|
Vehicular collision.
1 resulted in Slight Physical Injuries (Evangeline ponce) 2. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide
and Damage to Property (nestor ponce)
Accused
admitted guilt to first crime; moved that 2nd case was against
constitutional right against double jeopardy. YES. Reckless imprudence is a
single crime. Result in first bars prosecution of the second.
|
TOPIC: Imprudence
RATIONALE:
Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime, its Consequences on Persons and Property are Material Only to Determine the Penalty.
Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence Bars Subsequent Prosecution for the Same Quasi-Offense.
CRIMES:
(1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal Case No. 82367) for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent Ponce)
- pleaded guilty, meted with public censure
(2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property (Criminal Case No. 82366) for the death of respondent Ponce’s husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle.
- acquitted on double jeopardy
FACTS:
1. Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 71 (MeTC), with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent Ponce); and
(2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of respondent Ponce's husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponce's vehicle. Petitioner posted bail for his temporary release in both cases.
2. In 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge on the first delict and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, petitioner moved to quash the Information for the second delict for placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence.
3. The MeTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two cases.
4. The petitioner elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (RTC), in a petition for certiorari while Ivler sought from the MeTC the suspension of proceedings in criminal case, including the arraignment his arraignment as a prejudicial question.
5. Without acting on petitioner’s motion, the MeTC proceeded with the arraignment and, because of petitioner’s absence, cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest.
6. Seven days later, the MeTC issued a resolution denying petitioner’s motion to suspend proceedings and postponing his arraignment until after his arrest. Petitioner sought reconsideration but as of the filing of this petition, the motion remained unresolved.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner's constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings in the second Criminal Case of Reckless Imprudence.
HELD:
YES. Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime, its Consequences on Persons and Property are Material Only to Determine the Penalty. He already admitted his guilt to the first criminal case, thus barring prosecution of another case of similar nature. Since both cases, 1) Reckless imprudence resulting to Slight Physical Injuries and 2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property were prosecuted based on the same RPC Art. 365 which reads:
Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, [ a less grave felony, or a light felony, the penalty with corresponding penalties. ]
Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence Bars Subsequent Prosecution for the Same Quasi-Offense. PRevious cases uniformly barred the second prosecutions as constitutionally impermissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The Court also explained: Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and can not be split into different crimes and prosecutions.
Article 365 is a substantive rule penalizing not an act defined as a felony but “the mental attitude x x x behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight x x x,”[47] a single mental attitude regardless of the resulting consequences. Thus, Article 365 was crafted as one quasi-crime resulting in one or more consequences.
Article 48 works to combine in a single prosecution multiple intentional crimes falling under Titles 1-13, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, when proper; Article 365 governs the prosecution of imprudent acts and their consequences.
Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crimes under Article 365. It is conceptually impossible for a quasi-offense to stand for (1) a single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies; or (2) an offense which is a necessary means for committing another.
Hence, there shall be no splitting of charges under Article 365, and only one information shall be filed in the same first-level court.
Thus, second criminal case is DISMISSED on the ground of DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
------------------------
ADDITIONAL INFO:
ARTICLE 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more crimes, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
ARTICLE 365. Imprudence and Negligence. — Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but which shall in no case be less than 25 pesos.
A fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in article 62.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed, in the period which they may deem proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, the death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
Comments
Post a Comment