Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 172716 November 17, 2010JASON IVLER y AGUILAR, Petitioner, vs.ON. MARIA RO!ENA MO"ESTO#SAN PE"RO, J$%&e o'()e Me(ro*o+,(-. Tr,-+ Co$r(, /r-.0) 71, P-1,& C,(y, -.% EVANGELINE PONCE, Respondents.D E C I S I O NCARPIO, J.:he Casehepetitionsee!stherevie"#of theOrders$of theRe%ional rial Court of Pasi% Cit& affir'in% sub(silencioalo"er court)srulin%findin%inapplicabletheDouble*eopard& Clause to bar a second prosecution forRec!less I'prudence Resultin% in +o'icide andDa'a%e to Propert&. his, despite the accused)sprevious conviction for Rec!less I'prudence Resultin%in Sli%ht Ph&sical In,uries arisin% fro'the sa'eincident %roundin% the second prosecution.he -acts-ollo"in% a vehicular collision in .u%ust $//0,petitioner*asonIvler1petitioner2"aschar%edbeforetheMetropolitan rial Court of Pasi%Cit&,3ranch4#1MeC2, "ith t"o separate offenses5 1#2 Rec!lessI'prudence Resultin% in Sli%ht Ph&sical In,uries1Cri'inal CaseNo. 6$7842 for in,uriessustainedb&respondent Evan%eline 9. Ponce 1respondent Ponce2:and1$2 Rec!lessI'prudenceResultin%in+o'icideandDa'a%etoPropert&1Cri'inal CaseNo. 6$7882forthedeathof respondent Ponce)shusbandNestorC. Ponce and da'a%e to the spouses Ponce)s vehicle.Petitioner posted bail for his te'porar& release in bothcases.On 4 Septe'ber $//0, petitioner pleaded %uilt& to thechar%e in Cri'inal Case No. 6$784 and "as 'eted outthe penalt& of public censure. Invo!in% this conviction,petitioner 'oved to ;uash the Infor'ation in Cri'inalCase No. 6$788 for placin% hi' in ,eopard& of secondpunish'ent for the sa'e offense of rec!lessi'prudence.he MeCrefused ;uashal, findin% no identit& ofoffenses in the t"o cases.7.fter unsuccessfull& see!in% reconsideration, petitionerelevated the 'atter to the Re%ional rial Court of Pasi%Cit&, 3ranch #planation "h& he failed to attend the scheduledproceedin%A#$at theMeCisbeliedb&therecords.Da&s before the arrai%n'ent, petitioner sou%ht thesuspension of the MeC)s proceedin%s in Cri'inalCase No. 6$788 in li%ht of his petition "ith the RC inS.C... No. $6/7. -ollo"in% the MeC)s refusal to deferarrai%n'ent 1theorder for "hich"asreleasedda&saftertheMeCorderedpetitioner)sarrest2, petitionersou%ht reconsideration. +is 'otion re'ainedunresolved as of the filin% of this petition.Petitioner)s Conviction in Cri'inal Case No. 6$7843ars his Prosecution in Cri'inal Case No. 6$788heaccused)sne%ativeconstitutional ri%ht not tobeAt"ice put in,eopard&of punish'ent for thesa'eoffenseA#7protects hi'fro', a'on% others, post(convictionprosecution for thesa'e offense, "ith theprior verdict rendered b& a court of co'petent,urisdiction upon a valid infor'ation.#0 It is not disputedthat petitioner)s conviction in Cri'inal Case No. 6$784"as rendered b& a court of co'petent ,urisdiction upona validchar%e. hus,thecase turns onthe ;uestion"hether Cri'inalCase No. 6$788 and Cri'inalCaseNo. 6$784 involve the Asa'e offense.A Petitioneradoptstheaffir'ativevie", sub'ittin%that thet"ocases concern the sa'e offense of rec!lessi'prudence. heMeCruledother"ise, findin%thatRec!less I'prudence Resultin% in Sli%ht Ph&sicalIn,uries is an entirel& separate offense fro' Rec!lessI'prudence Resultin% in +o'icide and Da'a%e toPropert& Aas the DlatterE re;uires proof of an additionalfact "hich the other does not.A#t of the provision reads5I'prudenceandne%li%ence. F.n&person"ho, b&rec!less i'prudence, shall co''it an& act "hich, hadit beenintentional, "ouldconstitutea%ravefelon&,shall suffer the penalt& of arresto 'a&or in its'a>i'u' period to prision correccional in its 'ediu'period: if it "ould have constituted a less %rave felon&,the penalt& of arresto 'a&or in its 'ini'u'and'ediu'periodsshall bei'posed: if it "ouldhaveconstituted a li%ht felon&, the penalt& of arresto 'enorin its 'a>i'u' period shall be i'posed..n& person "ho, b& si'ple i'prudence or ne%li%ence,shall co''it an act "hich "ould other"ise constitute a%rave felon&, shall suffer the penalt& of arresto 'a&orin its 'ediu' and 'a>i'u' periods: if it "ould haveconstituted a less serious felon&, the penalt& of arresto'a&or in its 'ini'u' period shall be i'posed.=hen the e>ecution of the act covered b& this articleshall have onl& resulted in da'a%e to the propert& ofanother, the offender shall be punished b& a fineran%in%fro'ana'ount e;ual tothevalueof saidda'a%es to three ti'es such value, but "hich shall inno case be less than t"ent&(five pesos.. fine not e>ceedin% t"o hundred pesos and censureshall bei'poseduponan&person"ho, b&si'plei'prudenceor ne%li%ence, shall causeso'e"ron%"hich, if done'aliciousl&, "ouldhaveconstitutedali%ht felon&.Inthei'positionof thesepenalties, thecourt shalle>ercisetheirsounddiscretion, "ithout re%ardtotherules prescribed in .rticle si>t&(four.heprovisionscontainedinthisarticleshall not beapplicable5#. =hen the penalt& provided for the offense is e;ualto or lo"er than those provided in the first t"opara%raphs of this article, in "hich case the court shalli'posethepenalt& ne>t lo"er inde%reethanthat"hich should be i'posed in the period "hich the& 'a&dee' proper to appl&.$. =hen, b& i'prudence or ne%li%ence and "ithviolation of the .uto'obile 9a", to death of a personshall be caused, in "hich case the defendant shall bepunishedb&prisioncorreccional inits'ediu'and'a>i'u' periods.Rec!less i'prudence consists in voluntar&, but "ithout'alice, doin% or failin% to do an act fro' "hich 'aterialda'a%e results b& reason of ine>cusable lac! ofprecautiononthepart of thepersonperfor'in%orfailin% to perfor' such act, ta!in% into consideration hise'plo&'ent or occupation, de%ree of intelli%ence,ph&sical conditionand othercircu'stancesre%ardin%persons, ti'e and place.Si'plei'prudenceconsistsin the lac! of precautiondispla&ed in those cases in "hich the da'a%ei'pendin% to be caused is not i''ediate nor thedan%er clearl& 'anifest.he penalt& ne>t hi%her in de%ree to those provided forin this article shall be i'posed upon the offender "hofails to lend on the spot to the in,ured parties such helpas 'a& be in this hand to %ive.Structurall&, these nine para%raphs are collapsible intofour sub(%roupin%s relatin% to 1#2 the penaltiesattachedtothe;uasi(offensesof Ai'prudenceA andAne%li%enceA1para%raphs #($2:1$2a 'odified penalt&sche'e for either or both ;uasi(offenses 1para%raphs7(0, 8andB2: 172 a%enericrulefor trial courtsini'posin% penalties 1para%raph > > DbutE si'pl& a "a& of co''ittin% it >>>,A$7haslon%beenabandoned"hentheCourt enbanc pro'ul%ated Gui@on in #Bin% of intentional cri'es under .rticle 06 of theRevised PenalCode "hich, as "illbe sho"n shortl&,rests on erroneous conception of ;uasi(cri'es. Indeed,the Gui@onian conception of ;uasi(cri'es under%irdeda related branch of ,urisprudence appl&in% the Double*eopard& Clause to ;uasi(offenses, barrin% secondprosecutions for a ;uasi(offense alle%in% one resultin%act after aprior convictionor ac;uittal of a;uasi(offense alle%in% another resultin% act but arisin% fro'thesa'erec!lessact or o'issionupon"hichthesecond prosecution "as based.Prior Conviction or .c;uittal ofRec!less I'prudence 3arsSubse;uent Prosecution for the Sa'e Guasi(Offensehedoctrinethat rec!lessi'prudenceunder .rticle78< is a sin%le ;uasi(offense b& itself and not 'erel& a'eans to co''it other cri'es such that conviction orac;uittal of such ;uasi(offense bars subse;uentprosecution for the sa'e ;uasi(offense, re%ardless ofits various resultin% acts, under%irded this Court)sunbro!en chain of ,urisprudence on double ,eopard& asappliedto.rticle78 > >1E'phasis supplied2Evidentl&, theDia@ lineof ,urisprudenceondouble,eopard& 'erel& e>tended to its lo%ical conclusion thereasonin% of Gui@on.hereisinour ,urisprudenceonl&onerulin%%oin%a%ainst this unbro!en line of authorit&. Precedin% Dia@b& 'orethan adecade, El Pueblo de -ilipinas v.Estipona,78decidedb&thepre("ar colonial Court inNove'ber #B0/, allo"ed the subse;uent prosecutionof anaccusedfor rec!less i'prudenceresultin%inda'a%e to propert& despite his previous conviction for'ultiple ph&sical in,uries arisin% fro' the sa'erec!less operation of a 'otor vehicle upon "hich thesecond prosecution "as based. Estipona)sinconsistenc& "ith the post("ar Dia@ chain of,urisprudencesufficestoi'pliedl&overruleit..t an&rate, all doubts on this 'atter "ere laid to rest in #B6$in 3uerano.74 here, "e revie"ed the Court of .ppeals)conviction of an accused forAda'a%eto propert&forrec!lessi'prudenceA despitehisprior convictionforAsli%ht and less serious ph&sicalin,uries thru rec!lessi'prudence,A arisin% fro' the sa'e act upon "hich thesecond char%e "as based. he Court of .ppeals hadreliedonEstipona. =ereversedonthestren%thof3uan576hDeE vie" of the Court of .ppeals "as inspired b& therulin% of this Court in the pre("ar case of People vs.Estipona decided on Nove'ber #0, #B0/. +o"ever, inthe case of People vs. 3uan, $$ SCR. #767 1March$B, #B862, thisCourt, spea!in%thru*ustice*. 3. 9.Re&es, held that IReason and precedent both coincide in that onceconvictedor ac;uittedof aspecific act of rec!lessi'prudence, the accused 'a& not be prosecuted a%ainfor that sa'e act. -or the essence of the ;uasi offenseof cri'inal ne%li%ence under .rticle 78< of the RevisedPenal Codeliesinthee>ecutionof ani'prudent orne%li%ent act that, if intentionall& done, "ould bepunishableasafelon&. hela"penali@esthusthene%li%ent or carelessact, not theresult thereof. he%ravit& of the conse;uence is onl& ta!en into accountto deter'ine the penalt&, it does not ;ualif& thesubstance of the offense. .nd, as the careless act issin%le, "hether thein,uriousresult shouldaffect oneperson or several persons, the offense 1cri'inalne%li%ence2re'ainsoneand the sa'e, andcannotbe split into different cri'es and prosecutions.> > > >. . . the e>oneration of this appellant, *ose 3uan, b& the*ustice of the Peace 1no" Municipal2 Court of?ui%uinto, 3ulacan, of thechar%eof sli%ht ph&sicalin,uries throu%h rec!less i'prudence, prevents hisbein% prosecuted for serious ph&sicalin,uries throu%hrec!lessi'prudenceinthe Courtof-irstInstance ofthe province, "here both char%es are derived fro' theconse;uences of one and the sa'e vehicular accident,because the second accusation places the appellant insecond,eopard&for thesa'eoffense.7B1E'phasissupplied2hus, for all intents and purposes, 3uerano had effectivel& overruled Estipona.It is note"orth& that the Solicitor ?eneral in 3uerano,in a reversal of his earlier stance in Silva, ,oinedcauses "ith the accused, a fact "hich did not escapethe Court)s attention5hen Solicitor ?eneral, no" *ustice -eli> V. Ma!asiar,in his M.NI-ES.IONdatedDece'ber #$, #B8B1pa%e 6$ of the Rollo2 ad'its that the Court of .ppealserred in not sustainin% petitioner)s plea of double,eopard& and sub'its that Aits affir'ator& decisiondated *anuar& $6, #B8B, in Cri'inal Case No. /tend in his favor the'antle of protection afforded b& the Double *eopard&Clause. .'ore fittin% ,urisprudence could not betailoredtopetitioner)scasethanPeoplev.Silva,0#aDia@ pro%en&. here, the accused, "ho "as alsoinvolvedinavehicular collision, "aschar%edint"oseparate Infor'ations "ith ASli%ht Ph&sical In,uries thruRec!less I'prudenceA and A+o'icide "ith SeriousPh&sical In,uries thru Rec!less I'prudence.A -ollo"in%hisac;uittal of thefor'er, theaccusedsou%ht the;uashal of thelatter, invo!in%theDouble*eopard&Clause. hetrial court initiall&deniedrelief, but, onreconsideration, found 'erit in the accused)s clai' anddis'issed the second case. In affir'in% the trial court,"e ;uoted "ith approval its anal&sis of the issuefollo"in% Dia@ and its pro%en& People v. 3el%a50$On*une$8, #B > > In the case cited, Ciriaco 3el%a and *ose3el%a "ere char%ed in the *ustice of the Peace Courtof Malilipot,.lba&,"iththecri'eof ph&sical in,uriesthrou%hrec!lessi'prudencearisin%fro'acollisionbet"eenthet"oauto'obilesdrivenb&the'1Cri'.Case No. 662. =ithout the aforesaid co'plaint havin%beendis'issedor other"isedisposedof, t"oothercri'inal co'plaints "ere filed in the sa'e ,ustice of thepeace court, in connection "ith the sa'e collision onefor da'a%etopropert&throu%hrec!lessi'prudence1Cri'. Case No. B > >> > > >hefore%oin%lan%ua%eof theSupre'eCourt alsodisposes of the contention of the prosecutin% attorne&that the char%e for sli%ht ph&sical in,uries throu%hrec!less i'prudence could not have been ,oined "iththe char%e for ho'icide "ith serious ph&sicalin,uriesthrou%hrec!lessi'prudenceinthiscase, invie"ofthe provisions of .rt. 06 of the Revised Penal Code, asa'ended. he prosecution)s contention 'i%ht be true.3ut neither "as the prosecution obli%ed to firstprosecute the accused for sli%ht ph&sical in,uriesthrou%h rec!less i'prudence before pressin% the 'oreserious char%e of ho'icide "ith serious ph&sicalin,uries throu%h rec!less i'prudence. +avin% firstprosecuted the defendant for the lesser offense in the*usticeof thePeaceCourt of Me&caua&an, 3ulacan,"hich ac;uitted the defendant, the prosecutin%attorne& is not no" in a position to press in this casethe 'ore serious char%e of ho'icide "ith seriousph&sical in,uriesthrou%hrec!lessi'prudence"hicharose out of the sa'e alle%ed rec!less i'prudence of"hich the defendant have been previousl& cleared b&the inferior court.07Si%nificantl&, theSolicitor ?eneral had ur%ed us inSilvatoree>a'ine3el%a1andhence, Dia@2 Afor thepurpose of deli'itin% or clarif&in% its application.A00 =edeclined the invitation, thus5heStateinitsappeal clai'sthat thelo"er courterred in dis'issin% the case, on the %round of double,eopard&, upon the basis of the ac;uittal of the accusedin the *P court for Sli%ht Ph&sical In,uries, thruRec!less I'prudence. In the sa'e breath said State,thru the Solicitor ?eneral, ad'its that the facts of thecaseat bar,fall s;uarel&ontherulin%of the3el%acase>>>,upon"hich theorder ofdis'issal ofthelo"er court "as anchored. he Solicitor ?eneral,ho"ever,ur%esare(e>a'inationof saidrulin%, uponcertain considerations for the purpose of deli'itin% orclarif&in%itsapplication. =efind, nevertheless, thatfurtherelucidationor dis;uisitionontherulin%inthe3el%a case, the facts of "hich are analo%ous or si'ilartothoseinthepresent case, "ill &ieldnopracticaladvanta%e to the %overn'ent. On one hand, there isnothin% "hich "ould "arrant a deli'itation orclarification of the applicabilit& of the 3el%a case. It "asclear. On the other, this Court has reiterated the vie"se>pressed in the 3el%a case, in the identicalcase ofHapv. +on. 9utero, etc., 9(#$88B, .pril 7/, #Bcludin% fro'its operation li%ht felonies082: and 1$2 "hen an offenseisanecessar&'eansfor co''ittin%theother.hele%islaturecraftedthisprocedural tool tobenefit theaccused "ho, in lieu of servin% 'ultiple penalties, "illonl&servethe'a>i'u'of thepenalt&for the'ostserious cri'e.In contrast, .rticle 78< is a substantive rule penali@in%not an act defined as a felon& but Athe 'ental attitude >> > behind the act, the dan%erous rec!lessness, lac! ofcare or foresi%ht > > >,A04a sin%le 'ental attitudere%ardless of the resultin% conse;uences. hus, .rticle78< "as crafted as one ;uasi(cri'e resultin% in one or'ore conse;uences.Ordinaril&, these t"o provisions "illoperate s'oothl&..rticle06"or!stoco'bineinasin%leprosecution'ultiple intentional cri'es fallin%under itles #(#7,3oo! II of the Revised Penal Code, "hen proper:.rticle 78< %overns the prosecution of i'prudent actsand their conse;uences. +o"ever, the co'ple>ities ofhu'an interaction can produce a h&brid ;uasi(offensenot fallin% under either 'odels I that of a sin%lecri'inal ne%li%ence resultin% in 'ultiple non(cri'eda'a%es to persons and propert& "ith var&in%penaltiescorrespondin%toli%ht, less%raveor %raveoffenses. he ensuin% prosecutorial dile''a isobvious5 ho" should such a ;uasi(cri'e beprosecutedJShould.rticle06)sfra'e"or!appl&toAco'ple>A the sin%le ;uasi(offense "ith its 'ultiple1non(cri'inal2 conse;uences 1e>cludin% thosea'ountin% to li%ht offenses "hich "ill be triedseparatel&2J Or should the prosecution proceed undera sin%le char%e, collectivel& alle%in% all theconse;uences of the sin%le ;uasi(cri'e, to bepenali@ed separatel& follo"in% the sche'e of penaltiesunder .rticle 78clusiveori%inal ,urisdictiontoi'pose the'ost serious penalt& under .rticle78cept for li%ht felonies2, thus re(conceptuali@e a;uasi(cri'e, abandon its present fra'in% under .rticle78in%of %raveor less%ravefelonies.his sa'e ar%u'ent "as considered and re,ectedb&this Court in the case of People vs. DSilvaE > > >5DEhe prosecution)s contention 'i%ht be true. 3utneither "as the prosecution obli%ed to first prosecutethe accused for sli%ht ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!lessi'prudence before pressin%the'ore seriouschar%eof ho'icide "ith serious ph&sical in,uries throu%hrec!less i'prudence. +avin% first prosecuted thedefendantfor thelesseroffense in the*ustice ofthePeace Court of Me&caua&an, 3ulacan, "hich ac;uittedthe defendant, the prosecutin% attorne& is not no" in aposition to press in this case the 'ore serious char%eof ho'icide "ith serious ph&sical in,uries throu%hrec!less i'prudence "hich arose out of the sa'ealle%edrec!lessi'prudenceof "hichthedefendanthas been previousl& cleared b& the inferior court.D=Ee'ust perforcerulethat thee>onerationof thisappellant > > > b& the *ustice of the Peace > > > of thechar%e of sli%ht ph&sical in,uries throu%h rec!lessi'prudence, prevents his bein% prosecuted for seriousph&sical in,uriesthrou%hrec!lessi'prudenceintheCourt of -irst Instanceof theprovince, "herebothchar%esarederivedfro'theconse;uencesof oneand the sa'e vehicular accident, because the secondaccusation places the appellant in second ,eopard& forthe sa'e offense. >heCourt of.ppeals'a&also, upon'otionof theappelleeor 'otuproprio, dis'isstheappeal if theappellantescapesfro' prisonor confine'ent, ,u'psbail or flees to a forei%n countr& durin% the pendenc& ofthe appeal.AB 7$B Phil. 77B 1#BB82.#/ Id. at 7iste un solo delito de i'prudencia. Esta es,urisprudencia constante del ribunal Supre'o. Deacuerdo con esta doctrina el auto'ovilista i'prudente;ue atropella & causa lesiones a dos personas &ade'as daMos, no respondera de dos delitos delesiones & uno de daMos por i'prudencia, sino de unsolo delito culposo.he said author cites in support of the te>t the follo"in% decisions of the Supre'e Court of Spain 1footnotes $ and 72.> > > >Si con el hecho i'prudente se causa la 'uerte de unapersona & ade'as se ocasionan daMos, e>iste un solohecho punible, pues uno solo fue el acto, aun cuandodebenapreciarsedosenordenalaresponsabilidadcivil, #0 dicie'bre #B7# si a consecuencia de un soloactoi'prudenteseprodu,erontres delitos, dos deho'icidio & uno de daMos, co'o todos sonconsecuencia de un solo acto culposo, no cabepenarlos por separado, $ abril #B7$. 1E'phasissupplied2$#E.%. Sa'sonv. Court of .ppeals, #/7Phil. $441#Bceedin% $//pesos or both is provided.A04 Gui@on v. *ustice of the Peace of Pa'pan%a, B4 Phil.70$, 70< 1#B > > the sa'e to beapplied in its 'a>i'u' period.A