LAMERA v.

CA, 198 SCRA 186 SECTION 21, Same offenses FACTS: An owner type jeepney, driven by petitioner, hit a tricycle resulting to the damage of the tricycle, and physical injuries to the passengers of the said tricycle. Two informations were filed against petitioner. First is reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property and physical injuries under Article 365 of the Revised penal Code and second, abandonment of ones victim under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The second information was filed because the petitioner, instead of giving assistance to the victims, fled and left them. He invoked his right against double jeopardy saying that his conviction of reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property and multiple physical injuries is a bar for the prosecution to charge him with the crime of abandonment of ones victim. The lower court and the Court of Appeals ruled against the petitioner, hence this appeal. ISSUE: Could there be a valid charge for alleged abandonment under Article 275, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code which provides as basis for prosecution. "2. Anyone who shall fail to help another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured" when, he was previously charged with "reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries" under Article 365 (sic) of the Revised Penal Code? RULING: There is no double jeopardy, because these two offenses are not identical. Reckless imprudence is a crime falling under the chapter on criminal negligence, while abandonment of ones victim is a crime falling under the chapter on crimes against security. The former is committed by means of culpa, while the latter is committed by means of dolo. Failure to help ones victim is not an offense by itself nor an element of reckless imprudence. It merely Increases the penalty by one degree.