Ivler vs. San Pedro G.R. No.

172716 November 17, 2010

GR. No. 172716, November 17, 2010

FACTS:
Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler was charged before the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Pasig City (MeTC), with two separate offenses: (1) reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce; and (2) reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and damage to property for the death of respondent Ponces husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the
spouses Ponces vehicle.
Crimes charged: 1) reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries; and 2) reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide and damage to property
On September 7, 2004, Ivler pleaded guilty to the charge in reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, Ivler moved to quash the
Information of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for placing him in jeopardy of
second punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence.
MeTC: denied the motion to quash
RTC: denied Ivlers Petition for Certiorari in dismissing his Motion to Quash

ISSUE:
Whether or not Ivlers constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings in the
information charging him with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property (YES)
Defense: Ivler argues that his constitutional right not to be placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense bars his prosecution in reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property having been
previously convicted in reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries for the same offense.
Ivler submits that the multiple consequences of such crime are material only to determine his penalty

HELD:
The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the RTC. Petitioners conviction in the case of reckless imprudence
resulting in slight physical injuries bars his prosecution in criminal reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and
damage to property

1) Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime; its Consequences on Persons and Property are Material Only to
Determine the Penalty
Quasi-offenses penalize the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care
or foresight, the imprudencia punible, 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.
2) Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence Bars Subsequent Prosecution for the Same Quasi-
offense
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 cannot be split into different
crimes and prosecutions.

3) Article 48 Does Not Apply to Acts Penalized Under Article 365 of 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 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
behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, 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 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crime resulting in one or more 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.
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.