Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    28 Ivler vs. San Pedro

    Uploaded by

    Mario Moreno

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    28 Ivler vs. San Pedro

    Uploaded by

    Mario Moreno
    4 views2 pages

    Original Title

    28-Ivler-vs.-San-Pedro

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4 views2 pages

    28 Ivler vs. San Pedro

    Uploaded by

    Mario Moreno

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    #28 Ivler vs.

    San Pedro

    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.
    CARPIO, J.:

    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.

    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.

    ISSUES:
    1. Whether petitioner forfeited his standing to seek relief from his petition for certiorari when
    the MTC ordered his arrest following his non-appearance at the arraignment in Reckless Imprudence
    Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent; and
    2. Whether petitioner’s constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further
    proceedings in Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of
    respondent Ponce’s husband.
    RULING:

    The Court found: 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 Revised Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article 365 defining and penalizing
    quasi-offenses 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 Code.

    Hence, it is held 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

    You might also like