Jason Ivler y Aguilar v Peralta Abad et al GR No. 172716, Nov. 17, 2010

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.

Reodica v CA 292 SCRA 87

Facts:

Isabelita Reodica was allegedly recklessly driving a van and hit Bonsol causing him physical injuries and damage to property amounting to P 8,542.00. Three days after the accident a complaint was filed before the fiscal’s office against the petitioner. She was charged of "Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Slight Physical Injury." After pleading not guilty trial ensued. RTC of Makati rendered the decision convicting petitioner of "quasi offense of reckless imprudence, resulting in damage to property with slight physical injuries" with arresto mayor of 6 months imprisonment and a fine of P 13,542.00. Petitioner made an appeal before the CA which re-affirmed the lower court’s decision. In its motion for reconsideration, petitioner now assails that

1. the court erred in giving its penalty on complex damage to property and slight physical injuries both being light offenses over which the RTC has no jurisdiction and it can’t impose penalty in excess to what the law authorizes.
2. reversal of decision is still possible on ground of prescription or lack of jurisdiction.

Zaldivia v Reyes G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 277

Facts: A complaint was filed before the fiscal’s office constituting an offense in violation of a city ordinance. The fiscal did not file the complaint before the court immediately but instead filed it 3 months later. The defendant’s counsel filed a motion to quash on ground that the action to file the complaint has prescribed. The fiscal contends that the filing of the complaint before his office already interrupts the prescription period.