Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

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.
G.R. No. 172716 | November 17, 2010 | Carpio, J.
Application of Penalties

DOCTRINE: 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.

FACTS:
 Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, Petitioner Jason Ivler (Ivler) was
charged before MeTC of Pasig City with 2 separate offenses: 
o (1) reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries
sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce; and 
o (2) reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for
the death of Respondent Evangeline Ponce’s husband Nestor C. Ponce and
damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle.
 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 finding no identity of offenses in the 2
cases. 
 (RTC): Denied Ivler’s Petition for Certiorari in dismissing his Motion to Quash
grounded on Ivler’s forfeiture of standing to maintain S.C.A. No. 2803 arising
from the MeTC’s order to arrest petitioner for his non-appearance at the
arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366. 
 IVLER’S CONTENTION: 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

ISSUE:
Whether or not Ivler’s 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) 

HELD:
YES, thus, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the RTC. Ivler’s 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. 

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.

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.

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.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen