", to death of a person shall be caused, in "hich case the defendant shallbe 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 anact fro' "hich 'aterial da'a%e results b& reason of ine>cusable lac! of precaution onthe part of the person perfor'in% or failin% to perfor' such act, ta!in% intoconsideration his e'plo&'ent or occupation, de%ree of intelli%ence, ph&sical conditionand 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 "hichthe 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'posedupon the offender "ho fails to lend on the spot to the inured parties such help as 'a&be in this hand to %ive.

Structurall&, these nine para%raphs are collapsible into four sub(%roupin%s relatin% to1#2 the penalties attached to the ;uasi(offenses of Ai'prudenceA and Ane%li%enceA1para%raphs #($2: 1$2 a 'odified penalt& sche'e for either or both ;uasi(offenses1para%raphs 7(0, 8 and B2: 172 a %eneric rule for trial courts in i'posin% penalties1para%raph


4/8

of 'ini'al intent2 and: 172 the different penalt& structures for ;uasi(cri'es andintentional cri'es5

he proposition 1inferred fro' rt. 7 of the Revised Penal Code2 that Arec!lessi'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;ualifiedassent. here are cri'es that b& their structure cannot be co''itted throu%hi'prudence5 'urder, treason, robber&, 'alicious 'ischief, etc. In truth, cri'inalne%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 orter'inolo%&. In intentional cri'es, the act itself is punished: in ne%li%ence ori'prudence, "hat is principall& penali@ed is the 'ental attitude or condition behind theact, 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 theone 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 "henco''itted "illfull&. -or each penalt& for the "illful offense, there "ould then be acorrespondin% penalt& for the ne%li%ent variet&. 3ut instead, our Revised Penal Code1rt. 78es the penalt& for rec!less i'prudence at arresto 'a&or 'a>i'u', toprision correccional 'ediu', 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& forcri'inal ne%li%ence bears no relation to the individual "illful cri'e, but is set in relationto a "hole class, or series, of cri'es.#61E'phasis supplied2

his e>plains "h& the technicall& correct "a& to alle%e ;uasi(cri'es is to state that theirco''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 acase 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"$/1the nor'ative ancestr& of our present da& penal code2and since repeatedl& reiterated,$#stands on solid conceptual foundation. he contrar&doctrinal pronounce'ent in People v. -aller$$that Arec!less i'pudence is not a cri'ein itself > > > but si'pl& a "a& of co''ittin% it > > >,A$7has lon% been abandoned"hen the Court en banc pro'ul%ated Gui@on in #Bin% 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 urisprudenceappl&in% the Double *eopard& Clause to ;uasi(offenses, barrin% second prosecutionsfor 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 oro'ission upon "hich the second prosecution "as based.

Prior Conviction or c;uittal ofRec!less I'prudence 3arsSubse;uent Prosecution for the Sa'eGuasi(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 ofurisprudence on double eopard& as applied to rticle 78< startin% "ith People v.Dia@,$tendin% the constitutional protection underthe 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
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt33


5/8

inuries and da'a%e to propert& thru rec!less i'prudenceA because of the accused)sprior ac;uittal of Asli%ht ph&sical inuries thru rec!less i'prudence,A "ith both char%es%rounded on the sa'e act, the Court e>plained570

Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or ac;uitted of a specificact of rec!less i'prudence, the accused 'a& not be prosecuted a%ain for that sa'eact. -or the essence of the ;uasi offense of cri'inal ne%li%ence under article 78< of theRevised Penal Code lies in the e>ecution of an i'prudent or ne%li%ent act that, ifintentionall& done, "ould be punishable as a felon&. he la" penali@es thus thene%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 theoffense. nd, as the careless act is sin%le, "hether the inurious result should affect oneperson or several persons, the offense 1cri'inal ne%li%ence2 re'ains one and thesa'e, and can not be split into different cri'es and prosecutions.7 > > 1E'phasissupplied2

Evidentl&, the Dia@ line of urisprudence on double eopard& 'erel& e>tended to itslo%ical conclusion the reasonin% of Gui@on.

here is in our urisprudence onl& one rulin% %oin% a%ainst this unbro!en line ofauthorit&. Precedin% Dia@ b& 'ore than a decade, El Pueblo de -ilipinas v.Estipona,78decided b& the pre("ar colonial Court in Nove'ber #B0/, allo"ed thesubse;uent prosecution of an accused for rec!less i'prudence resultin% in da'a%e topropert& despite his previous conviction for 'ultiple ph&sical inuries arisin% fro' thesa'e rec!less operation of a 'otor vehicle upon "hich the second prosecution "asbased. Estipona)s inconsistenc& "ith the post("ar Dia@ chain of urisprudence sufficesto i'pliedl& overrule it. t an& rate, all doubts on this 'atter "ere laid to rest in #B6$ in3uerano.74here, "e revie"ed the Court of ppeals) conviction of an accused forAda'a%e to propert& for rec!less i'prudenceA despite his prior conviction for Asli%ht andless serious ph&sical inuries 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. =ereversed on the stren%th of 3uan576

he vie" of the Court of ppeals "as inspired b& the rulin% of this Court in the pre("arcase of People vs. Estipona decided on Nove'ber #0, #B0/. +o"ever, in the case ofPeople vs. 3uan, $$ SCR #767 1March $B, #B862, this Court, spea!in% thru *ustice *.3. 9. Re&es, held that

Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or ac;uitted of a specificact of rec!less i'prudence, the accused 'a& not be prosecuted a%ain for that sa'eact. -or the essence of the ;uasi offense of cri'inal ne%li%ence under rticle 78< of theRevised Penal Code lies in the e>ecution of an i'prudent or ne%li%ent act that, ifintentionall& 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 theoffense. nd, as the careless act is sin%le, "hether the inurious result should affect oneperson or several persons, the offense 1cri'inal ne%li%ence2 re'ains one and thesa'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 inuries throu%hrec!less i'prudence, prevents his bein% prosecuted for serious ph&sical inuriesthrou%h rec!less i'prudence in the Court of -irst Instance of the province, "here bothchar%es are derived fro' the conse;uences of one and the sa'e vehicularaccident, because the second accusation places the appellant in second eopard& forthe sa'e offense.7B1E'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 stancein Silva, oined causes "ith the accused, a fact "hich did not escape the Court)sattention5

hen Solicitor ?eneral, no" *ustice -eli> V. Ma!asiar, in his MNI-ESION datedDece'ber #$, #B8B 1pa%e 6$ of the Rollo2 ad'its that the Court of ppeals erred in notsustainin% petitioner)s plea of double eopard& and sub'its that Aits affir'ator& decisiondated *anuar& $6, #B8B, in Cri'inal Case No. /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 vehicularcollision, "as char%ed in t"o separate Infor'ations "ith ASli%ht Ph&sical Inuries thruRec!less I'prudenceA and A+o'icide "ith Serious Ph&sical Inuries thru Rec!lessI'prudence.A -ollo"in% his ac;uittal of the for'er, the accused sou%ht the ;uashal ofthe 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
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt41


6/8

case. In affir'in% the trial court, "e ;uoted "ith approval its anal&sis of the issuefollo"in% Dia@ and its pro%en& People v. 3el%a50$

On *une $8, #B > > 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 ofph&sical inuries throu%h rec!less i'prudence arisin% fro' a collision bet"een the t"oauto'obiles driven b& the' 1Cri'. Case No. 662. =ithout the aforesaid co'plainthavin% been dis'issed or other"ise disposed of, t"o other cri'inal co'plaints "erefiled in the sa'e ustice of the peace court, in connection "ith the sa'e collision onefor da'a%e to propert& throu%h rec!less i'prudence 1Cri'. Case No. B > >

> > > >

he fore%oin% lan%ua%e of the Supre'e Court also disposes of the contention of theprosecutin% attorne& that the char%e for sli%ht ph&sical inuries throu%h rec!lessi'prudence could not have been oined "ith the char%e for ho'icide "ith seriousph&sical inuries throu%h rec!less i'prudence in this case, in vie" of the provisions ofrt. 06 of the Revised Penal Code, as a'ended. he prosecution)s contention 'i%ht betrue. 3ut neither "as the prosecution obli%ed to first prosecute the accused for sli%htph&sical inuries throu%h rec!less i'prudence before pressin% the 'ore serious char%eof ho'icide "ith serious ph&sical inuries throu%h rec!less i'prudence. +avin% firstprosecuted the defendant for the lesser offense in the *ustice of the Peace Court ofMe&caua&an, 3ulacan, "hich ac;uitted the defendant, the prosecutin% attorne& is notno" in a position to press in this case the 'ore serious char%e of ho'icide "ith seriousph&sical inuries throu%h rec!less i'prudence "hich arose out of the sa'e alle%edrec!less i'prudence of "hich the defendant have been previousl& cleared b& theinferior court.07

Si%nificantl&, the Solicitor ?eneral had ur%ed us in Silva to ree>a'ine 3el%a 1andhence, Dia@2 Afor the purpose of deli'itin% or clarif&in% its application.A00=e declinedthe 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 *Pcourt for Sli%ht Ph&sical Inuries, thru Rec!less I'prudence. In the sa'e breath saidState, thru the Solicitor ?eneral, ad'its that the facts of the case at bar, fall s;uarel& onthe 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
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html#fnt44


7/8

upon certain considerations for the purpose of deli'itin% or clarif&in% its application. =efind, 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 nopractical 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/, #Bcludin% fro' its

operation li%ht felonies082: and 1$2 "hen an offense is a necessar& 'eans forco''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& forthe '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 careor foresi%ht > > >,A04a 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 'oreconse;uences.

Ordinaril&, these t"o provisions "ill operate s'oothl&. rticle 06 "or!s to co'bine in asin%le prosecution 'ultiple intentional cri'es fallin% under itles #(#7, 3oo! II of theRevised Penal Code, "hen proper: rticle 78< %overns the prosecution of i'prudentacts and their conse;uences. +o"ever, the co'ple>ities of hu'an interaction canproduce a h&brid ;uasi(offense not fallin% under either 'odels that of a sin%le cri'inalne%li%ence resultin% in 'ultiple non(cri'e da'a%es to persons and propert& "ithvar&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 prosecutedJShould 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%lechar%e, collectivel& alle%in% all the conse;uences of the sin%le ;uasi(cri'e, to bepenali@ed separatel& follo"in% the sche'e of penalties under rticle 78clusive ori%inal urisdiction to i'pose the 'ost seriouspenalt& under rticle 78< "hich is prision correccional in its 'ediu' period.

nder this approach, the issue of double eopard& "ill not arise if the Aco'ple>in%A ofacts 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. heissue of double eopard& arises if one of the resultin% acts is penali@ed as a li%htoffense and the other acts are penali@ed as %rave or less %rave offenses, in "hich caserticle 06 is not dee'ed to appl& and the act penali@ed as a li%ht offense is triedseparatel& 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 ofall the effects of the ;uasi(cri'e collectivel& alle%ed in one char%e, re%ardless of theirnu'ber or severit&, > reads as follo"s5

=hen the e>ecution of the act covered b& this article shall have onl& resulted inda'a%e to the propert& of another, the offender shall be punished b& a f ine ran%in%fro' an a'ount e;ual to the value of said da'a%e to three ti'es such value, but "hichshall in no case be less than $< pesos.

he above(;uoted provision si'pl& 'eans that if there is onl& da'a%e to propert& thea'ount fi>ed therein shall be i'posed, but if there are also ph&sical inuries thereshould be an additional penalt& for the latter. he infor'ation cannot be split into t"o:one for the ph&sical inuries, and another for the da'a%e to propert&, > > >.


8/8

Evidentl&, these approaches, "hile parallel, are irreconcilable. Coherence in this fieldde'ands choosin% one fra'e"or! over the other. Either 1#2 "e allo" the Aco'ple>in%Aof a sin%le ;uasi(cri'e b& brea!in% its resultin% acts into separate offenses 1e>cept forli%ht felonies2, thus re(conceptuali@e a ;uasi(cri'e, abandon its present fra'in% underrticle 78in% of %rave or less %rave felonies. his sa'e ar%u'ent"as considered and reected b& this Court in the case of People vs. Silva > > >5

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 inuries throu%h rec!less i'prudencebefore pressin% the 'ore serious char%e of ho'icide "ith serious ph&sical inuriesthrou%h rec!less i'prudence. +avin% first prosecuted the defendant for the lesseroffense in the *ustice of the Peace Court of Me&caua&an, 3ulacan, "hich ac;uitted thedefendant, 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 inuries throu%h rec!lessi'prudence "hich arose out of the sa'e alle%ed rec!less i'prudence of "hich thedefendant has been previousl& cleared b& the inferior court.

=e 'ust perforce rule that the e>oneration of this appellant > > > b& the *ustice of thePeace > > > of the char%e of sli%ht ph&sical inuries throu%h rec!less i'prudence,

prevents his bein% prosecuted for serious ph&sical inuries throu%h rec!lessi'prudence in the Court of -irst Instance of the province, "here both char%es arederived fro' the conse;uences of one and the sa'e vehicular accident, because thesecond accusation places the appellant in second eopard& for the sa'eoffense.

01 Aguilar v. San Pedro (2010)

Documents

Transcript of 01 Aguilar v. San Pedro (2010)