Facts:
Petitioner Ivler was charged before the MTC for two separate offenses: Reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries (Criminal Case No. 82367) and reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage of property (Criminal Case No. 82366). The first offense for the injuries suffered by herein respondent and the second offense for the death of her husband and damage to the spouse’s vehicle. Ivler pleaded guilty on the first offense and meted public censure as penalty. He invokes this conviction as a ground in his motion to quash the information for the second offense contending it places him in double jeopardy for the same offense of reckless imprudence. MTC refused quashal of the information thus petitioner’s motion for certiorari was elevated before the RTC while moving for the suspension of the criminal case before the MTC pending resolution of the prejudicial question as subject of his motion for reconsideration at the RTC. MTC however proceeded with the criminal proceeding. The non-appearance of Ivler to the proceeding resulted to the cancellation of his bail and order of his arrest was issued. By virtue of this arrest order, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the motion for certiorari filed by Ivler on ground that he loss standing to maintain suit. RTC dismissed said petition on this ground thus this petition to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner loses his standing to maintain suit?
Whether or not the petitioner’s right against double jeopardy a bar to another prosecution on the second offense charged on Criminal Case No. 82366?
Ruling:
The court held that petitioner did not lose his standing to maintain his petition. The lower court based its ruling from Rule 124, Section 8, second par. that provides that an appeal may be dismissed when an appellant escapes from custody or violates the terms of his bail bond. The appeal contemplated in this section is applicable on a suit to review judgment of conviction. No judgment has yet been rendered against the petitioner. Section 21, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a defendant’s absence in a proceeding merely renders his bondman liable, subjecting the bond to cancellation if it fails to produce defendant before the court within 30 days. This does not ipso facto convert the standing of an accused as a fugitive to lose his standing before the court. Moreover, the court observed that contrary to the lower court contention that petitioner failed to attend the hearing without justified reason it failed to appreciate the fact that there is a pending motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner which was left unresolved by the lower court.
On the issue on double jeopardy, the two charges were prosecuted by the court under the provision of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code that penalizes quasi-offenses such as negligence. What this provision contemplates in quasi-offenses of criminal negligence is punishing the act of negligence that if intentionally done will constitute a criminal offense. Thus, the law punishes the negligent act and not the result thereof. It takes into account the gravity of the offenses in determining the penalty but not to qualify the substance of the offense. It treats a negligent act as single whether the injurious result affects one or several persons. The offense of criminal negligence remains as one and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions. The contention of the lower court to invoke Article 48 where light offenses such as slight physical injuries cannot be complexed with grave or less grave felony such as homicide that the court is compelled to separate both charges is untenable in this case. The principle of prosecuting quasi offenses remain intact in the case thus the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for 2 offenses of similar charges on reckless imprudence. His prosecution on the first offense thus bars another prosecution for the second offense by virtue of the principle of double jeopardy. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court.
No comments:
Post a Comment