Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reodica Vs CA
Reodica Vs CA
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.
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.
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.