021 Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro

8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 635
G.R. No. 172716. November 17, 2010.*
JASON IVLER y AGUILAR, petitioner, vs. HON. MARIA

ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Judge of the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, and
EVANGELINE PONCE, respondents.
Criminal Procedure; Dismissals of appeals grounded on the

appellant’s escape from custody or violation of the terms of his bail
bond are governed by the second paragraph of Section 8, Rule 124,
in relation to Section 1, Rule 125, of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure.—Dismissals of appeals grounded on the appellant’s
escape from custody or violation of the terms of his bail bond are
governed by the second paragraph of Section 8, Rule 124, in
relation to Section 1, Rule 125, of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure authorizing this Court or the Court of Appeals to “also,
upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if
the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail or
flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.” The
“appeal” contemplated in Section 8 of Rule 124 is a suit to review
judgments of convictions.
Same; Arraignment; Under Section 21, Rule 114 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant’s absence
merely renders his bondsman potentially liable on its bond.—The
mischief in the RTC’s treatment of petitioner’s non-appearance at
his arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366 as proof of his loss of
standing becomes more evident when one considers the Rules of
Court’s treatment of a defendant who absents himself from post-
arraignment hearings. Under Section 21, Rule 114 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant’s absence merely
renders his bondsman potentially liable on its bond (subject to
cancellation should the bondsman fail to produce the accused
within 30 days); the defendant retains his standing and, should he
fail to surrender, will be tried in absentia and could be convicted
or acquitted. Indeed, the 30-day period granted to the bondsman
to produce the accused underscores the fact that mere non-
appearance does not ipso facto convert the accused’s status to that
of a fugitive without standing.
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c6fc3e4856a0b1542003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/35
* SECOND DIVISION.
192
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro
Same; Double Jeopardy; The doctrine that reckless

imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself
and not 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 the Court’s unbroken chain of
jurisprudence on double jeopardy as applied to Article 365 starting
with People v. Diaz, decided in 1954.—The doctrine that reckless
imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself
and not 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 as applied to Article 365
starting with People v. Diaz, decided in 1954. There, a full Court,
speaking through Mr. Justice Montemayor, ordered the dismissal
of a case for “damage to property thru reckless imprudence”
because a prior case against the same accused for “reckless
driving,” arising from the same act upon which the first
prosecution was based, had been dismissed earlier. Since then,
whenever the same legal question was brought before the Court,
that is, whether prior conviction or acquittal of reckless
imprudence bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-
offense, regardless of the consequences alleged for both charges,
the Court unfailingly and consistently answered in the
affirmative in People v. Belga (promulgated in 1957 by the Court
en banc, per Reyes, J.), Yap v. Lutero (promulgated in 1959,
unreported, per Concepcion, J.), People v. Narvas (promulgated in
1960 by the Court en banc, per Bengzon J.), People v. Silva, 4
SCRA 95 (1962), (promulgated in 1962 by the Court en banc, per
Paredes, J.), People v. Macabuhay, 16 SCRA 239 (1966),
(promulgated in 1966 by the Court en banc, per Makalintal, J.),
People v. Buan, 22 SCRA 1383 (1968), (promulgated in 1968 by
the Court en banc, per Reyes, J.B.L., acting C. J.), Buerano v.
Court of Appeals, 115 SCRA 82 (1982), (promulgated in 1982 by
the Court en banc, per Relova, J.), and People v. City Court of
Manila, 121 SCRA 637 (1983), (promulgated in 1983 by the First
Division, per Relova, J.). These cases uniformly barred the second
prosecutions as constitutionally impermissible under the Double

Jeopardy Clause.
Same; Same; Reason for this consistent stance of extending the
constitutional protection under the Double Jeopardy Clause to
quasi-offenses was best articulated by Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes in
Buan.—
193
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 193
The reason for this consistent stance of extending the

constitutional protection under the Double Jeopardy Clause to
quasi-offenses was best articulated by Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes in
Buan, where, in barring a subsequent prosecution for “serious
physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless
imprudence” because of the accused’s prior acquittal of “slight
physical injuries thru reckless imprudence,” with both charges
grounded on the same act, the Court 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. x x x.
Criminal Law; Complex Crimes; Quasi-offenses; Article 48 is a
procedural device allowing single prosecution of multiple felonies
falling under either of two categories: (1) when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies (thus excluding
from its operation light felonies); and (2) when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other; Article 365 is a
substantive rule penalizing not an act, defined as a felony but the
mental attitude xxx behind the act, the dangerous recklessness,
lack of care or foresight xxx, a single mental attitude regardless of
the resulting consequences.—The confusion bedeviling the
question posed in this petition, to which the MeTC succumbed,
stems from persistent but awkward attempts to harmonize
conceptually incompatible substantive and procedural rules in
criminal law, namely, Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi-

offenses and Article 48 on complexing of crimes, both under the
Revised Penal Code. Article 48 is a procedural device allowing
single prosecution of multiple felonies falling under either of two
categories: (1) when a single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies (thus excluding from its operation light
felonies); and (2) when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other. The legislature crafted this procedural tool
to benefit the
194
accused who, in lieu of serving multiple penalties, will only serve

the maximum of the penalty for the most serious crime. In
contrast, 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,” a
single mental attitude regardless of the resulting consequences.
Thus, Article 365 was crafted as one quasi-crime resulting in one
or more consequences.
Same; Same; Same; Court holds that prosecutions under
Article 365 should proceed from a single charge regardless of the
number or severity of the consequences; There shall be no splitting
of charges under Article 365, and only one information shall be
filed in the same first level court.—We hold that prosecutions
under Article 365 should proceed from a single charge regardless
of the number or severity of the consequences. In imposing
penalties, the judge will do no more than apply the penalties
under Article 365 for each consequence alleged and proven. In
short, there shall be no splitting of charges under Article 365, and
only one information shall be filed in the same first level court.
Same; Same; Same; If it is so minded, Congress can re-craft
Article 365 by extending to quasi-crimes the sentencing formula of
Article 48 so that only the most severe penalty shall be imposed
under a single prosecution of all resulting acts, whether penalized
as grave, less grave or light offenses.—Our ruling today secures for
the accused facing an Article 365 charge a stronger and simpler
protection of their constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy
Clause. True, they are thereby denied the beneficent effect of the
favorable sentencing formula under Article 48, but any
disadvantage thus caused is more than compensated by the
certainty of non-prosecution for quasi-crime effects qualifying as
“light offenses” (or, as here, for the more serious consequence
prosecuted belatedly). If it is so minded, Congress can re-craft

Article 365 by extending to quasi-crimes the sentencing formula
of Article 48 so that only the most severe penalty shall be imposed
under a single prosecution of all resulting acts, whether penalized
as grave, less grave or light offenses. This will still keep intact the
distinct concept of quasi-offenses. Meanwhile, the lenient
schedule of penalties under Article 365, befitting crimes occupying
a lower rung of culpability, should cushion the effect of this
ruling.
195
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 195

PETITION for review on certiorari of the orders of the

Regional Trial Court of Pasig City.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Edwardson Ong for petitioner.
Jan Abegail Ponce and Terencio Angel De Dios Martija
& Chipeco for private respondent.
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
The petition seeks the review1 of the Orders2 of the

Regional Trial Court of Pasig City affirming sub-silencio a
lower court’s ruling finding inapplicable the Double
Jeopardy Clause to bar a second prosecution for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to
Property. This, despite the accused’s previous conviction for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries
arising from the same incident grounding the second
prosecution.
The Facts
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 (Criminal Case No.
82367) for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L.
Ponce (respondent Ponce); and (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. Petitioner posted bail for his temporary

release in both cases.
_______________
1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

2 Dated 2 February 2006 and 2 May 2006.
196

On 7 September 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the

charge in Criminal Case No. 82367 and was meted out the
penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction,
petitioner moved to quash the Information in Criminal
Case No. 82366 for placing him in jeopardy of second
punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence.
The MeTC refused quashal, finding no identity of
offenses in the two cases.3
After unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration, petitioner
elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig
City, Branch 157 (RTC), in a petition for certiorari (S.C.A.
No. 2803). Meanwhile, petitioner sought from the MeTC
the suspension of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366,
including the arraignment on 17 May 2005, invoking S.C.A.
No. 2803 as a prejudicial question. 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.4 Seven days later, the
MeTC issued a resolution denying petitioner’s motion to
suspend proceedings and postponing his arraignment until
after his arrest.5 Petitioner sought reconsideration but as of
the filing of this petition, the motion remained unresolved.
Relying on the arrest order against petitioner,
respondent Ponce sought in the RTC the dismissal of
S.C.A. No. 2803 for petitioner’s loss of standing to maintain
the suit. Petitioner contested the motion.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
In an Order dated 2 February 2006, the RTC dismissed

S.C.A. No. 2803, narrowly grounding its ruling on
petitioner’s forfeiture of standing to maintain S.C.A. No.
2803 arising
_______________
3 In a Resolution dated 4 October 2004.

4 In an Order dated 17 May 2005 (Records, p. 142).
5 In a Resolution dated 24 May 2005.
197
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 197

from the MeTC’s order to arrest petitioner for his non-

appearance at the arraignment in Criminal Case No.
82366. Thus, without reaching the merits of S.C.A. No.
2803, the RTC effectively affirmed the MeTC. Petitioner
sought reconsideration but this proved unavailing.6
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner denies absconding. He explains that his
petition in S.C.A. No. 2803 constrained him to forego
participation in the proceedings in Criminal Case No.
82366. Petitioner distinguishes his case from the line of
jurisprudence sanctioning dismissal of appeals for
absconding appellants because his appeal before the RTC
was a special civil action seeking a pre-trial relief, not a
post-trial appeal of a judgment of conviction.7
Petitioner laments the RTC’s failure to reach the merits
of his petition in S.C.A. 2803. Invoking jurisprudence,
petitioner argues that his constitutional right not to be
placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense bars his prosecution in Criminal Case No. 82366,
having been previously convicted in Criminal Case No.
82367 for the same offense of reckless imprudence charged
in Criminal Case No. 82366. Petitioner submits that the
multiple consequences of such crime are material only to
determine his penalty.
Respondent Ponce finds no reason for the Court to
disturb the RTC’s decision forfeiting petitioner’s standing
to maintain his petition in S.C.A. 2803. On the merits,
respondent Ponce calls the Court’s attention to
jurisprudence holding that light offenses (e.g. slight
physical injuries) cannot be complexed under Article 48 of
the Revised Penal Code with grave or less grave felonies
(e.g. homicide). Hence, the prosecution was obliged to
separate the charge in Criminal Case No. 82366 for the
slight physical injuries from Criminal Case No. 82367 for
the homicide and damage to property.
_______________
6 Denied in an Order dated 2 May 2006.
7 Rollo, pp. 30-33.
198

In the Resolution of 6 June 2007, we granted the Office

of the Solicitor General’s motion not to file a comment to
the petition as the public respondent judge is merely a
nominal party and private respondent is represented by
counsel.
The Issues
Two questions are presented for resolution: (1) whether

petitioner forfeited his standing to seek relief in S.C.A.
2803 when the MeTC ordered his arrest following his non-
appearance at the arraignment in Criminal Case No.
82366; and (2) if in the negative, whether petitioner’s
constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars
further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366.
The Ruling of the Court
We hold that (1) petitioner’s non-appearance at the

arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366 did not divest him
of personality to maintain the petition in S.C.A. 2803; and
(2) the protection afforded by the Constitution shielding
petitioner from prosecutions placing him in jeopardy of
second punishment for the same offense bars further
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366.
Petitioner’s Non-appearance at the Arraignment in

Criminal Case No. 82366 did not Divest him of
Standing to Maintain the Petition in S.C.A. 2803
Dismissals of appeals grounded on the appellant’s

escape from custody or violation of the terms of his bail
bond are governed by the second paragraph of Section 8,
Rule 124,8 in
_______________
8 The provision states: “Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure

to prosecute.—x x x x
The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu
proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison
199
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 199

relation to Section 1, Rule 125, of the Revised Rules on

Criminal Procedure authorizing this Court or the Court of
Appeals to “also, upon motion of the appellee or motu
proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from
prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign
country during the pendency of the appeal.” The “appeal”
contemplated in Section 8 of Rule 124 is a suit to review
judgments of convictions.
The RTC’s dismissal of petitioner’s special civil action
for certiorari to review a pre-arraignment ancillary
question on the applicability of the Due Process Clause to
bar proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366 finds no basis
under procedural rules and jurisprudence. The RTC’s
reliance on People v. Esparas9 undercuts the cogency of its
ruling because Esparas stands for a proposition contrary to
the RTC’s ruling. There, the Court granted review to an
appeal by an accused who was sentenced to death for
importing prohibited drugs even though she jumped bail
pending trial and was thus tried and convicted in absentia.
The Court in Esparas treated the mandatory review of
death sentences under Republic Act No. 7659 as an
exception to Section 8 of Rule 124.10
The mischief in the RTC’s treatment of petitioner’s non-
appearance at his arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366
as proof of his loss of standing becomes more evident when
one considers the Rules of Court’s treatment of a defendant
who absents himself from post-arraignment hearings.
Under Section 21, Rule 11411 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure,
_______________
or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the

pendency of the appeal.”
9 329 Phil. 339; 260 SCRA 539 (1996).

10 Id., at p. 350; p. 549.
11 The provision states: “Forfeiture of bail.—When the presence of the
accused is required by the court or these Rules, his bondsmen shall be
notified to produce him before the court on a given date and time. If the
accused fails to appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared
forfeited and the bondsmen given thirty (30) days within which to produce
their principal and to show why no judg-
200

the defendant’s absence merely renders his bondsman

potentially liable on its bond (subject to cancellation should
the bondsman fail to produce the accused within 30 days);
the defendant retains his standing and, should he fail to
surrender, will be tried in absentia and could be convicted
or acquitted. Indeed, the 30-day period granted to the
bondsman to produce the accused underscores the fact that
mere non-appearance does not ipso facto convert the
accused’s status to that of a fugitive without standing.
Further, the RTC’s observation that petitioner provided
“no explanation why he failed to attend the scheduled
proceeding”12 at the MeTC is belied by the records. Days
before the arraignment, petitioner sought the suspension of
the MeTC’s proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366 in
light of his petition with the RTC in S.C.A. No. 2803.
Following the MeTC’s refusal to defer arraignment (the
order for which was released days after the MeTC ordered
petitioner’s arrest), petitioner sought reconsideration. His
motion remained unresolved as of the filing of this petition.
_______________
ment should be rendered against them for the amount of their bail. Within
the said period, the bondsmen must:
(a) produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-
production; and
(b) explain why the accused did not appear before the court when
first required to do so.
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against
the bondsmen, jointly and severally, for the amount of the bail. The court
shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen,
unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted.”
12 Rollo, p. 40.
201
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 201

Petitioner’s Conviction in Criminal Case No. 82367

Bars his Prosecution in Criminal Case No. 82366
The accused’s negative constitutional right not to be

“twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense”13 protects him from, among others, post-conviction
prosecution for the same offense, with the prior verdict
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction upon a valid
information.14 It is not disputed that petitioner’s conviction
in Criminal Case No. 82367 was rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction upon a valid charge. Thus, the case
turns on the question whether Criminal Case No. 82366
and Criminal Case No. 82367 involve the “same offense.”
Petitioner adopts the affirmative view, submitting that the
two cases concern the same offense of reckless imprudence.
The MeTC ruled otherwise, finding that Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries is an
entirely separate offense from Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property “as the
[latter] requires proof of an additional fact which the other
does not.”15
We find for petitioner.
Reckless Imprudence is a Single
Crime, its Consequences on Persons
and Property are Material Only to
Determine the Penalty
The two charges against petitioner, arising from the
same facts, were prosecuted under the same provision of
the Re-
_______________
13 Section 21, Article III, 1987 Constitution.

14 Section 7, Rule 117 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The right
has, of course, broader scope to cover not only prior guilty pleas but also
acquittals and unconsented dismissals to bar prosecutions for the same,
lesser or graver offenses covered in the initial proceedings (id.)
15 Rollo, p. 97.
202

vised Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article 365 defining

and penalizing quasi-offenses. The text of the provision
reads:
“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 prision 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; if it would have constituted a light felony, the
penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period 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 twenty-five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred 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 sixty-four.
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, to death of a person shall be caused, in
which case the defendant shall be punished by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
203
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 203

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice,

doing or failing 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.

The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this
article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the
spot to the injured parties such help as may be in this hand to
give.”
Structurally, these nine paragraphs are collapsible into

four sub-groupings relating to (1) the penalties attached to
the quasi-offenses of “imprudence” and “negligence”
(paragraphs 1-2); (2) a modified penalty scheme for either
or both quasi-offenses (paragraphs 3-4, 6 and 9); (3) a
generic rule for trial courts in imposing penalties
(paragraph 5); and (4) the definition of “reckless
imprudence” and “simple imprudence” (paragraphs 7-8).
Conceptually, quasi-offenses penalize “the mental attitude
or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness,
lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia punible,”16 unlike
willful offenses which punish the intentional criminal act.
These structural and conceptual features of quasi-offenses
set them apart from the mass of intentional crimes under
the first 13 Titles of Book II of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.
Indeed, the notion that quasi-offenses, whether reckless
or simple, are distinct species of crime, separately defined
and penalized under the framework of our penal laws, is
nothing new. As early as the middle of the last century, we
already sought to bring clarity to this field by rejecting in
Quizon v. Justice of the Peace of Pampanga the proposition
that “reck-
_______________
16 Quizon v. Justice of the Peace of Pampanga, 97 Phil. 342, 345 (1955)

(emphasis in the original).
204

less imprudence is not a crime in itself but simply a way of

committing it x x x”17 on three points of analysis: (1) the
object of punishment in quasi-crimes (as opposed to
intentional crimes); (2) the legislative intent to treat quasi-
crimes as distinct offenses (as opposed to subsuming them
under the mitigating circumstance of minimal intent) and;
(3) the different penalty structures for quasi-crimes and
intentional crimes:
“The proposition (inferred from Art. 3 of the Revised Penal

Code) that “reckless imprudence” is not a crime in itself but
simply a way of committing it and merely determines a lower
degree of criminal liability is too broad to deserve unqualified
assent. There are crimes that by their structure cannot be
committed through imprudence: murder, treason, robbery,
malicious mischief, etc. In truth, criminal negligence in our
Revised Penal Code is treated as a mere quasi offense, and dealt
with separately from willful offenses. It is not a mere question of
classification or terminology. In intentional crimes, the act itself is
punished; in negligence or imprudence, what is principally
penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the
dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia
punible. x x x x
Were criminal negligence but a modality in the commission of
felonies, operating only to reduce the penalty therefor, then it
would be absorbed in the mitigating circumstances of Art. 13,
specially the lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as the one
actually committed. Furthermore, the theory would require that
the corresponding penalty should be fixed in proportion to the
penalty prescribed for each crime when committed willfully. For
each penalty for the willful offense, there would then be a
corresponding penalty for the negligent variety. But instead, our
Revised Penal Code (Art. 365) fixes the penalty for reckless
imprudence at arresto mayor maximum, to prision correccional
[medium], if the willful act would constitute a grave felony,
notwithstanding that the penalty for the latter could range all the
way from prision mayor to death, according to the case. It can be
seen that the actual penalty for criminal negligence bears no
relation
_______________
17 Id.
205
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 205

to the individual willful crime, but is set in relation to a whole

class, or series, of crimes.”18 (Emphasis supplied)
This explains why the technically correct way to allege

quasi-crimes is to state that their commission results in
damage, either to person or property.19
Accordingly, we found the Justice of the Peace in Quizon
without jurisdiction to hear a case for “Damage to Property
through Reckless Imprudence,” its jurisdiction being
limited to trying charges for Malicious Mischief, an

intentional crime conceptually incompatible with the
element of imprudence obtaining in quasi-crimes.
Quizon, rooted in Spanish law20 (the normative ancestry
_______________
18 Id., at pp. 345-346.

19 We observed in Quizon: “Much of the confusion has arisen from the
common use of such descriptive phrases as ‘homicide through reckless
imprudence,’ and the like; when the strict technical offense is, more
accurately, ‘reckless imprudence resulting in homicide’; or ‘simple
imprudence causing damages to property.’ ’’ (Id., at p. 345; emphasis
supplied)
20 In People v. Buan, 131 Phil. 498, 500-502; 22 SCRA 1383, 1385-1386
(1968), which applied Quizon’s logic, the Court canvassed relevant
jurisprudence, local and Spanish:
[T]he 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 cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions. This has
been the constant ruling of the Spanish Supreme Court, and is also that of
this Court in its most recent decisions on the matter.
Thus, in People vs. Silva, L-15974, January 30, 1962, where as a result
of the same vehicular accident one man died, two persons were seriously
injured while another three suffered only slight physical injuries, we ruled
that the acquittal on a charge of slight physical
206

of our present day penal code) and since repeatedly

reiter-
_______________
injuries through reckless imprudence, was a bar to another prosecution for

homicide through reckless imprudence. In People vs. Diaz, L-6518, March
30, 1954, the ruling was that the dismissal by the Municipal Court of a
charge of reckless driving barred a second information of damage to
property through reckless imprudence based on the same negligent act of

the accused. In People vs, Belga, 100 Phil. 996, dismissal of an information
for physical injuries through needless imprudence as a result of a collision
between two automobiles was declared, to block two other prosecutions,
one for damage to property through reckless imprudence and another for
multiple physical injuries arising from the same collision. The same
doctrine was reasserted in Yap vs. Lutero, et al., L-12669, April 30, 1959.
In none of the cases cited did the Supreme Court regard as material that
the various offenses charged for the same occurrence were triable in
Courts of differing category, or that the complainants were not the
individuals.
As for the Spanish jurisprudence, Cuello Calon, in his Derecho Penal
(12th Ed.), Vol. I, p. 439, has this to say:
Aun cuando de un solo hecho imprudente se originen males diversos,
como el hecho culposo es uno solo, existe un solo delito de imprudencia.
Esta es jurisprudencia constante del Tribunal Supremo. De acuerdo con
esta doctrina el automovilista imprudente que atropella y causa lesiones a
dos personas y ademas daños, no respondera de dos delitos de lesiones y
uno de daños por imprudencia, sino de un solo delito culposo.
The said author cites in support of the text the following decisions of
the Supreme Court of Spain (footnotes 2 and 3).
x x x x
Si con el hecho imprudente se causa la muerte de una persona y
ademas se ocasionan daños, existe un solo hecho punible, pues uno solo
fue el acto, aun cuando deben apreciarse dos enorden a la responsabilidad
civil, 14 diciembre 1931 si a consecuencia de un solo acto imprudente se
produjeron tres delitos, dos de homicidio y uno de daños, como todos son
consecuencia de un solo acto culposo, no cabe penarlos por separado, 2
abril 1932. (Emphasis supplied)
207
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 207

ated,21 stands on solid conceptual foundation. The contrary

doctrinal pronouncement in People v. Faller22 that
“[r]eckless impudence is not a crime in itself x x x [but]
simply a way of committing it x x x,”23 has long been
abandoned when the Court en banc promulgated Quizon in
1955 nearly two decades after the Court decided Faller in
1939. Quizon rejected Faller’s conceptualization of quasi-
crimes by holding that quasi-crimes under Article 365 are
distinct species of crimes and not merely methods of
committing crimes. Faller found expression in post-Quizon
jurisprudence24 only by dint of lingering doctrinal confusion
arising from an indiscriminate
_______________
21 E.g. Samson v. Court of Appeals, 103 Phil. 277 (1958); People v.
Cano, 123 Phil. 1086; 17 SCRA 237 (1966); Pabulario v. Palarca, 129 Phil.
1; 21 SCRA 769 (1967); Corpus v. Paje, 139 Phil. 429; 28 SCRA 1062
(1969).
22 67 Phil. 529 (1939) (affirming a conviction for malicious mischief
upon a charge for “damage [to property] through reckless imprudence”). A
logical consequence of a Fallerian conceptualization of quasi-crimes is the
sanctioning of the split prosecution of the consequences of a single quasi
offense such as those allowed in El Pueblo de Filipinas v. Estipona, 70
Phil. 513 (1940) (finding the separate prosecutions of damage to property
and multiple physical injuries arising from the same recklessness in the
accused’s operation of a motor vehicle not violative of the Double Jeopardy
Clause).
23 67 Phil. 529 (1939).
24 E.g. Lontok v. Gorgonio, 178 Phil. 525, 528; 89 SCRA 632 (1979)
(holding that the “less grave offense” of “damage to property through
reckless imprudence” (for P2,340) cannot be complexed under Article 48 of
the penal code with a prescribed “ slight offense” of “lesiones leves through
reckless imprudence,” citing Faller); Arcaya v. Teleron, 156 Phil. 354, 362;
57 SCRA 363 (1974) (noting, by way of dicta in a ruling denying relief to
an appeal against the splitting of two charges for “less serious physical
injuries and damage to property amounting to P10,000 though reckless
imprudence” and “slight physical injuries though reckless imprudence,”
that the Quizon doctrine, as cited in Corpus v. Paje, 139 Phil. 429; 28
SCRA 1062 (1969) and People v. Buan, 131 Phil. 498; 22 SCRA 1383
(1968), “may not yet be settled in view of the contrary dictum” in Faller).
208

fusion of criminal law rules defining Article 365 crimes and

the complexing of intentional crimes under Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code which, as will be shown shortly, rests
on erroneous conception of quasi-crimes. Indeed, the
Quizonian conception of quasi-crimes undergirded a related
branch of jurisprudence applying the Double Jeopardy
Clause to quasi-offenses, barring second prosecutions for a
quasi-offense alleging one resulting act after a prior
conviction or acquittal of a quasi-offense alleging another
resulting act but arising from the same reckless act or
omission upon which the second prosecution was based.
Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless
Imprudence Bars Subsequent Prosecution
for the Same Quasi-Offense
The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365

is a single quasi-offense by itself and not 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 as applied to Article 365 starting with
People v. Diaz,25 decided in 1954. There, a full Court,
speaking through Mr. Justice Montemayor, ordered the
dismissal of a case for “damage to property thru reckless
imprudence” because a prior case against the same accused
for “reckless driving,” arising from the same act upon
which the first prosecution was based, had been dismissed
earlier. Since then, whenever the same legal question was
brought before the Court, that is, whether prior conviction
or acquittal of reckless imprudence bars subsequent
prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of the
consequences alleged for both charges, the Court
unfailingly and consistently answered in the affirmative in
People v.
_______________
25 94 Phil. 715 (1954).
209
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 209

Belga26 (promulgated in 1957 by the Court en banc, per

Reyes, J.), Yap v. Lutero27 (promulgated in 1959,
unreported, per Concepcion, J.), People v. Narvas28
(promulgated in 1960 by the Court en banc, per Bengzon
J.), People v. Silva29 (promulgated in 1962 by the Court en
banc, per Paredes, J.), People v. Macabuhay30 (promulgated
in 1966 by the Court en banc, per Makalintal, J.), People v.
Buan31 (promulgated in 1968 by the Court en banc, per
Reyes, J.B.L., acting C.J.), Buerano v. Court of Appeals32
(promul-
_______________
26 100 Phil. 996 (1957) (barring subsequent prosecutions for physical
injuries thru reckless imprudence and damage to property thru reckless
imprudence following an acquittal for “reckless imprudence with physical
injury”).
27 105 Phil. 1307 (1959) (Unrep.) (barring subsequent prosecution for
“serious physical injuries” following an acquittal for “reckless driving”).
28 107 Phil. 737 (1960) (barring subsequent prosecution for “damage to
property thru reckless imprudence” following a conviction for “multiple
slight and serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence.”)
29 No. L-15974, 30 January 1962, 4 SCRA 95 (barring subsequent
prosecution for “homicide thru reckless imprudence” following an acquittal
for “slight physical injuries thru reckless imprudence”).
30 123 Phil. 48; 16 SCRA 239 (1966) (barring subsequent prosecution
for “damage to property thru reckless imprudence” following an acquittal
for two counts of “slight physical injuries thru reckless imprudence.”)
for “serious physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless
imprudence” following an acquittal for “slight physical injuries thru
reckless imprudence”).
32 200 Phil. 486; 115 SCRA 82 (1982) (reversing a subsequent
conviction for “damage to property thru reckless imprudence” following a
conviction for “slight and serious physical injuries thru reckless
imprudence”).
for “homicide thru reckless imprudence” following a conviction for “serious
physical injuries thru reckless imprudence”).
210

gated in 1982 by the Court en banc, per Relova, J.), and

People v. City Court of Manila33 (promulgated in 1983 by
the First Division, per Relova, J.). These cases uniformly
barred the second prosecutions as constitutionally
impermissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The reason for this consistent stance of extending the
constitutional protection under the Double Jeopardy
Clause to quasi-offenses was best articulated by Mr.
Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Buan, where, in barring a
subsequent prosecution for “serious physical injuries and
damage to property thru reckless imprudence” because of
the accused’s prior acquittal of “slight physical injuries
thru reckless imprudence,” with both charges grounded on
the same act, the Court explained:34
“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.”35 x x x
(Emphasis supplied)
Evidently, the Diaz line of jurisprudence on double

jeopardy merely extended to its logical conclusion the
reasoning of Quizon.
There is in our jurisprudence only one ruling
going against this unbroken line of authority.
Preceding Diaz by more than a decade, El Pueblo de
Filipinas v. Estipona,36 decided by the pre-war colonial
Court in November 1940,
_______________
34 131 Phil. 498, 500; 22 SCRA 1383, 1385 (1968).

35 Id.
36 70 Phil. 513 (1940), also cited in other sources as People v. Estipona.
211
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 211

allowed the subsequent prosecution of an accused for

reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property
despite his previous conviction for multiple physical
injuries arising from the same reckless operation of a motor
vehicle upon which the second prosecution was based.
Estipona’s inconsistency with the post-war Diaz chain of
jurisprudence suffices to impliedly overrule it. At any rate,
all doubts on this matter were laid to rest in 1982 in
Buerano.37 There, we reviewed the Court of Appeals’
conviction of an accused for “damage to property for
reckless imprudence” despite his prior conviction for “slight
and less serious physical injuries thru reckless
imprudence,” arising from the same act upon which the
second charge was based. The Court of Appeals had relied
on Estipona. We reversed on the strength of Buan:38
“Th[e] view of the Court of Appeals was inspired by the ruling

of this Court in the pre-war case of People vs. Estipona decided on
November 14, 1940. However, in the case of People vs. Buan,

22 SCRA 1383 (March 29, 1968), this Court, speaking thru
Justice J. B. L. Reyes, held that—
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.
xxxx
_______________
37 Supra note 32.

38 Supra note 31.
212

. . . the exoneration of this appellant, Jose Buan, by the

Justice of the Peace (now Municipal) Court of Guiguinto,
Bulacan, of the charge of slight physical injuries through
reckless imprudence, prevents his being prosecuted for
serious physical injuries through reckless
imprudence in the Court of First Instance of the
province, where both charges are derived from the
consequences of one and the same vehicular
accident, because the second accusation places the
appellant in second jeopardy for the same offense.”39
(Emphasis supplied)
Thus, for all intents and purposes, Buerano had

effectively overruled Estipona.
It is noteworthy that the Solicitor General in Buerano,
in a reversal of his earlier stance in Silva, joined causes
with the accused, a fact which did not escape the Court’s
attention:
“Then Solicitor General, now Justice Felix V. Makasiar, in his

MANIFESTATION dated December 12, 1969 (page 82 of the
Rollo) admits that the Court of Appeals erred in not sustaining
petitioner’s plea of double jeopardy and submits that “its
affirmatory decision dated January 28, 1969, in Criminal Case
No. 05123-CR finding petitioner guilty of damage to property
through reckless imprudence should be set aside, without costs.”
He stressed that “if double jeopardy exists where the reckless act
resulted into homicide and physical injuries. then the same
consequence must perforce follow where the same reckless act
caused merely damage to property-not death-and physical injuries.
Verily, the value of a human life lost as a result of a vehicular
collision cannot be equated with any amount of damages caused
to a motors vehicle arising from the same mishap.”40 (Emphasis
supplied)
Hence, we find merit in petitioner’s submission that the

lower courts erred in refusing to extend in his favor the
mantle of protection afforded by the Double Jeopardy
Clause. A
_______________
39 Buerano v. Court of Appeals, 200 Phil. 486, 491; 115 SCRA 82, 85-86
(1982).
40 Id., at pp. 491-492; p. 86.
213
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 213

more fitting jurisprudence could not be tailored to

petitioner’s case than People v. Silva,41 a Diaz progeny.
There, the accused, who was also involved in a vehicular
collision, was charged in two separate Informations with
“Slight Physical Injuries thru Reckless Imprudence” and
“Homicide with Serious Physical Injuries thru Reckless
Imprudence.” Following his acquittal of the former, the
accused sought the quashal of the latter, invoking the
Double Jeopardy Clause. The trial court initially denied
relief, but, on reconsideration, found merit in the accused’s
claim and dismissed the second case. In affirming the trial
court, we quoted with approval its analysis of the issue
following Diaz and its progeny People v. Belga:42
“On June 26, 1959, the lower court reconsidered its Order of
May 2, 1959 and dismissed the case, holding:—
[T]he Court believes that the case falls squarely within the
doctrine of double jeopardy enunciated in People v. Belga,
x x x In the case cited, Ciriaco Belga and Jose Belga were
charged in the Justice of the Peace Court of Malilipot,
Albay, with the crime of physical injuries through reckless
imprudence arising from a collision between the two
automobiles driven by them (Crim. Case No. 88). Without
the aforesaid complaint having been dismissed or otherwise
disposed of, two other criminal complaints were filed in the
same justice of the peace court, in connection with the same
collision one for damage to property through reckless
imprudence (Crim. Case No. 95) signed by the owner of one
of the vehicles involved in the collision, and another for
multiple physical injuries through reckless imprudence
(Crim. Case No. 96) signed by the passengers injured in the
accident. Both of these two complaints were filed against
Jose Belga only. After trial, both defendants were acquitted
of the charge against them in Crim. Case No. 88. Following
his acquittal, Jose Belga moved to quash the complaint for
multiple physical injuries through reckless imprudence filed
_______________
41 No. L-15974, 30 January 1962, 4 SCRA 95.

42 Supra note 26.
214

against him by the injured passengers, contending that the

case was just a duplication of the one filed by the Chief of
Police wherein he had just been acquitted. The motion to
quash was denied and after trial Jose Belga was convicted,
whereupon he appealed to the Court of First Instance of
Albay. In the meantime, the case for damage to property
through reckless imprudence filed by one of the owners of
the vehicles involved in the collision had been remanded to
the Court of First Instance of Albay after Jose Belga had
waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation.
After such remand, the Provincial Fiscal filed in the Court
of First Instance two informations against Jose Belga, one
for physical injuries through reckless imprudence, and
another for damage to property through reckless
imprudence. Both cases were dismissed by the Court of
First Instance, upon motion of the defendant Jose Belga
who alleged double jeopardy in a motion to quash. On
appeal by the Prov. Fiscal, the order of dismissal was

affirmed by the Supreme Court in the following language:
The question for determination is whether the
acquittal of Jose Belga in the case filed by the chief of
police constitutes a bar to his subsequent prosecution
for multiple physical injuries and damage to property
through reckless imprudence.
In the case of Peo[ple] v. F. Diaz, G.R. No. L-6518, prom.
March 30, 1954, the accused was charged in the municipal
court of Pasay City with reckless driving under sec. 52 of
the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, for having driven an
automobile in a ῾fast and reckless manner ... thereby
causing an accident.’ After the accused had pleaded not
guilty the case was dismissed in that court ῾for failure of the
Government to prosecute’. But some time thereafter the city
attorney filed an information in the Court of First Instance
of Rizal, charging the same accused with damage to
property thru reckless imprudence. The amount of the
damage was alleged to be P249.50. Pleading double
jeopardy, the accused filed a motion, and on appeal by the
Government we affirmed
215
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 215

the ruling. Among other things we there said through Mr.

Justice Montemayor—
The next question to determine is the relation
between the first offense of violation of the Motor
Vehicle Law prosecuted before the Pasay City
Municipal Court and the offense of damage to
property thru reckless imprudence charged in the
Rizal Court of First Instance. One of the tests of
double jeopardy is whether or not the second offense
charged necessarily includes or is necessarily included
in the offense charged in the former complaint or
information (Rule 113, Sec. 9). Another test is
whether the evidence which proves one would prove
the other that is to say whether the facts alleged in
the first charge if proven, would have been sufficient
to support the second charge and vice versa; or
whether one crime is an ingredient of the other. x x x
x x x x
The foregoing language of the Supreme Court also
disposes of the contention of the prosecuting attorney that
the charge for slight physical injuries through reckless
imprudence could not have been joined with the charge for
homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless
imprudence in this case, in view of the provisions of Art. 48
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The prosecution’s
contention might be true. But neither was the prosecution
obliged to first prosecute the accused for slight physical
injuries through reckless imprudence before pressing the
more serious charge of homicide with serious physical
injuries through reckless imprudence. Having first
prosecuted the defendant for the lesser offense in the
Justice of the Peace Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan, which
acquitted the defendant, the prosecuting attorney is not
now in a position to press in this case the more serious
charge of homicide with serious physical injuries through
reckless imprudence which arose out of the same alleged
reckless imprudence
216

of which the defendant have been previously cleared by the

inferior court.43
Significantly, the Solicitor General had urged us in Silva

to reexamine Belga (and hence, Diaz) “for the purpose of
delimiting or clarifying its application.”44 We declined the
invitation, thus:
“The State in its appeal claims that the lower court erred in
dismissing the case, on the ground of double jeopardy, upon the
basis of the acquittal of the accused in the JP court for Slight
Physical Injuries, thru Reckless Imprudence. In the same breath
said State, thru the Solicitor General, admits that the facts of the
case at bar, fall squarely on the ruling of the Belga case x x x,
upon which the order of dismissal of the lower court was
anchored. The Solicitor General, however, urges a re-examination
of said ruling, upon certain considerations for the purpose of
delimiting or clarifying its application. We find, nevertheless, that
further elucidation or disquisition on the ruling in the Belga case,
the facts of which are analogous or similar to those in the present
case, will yield no practical advantage to the government. On one
hand, there is nothing which would warrant a delimitation or
clarification of the applicability of the Belga case. It was clear. On
the other, this Court has reiterated the views expressed in the
Belga case, in the identical case of Yap v. Hon. Lutero, etc., L-
12669, April 30, 1959.”45 (Emphasis supplied)
Article 48 Does not Apply to Acts Penalized

Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code
The confusion bedeviling the question posed in this
petition, to which the MeTC succumbed, stems from
persistent but awkward attempts to harmonize
conceptually incompatible substantive and procedural rules
in criminal law, namely, Article 365 defining and
penalizing quasi-offenses and Article 48 on complexing of
crimes, both under the Revised Penal
_______________
43 No. L-15974, 30 January 1962, 4 SCRA 95, 97-100 (internal citations

omitted).
44 Id., at p. 100.
45 Id.
217
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 217

Code. Article 48 is a procedural device allowing single

prosecution of multiple felonies falling under either of two
categories: (1) when a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies (thus excluding from its
operation light felonies46); and (2) when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other. The legislature
crafted this procedural tool to benefit the accused who, in
lieu of serving multiple penalties, will only serve the
maximum of the penalty for the most serious crime.
In contrast, 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.
Ordinarily, these two provisions will operate smoothly.
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.
However, the complexities of human interaction can
produce a hybrid quasi-offense not falling under either
models—that of a single criminal negligence resulting in
multiple non-crime damages to persons and property with
varying penalties corresponding to light, less grave or
grave offenses. The ensuing prosecutorial dilemma is
obvious: how should such a quasi-crime be prosecuted?

Should Article 48’s framework apply to “complex” the single
quasi-offense with its multiple (non-criminal) consequences
(excluding those amounting to light offenses which will be
tried separately)? Or should the prosecution proceed
_______________
46 Defined under Article 9, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as

amended, thus: “Light felonies are those infractions of law for the
commission of which a penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos or both is provided.”
47 Quizon v. Justice of the Peace of Pampanga, 97 Phil. 342, 345 (1955).
218

under a single charge, collectively alleging all the

consequences of the single quasi-crime, to be penalized
separately following the scheme of penalties under Article
365?
Jurisprudence adopts both approaches. Thus, one line of
rulings (none of which involved the issue of double
jeopardy) applied Article 48 by “complexing” one quasi-
crime with its multiple consequences48 unless one
consequence amounts to a light felony, in which case
charges were split by grouping, on the one hand, resulting
acts amounting to grave or less grave felonies and filing the
charge with the second level courts and, on the other hand,
resulting acts amounting to light felonies and filing the
charge with the first level courts.49 Expectedly,
_______________
48 E.g. People v. Lara, 75 Phil. 786 (1946) (involving “homicidio por
imprudencia temeraria” with several victims [or, roughly, “multiple
homicide thru reckless imprudence”]); People v. Agito, 103 Phil. 526 (1958)
(involving “triple homicide and serious physical injuries through reckless
imprudence”).
49 E.g. People v. Turla, 50 Phil. 1001 (1927) (sustaining a dismissal on
demurrer of a criminal case for the prosecutor’s failure to amend a charge
for “damage to property and of lesions leves [slight physical injuries]
through negligence and imprudence” to remove the charge for the slight
offense, under Article 89 of the penal code, the precursor of Article 48);
Arcaya v. Teleron, 156 Phil. 354; 57 SCRA 363 (1974) (finding no grave
abuse of discretion in the filing of separate charges for “less serious
physical injuries and damage to property amounting to P10,000 though

reckless imprudence” and “slight physical injuries though reckless
imprudence” arising from the same facts); Lontok v. Gorgonio, 178 Phil.
525; 89 SCRA 632 (1979) (granting a petition to split a single charge for
“reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple
[slight] physical injuries” by limiting the petitioner’s trial to “reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property”). See also Reodica v. Court of
Appeals, 354 Phil. 90; 292 SCRA 87 (1998) (holding that the “less grave
felony of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property” (for
P8,542) cannot be complexed under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
with “the light felony of reckless imprudence resulting in physical
injuries,” citing Lontok); People v. De Los Santos, 407 Phil. 724; 355 SCRA
415 (2001) (applying Article 48 of the penal code to hold the accused
219
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 219

this is the approach the MeTC impliedly sanctioned (and

respondent Ponce invokes), even though under Republic
Act No. 7691,50 the MeTC has now exclusive original
jurisdiction to impose the most serious penalty under
Article 365 which is prision correccional in its medium
period.
Under this approach, the issue of double jeopardy will
not arise if the “complexing” of acts penalized under Article
365 involves only resulting acts penalized as grave or less
grave felonies because there will be a single prosecution of
all the resulting acts. The issue of double jeopardy arises if
one of the resulting acts is penalized as a light offense and
the other acts are penalized as grave or less grave offenses,
in which case Article 48 is not deemed to apply and the act
penalized
_______________
liable for the “complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple

homicide with serious physical injuries and less serious physical injuries”
(upon an information charging “multiple murder, multiple frustrated
murder and multiple attempted murder.”) In a dicta, the decision stated
that separate informations should have been filed for the slight physical
injuries the victims sustained which cannot be complexed with the more
serious crimes under Article 48.)
50 Section 2 of RA 7691 provides: “Section 2. Section 32 of [Batas

Pambansa Blg. 129] is hereby amended to read as follows:
‘Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal

Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases.
—Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction
of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
x x x x
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the
amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or
other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such
offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or
amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving
damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof.’” (Underlining supplied)
220

as a light offense is tried separately from the resulting acts

penalized as grave or less grave offenses.
The second jurisprudential path nixes Article 48 and
sanctions a single prosecution of all the effects of the quasi-
crime collectively alleged in one charge, regardless of their
number or severity,51 penalizing each consequence
separately. Thus, in Angeles v. Jose,52 we interpreted
paragraph three of Article 365, in relation to a charge
alleging “reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
property and less serious physical injuries,” as follows:
“[T]he third paragraph of said article, x x x reads as

follows:
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 damage to three
times such value, but which shall in no case be less than 25
pesos.
_______________
51 E.g. Angeles v. Jose, 96 Phil. 151 (1954) (reversing the ruling of the then
Court of First Instance of Manila which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a
complaint for “damage to property in the sum of P654.22, and with less serious
physical injuries through reckless negligence,” holding improper the splitting of
the charge). We relied on Angeles for our ruling in People v. Villanueva, 111 Phil.
897; 5 SCRA 672 (1962) resolving similar jurisdictional issue and People v. Cano,
123 Phil. 1086, 1090; 17 SCRA 237, 240 (1966) (reversing a dismissal order which
found the complexing of “damage to property with multiple [slight] physical
injuries through reckless imprudence” improper, holding that the Information did
not and could not have complexed the effect of a single quasi-offense per Quizon.
The Court noted that “it is merely alleged in the information that, thru reckless
negligence of the defendant, the bus driven by him hit another bus causing upon
some of its passengers serious physical injuries, upon others less serious physical
injuries and upon still others slight physical injuries, in addition to damage to
property”).
52 Angeles v. Jose, 96 Phil. 151, 152 (1954).
221
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 221

The above-quoted provision simply means that if there is

only damage to property the amount fixed therein shall be
imposed, but if there are also physical injuries there should
be an additional penalty for the latter. The information
cannot be split into two; one for the physical injuries, and
another for the damage to property, x x x.”53 (Emphasis
supplied)
By “additional penalty,” the Court meant, logically, the

penalty scheme under Article 365.
Evidently, these approaches, while parallel, are
irreconcilable. Coherence in this field demands choosing
one framework over the other. Either (1) we allow the
“complexing” of a single quasi-crime by breaking its
resulting acts into separate offenses (except for light
felonies), thus re-conceptualize a quasi-crime, abandon its
present framing under Article 365, discard its conception
under the Quizon and Diaz lines of cases, and treat the
multiple consequences of a quasi-crime as separate
intentional felonies defined under Titles 1-13, Book II
under the penal code; or (2) we forbid the application of
Article 48 in the prosecution and sentencing of quasi-
crimes, require single prosecution of all the resulting acts
regardless of their number and severity, separately
penalize each as provided in Article 365, and thus maintain
the distinct concept of quasi-crimes as crafted under Article
365, articulated in Quizon and applied to double jeopardy
adjudication in the Diaz line of cases.
A becoming regard of this Court’s place in our scheme of
government denying it the power to make laws constrains
us to keep inviolate the conceptual distinction between
quasi-crimes and intentional felonies under our penal code.

Article
_______________
53 Thus, we were careful to label the crime in question as “what may be

called a complex crime of physical injuries and damage to property” (id.,
emphasis supplied), because our prescription to impose “additional
penalty” for the second consequence of less serious physical injuries, defies
the sentencing formula under Article 48 requiring imposition of “the
penalty for the most serious crime x x x the same to be applied in its
maximum period.”
222

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. This is why, way back in
1968 in Buan, we rejected the Solicitor General’s argument
that double jeopardy does not bar a second prosecution for
slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence
allegedly because the charge for that offense could not be
joined with the other charge for serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence following Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code:
“The Solicitor General stresses in his brief that the charge for
slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence could not be
joined with the accusation for serious physical injuries through
reckless imprudence, because Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code allows only the complexing of grave or less grave felonies.
This same argument was considered and rejected by this
Court in the case of People vs. [Silva] x x x:
[T]he prosecution’s contention might be true. But neither
was the prosecution obliged to first prosecute the accused
for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence
before pressing the more serious charge of homicide with
serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence.
Having first prosecuted the defendant for the lesser offense
in the Justice of the Peace Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan,
which acquitted the defendant, the prosecuting attorney is
not now in a position to press in this case the more serious
charge of homicide with serious physical injuries through
reckless imprudence which arose out of the same alleged

reckless imprudence of which the defendant has been
previously cleared by the inferior court.
[W]e must perforce rule that the exoneration of this appellant x
x x by the Justice of the Peace x x x of the charge of slight
physical injuries through reckless imprudence, prevents his being
prosecuted for serious physical injuries through reckless
imprudence in the Court of First Instance of the province, where
both charges are derived from the consequences of one and the
same vehicular accident,
223
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 223

because the second accusation places the appellant in second

jeopardy for the same offense.”54 (Emphasis supplied)
_______________
54 Supra note 31 at p. 502 (internal citation omitted). This also

explains why in People v. Cano we described as “not altogether accurate” a
trial court and a litigant’s assumption that a charge for “damage to
property with multiple [slight] physical injuries through reckless
imprudence” involved two crimes corresponding to the two effects of the
single quasi-crime albeit complexed as a single charge:
[A]ppellee and the lower court have seemingly assumed that said
information thereby charges two offenses, namely (1) slight physical
injuries thru reckless imprudence; and (2) damage to property, and
serious and less serious physical injuries, thru reckless negligence—which
are sought to be complexed. This assumption is, in turn, apparently
premised upon the predicate that the effect or consequence of defendants
negligence, not the negligence itself, is the principal or vital factor in said
offenses. Such predicate is not altogether accurate.
As early as July 28, 1955 this Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice J.B.L.
Reyes, had the occasion to state, in Quizon vs. Justice of the Peace of
Bacolor, Pampanga x x x, that:
The proposition (inferred from Art. 3 of the Revised Penal Code)
that “reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself but simply a way
of committing it and merely determines a lower degree of criminal
liability” is too broad to deserve unqualified assent. There are
crimes that by their structure can not be committed through
imprudence: murder, treason, robbery, malicious mischief, etc. In
truth, criminal negligence in our Revised Penal Code is treated as a
mere quasi-offense, and dealt separately from willful offenses. It is
not a mere question of classification or terminology. In intentional
crimes, the act itself is punished; in negligence or imprudence,
what is principally penalized is the mental attitude or condition

behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or
foresight, the “imprudencia punible.” Much of the confusion has
arisen from the common use of such descriptive phrases as
“homicide through reckless imprudence”, and the like; when the
strict technical offense is more accurately, “reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide”, or
224

Indeed, this is a constitutionally compelled choice. By

prohibiting the splitting of charges under Article 365,
irrespective of the number and severity of the resulting
acts, rampant occasions of constitutionally impermissible
second prosecutions are avoided, not to mention that scarce
state resources are conserved and diverted to proper use.
Hence, we hold that prosecutions under Article 365
should proceed from a single charge regardless of the
number or severity of the consequences. In imposing
penalties, the judge will do no more than apply the
penalties under Article 365 for each consequence alleged
and proven. In short, there shall be no splitting of charges
under Article 365, and only one information shall be filed
in the same first level court.55
Our ruling today secures for the accused facing an
Article 365 charge a stronger and simpler protection of
their constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy
Clause. True, they are thereby denied the beneficent effect
of the favorable sentencing formula under Article 48, but
any disadvantage thus caused is more than compensated
by the certainty of non-prosecution for quasi-crime effects
qualifying as “light offenses” (or, as here, for the more
serious consequence prosecuted belatedly). If it is so
minded, Congress can re-craft Article 365 by extending to
quasi-crimes the sentencing formula of Article 48 so that
only the most severe penalty shall be imposed under a
single prosecution of all resulting acts, whether penalized
as grave, less grave or light offenses. This will still keep
intact the distinct concept of quasi-offenses.
_______________
“simple imprudence causing damages to property.” (People v.

Cano, 123 Phil. 1086, 1090; 17 SCRA 237, 240 (1966), (Emphasis
supplied), reiterated in Pabulario v. Palarca, 129 Phil. 1; 21 SCRA
769 (1967) (reversing a lower court which quashed a charge

alleging reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and
multiple slight physical injuries).
55 See Section 32(2), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7691.
225
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 225

Meanwhile, the lenient schedule of penalties under

Article 365, befitting crimes occupying a lower rung of
culpability, should cushion the effect of this ruling.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We REVERSE
the Orders dated 2 February 2006 and 2 May 2006 of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 157. We
DISMISS the Information in Criminal Case No. 82366
against petitioner Jason Ivler y Aguilar pending with the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 71 on the
ground of double jeopardy.
Let a copy of this ruling be served on the President of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio-Morales,** Peralta, Abad and Mendoza, JJ.,

concur.
Petition granted, orders reversed.
Note.—The principle of double jeopardy finds no

application in administrative cases. (Cayao-Lasam vs.
Ramolete, 574 SCRA 439 [2008])
——o0o——
_______________
** Designated additional member per Raffle dated 22 September 2010.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

021 Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

021 Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

021 Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 635

G.R. No. 172716. November 17, 2010.*

JASON IVLER y AGUILAR, petitioner, vs. HON. MARIA

Criminal Procedure; Dismissals of appeals grounded on the

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro

Same; Double Jeopardy; The doctrine that reckless

prosecutions as constitutionally impermissible under the Double

VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 193

Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro

The reason for this consistent stance of extending the

criminal law, namely, Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi-

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro

accused who, in lieu of serving multiple penalties, will only serve

prosecuted belatedly). If it is so minded, Congress can re-craft

VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 195

PETITION for review on certiorari of the orders of the

The petition seeks the review1 of the Orders2 of the

Following a vehicular collision in August 2004,

Ponce’s vehicle. Petitioner posted bail for his temporary

1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On 7 September 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the

The Ruling of the Trial Court

In an Order dated 2 February 2006, the RTC dismissed

3 In a Resolution dated 4 October 2004.

VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 197

from the MeTC’s order to arrest petitioner for his non-

6 Denied in an Order dated 2 May 2006.

7 Rollo, pp. 30-33.

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In the Resolution of 6 June 2007, we granted the Office

Two questions are presented for resolution: (1) whether

The Ruling of the Court

We hold that (1) petitioner’s non-appearance at the

Petitioner’s Non-appearance at the Arraignment in

Dismissals of appeals grounded on the appellant’s

8 The provision states: “Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure

VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 199

relation to Section 1, Rule 125, of the Revised Rules on

or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the

9 329 Phil. 339; 260 SCRA 539 (1996).

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the defendant’s absence merely renders his bondsman

VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 201

Petitioner’s Conviction in Criminal Case No. 82367

The accused’s negative constitutional right not to be

13 Section 21, Article III, 1987 Constitution.

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

vised Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article 365 defining

“Imprudence and negligence.—Any person who, by reckless

mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its

VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 203

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice,

immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.

Structurally, these nine paragraphs are collapsible into

16 Quizon v. Justice of the Peace of Pampanga, 97 Phil. 342, 345 (1955)

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

less imprudence is not a crime in itself but simply a way of