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 fiscals 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
courts 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 cant impose
penalty in excess to what the law authorizes.
2. reversal of decision is still possible on ground of
prescription or lack of jurisdiction.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the penalty imposed is correct.
2. Whether or not reckless imprudence resulting to damage to
property and reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical
injuries are light felonies.
3. Whether or not there is a complex crime applying Article 48
of the RPC.
4. Whether or not the duplicity of the information may be
questioned for the first time on appeal.
5. Whether or not the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over the
case.
6. Whether the quasi offenses already prescribed.
Held:
1. On penalty imposed
The proper penalty for reckless imprudence resulting to slight
physical injury is public censure (being the penalty next lower
in degree to arresto menor see the exception in the sixth
paragraph of Article 365 applies).
The proper penalty for reckless imprudence resulting to
damage to property amounting to 8,542.00 would be arresto
mayor in minimum and medium periods.
2. Classification of each felony involved
Reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries is a
light felony. Public censure is classified under article 25 of
RPC as a light penalty and it belongs on the graduated scale in
Article 71 of the RPC as a penalty next lower to arresto
menor.
Reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property is
punishable by a correctional penalty of arresto mayor and thus
belongs to less grave felony and not as a light felony as
claimed by petitioner.
3. Rule on complex crime
Art. 48 on penalty for complex crime provides that when a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies,

or when an offense is necessary a means for committing the

other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed,
the same to be applied in its maximum period. Both offenses
cannot constitute a complex crime because reckless
imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries is not either a
grave or less grave felony. Therefore each felony should be
filed as a separate complaint subject to distinct penalties.
4. Right to assail duplicity of information
Rule 120, section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that when
two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint and the
accused fails to object against it before the trial, the court may
convict the accuse to as many offenses as charged and impose
a penalty for each of them. Complainant failed to make the
objection before the trial therefore the right to object has been
waived.
5. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of the court is determined by the duration of the
penalty and the fine imposed as prescribed by law to the
offense charged. Reckless imprudence resulting to slight
physical injuries and reckless imprudence resulting to damage
to property is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
The case was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction of the RTC
of Makati and the decision of the CA was set aside.
Court Ruling on Zaldivia v Reyes and Reodica v CA on
Prescription:
1. Zaldivia v Reyes involves a violation of an ordinance while
in Reodica v CA the violation was against the RPC.
2. Filing of a complaint in the fiscals office involving a
felony under the RPC is sufficient to interrupt the running of
prescription. But filing a complaint under the fiscals office
involving offenses punished by a special law (i.e. ordinance)
does not interrupt the running of prescription. Act 3326 is the
governing law on prescriptions of crimes punishable by a
special law which states that prescription is only interrupted
upon judicial proceeding.