*

G.R.No.172716. No vember17,2010.
JASON IVLERyAGUILAR,pe ti
tioner,v
s.HON.MARI A ROWENA MODESTO-
SAN PEDRO,JudgeoftheMetropoli
tan TrialCour
t,Br anch 71,Pas
igCi
ty,and
EVANGELINEPONCE,r es
pondents.

Cr iminalPr oc e dur e;Dismi ssalsofappe alsgr ounde d on t heappe ll

ant ’
se s capef rom
cus todyorvi ol
ati onoft het e
rmso fhi sbai lbondar ego ver nedbyt hes econdpar agr aphof
Se ction 8,Rul e124,i nr elati
on t oSe c t
ion 1,Rul e125,oft heRe vised Rul eson Cr i
mi nal
Proc e dur e—Di
. smi s sal sofappeal sgr ounded on t he appel lant’ses cape f r
om c us tody or
violat iono ft het er msofhi sbai lbondar ego vernedbyt hes econdpar agr aphofSec tion8,
Rul e124,i nr elat iont oSec tion1,Rul e125,oft heRe vi sedRul esonCr i
mi nalPr ocedur e
aut hor izingt hi
sCour tort heCour tofAppeal st o“ al so,uponmo ti
onoft heappel leeo rmo tu
propr io,dismi s
st heappeali ft heappel l
antes capesf rom pr isonorc oninement ,jumpsbai l
orleest oaf or
ei gnc ount rydur ingt hependenc yoft heappeal .”The“ appeal ”cont empl ated
inSec t i
on8ofRul e124i sas uitt or eviewjudgme nt so fc onvi cti
ons .
Same ;Ar raignme nt ;Unde rSe ction 21,Rul e114 oft heRe vised Rul esofCr i
mi nal
Proc e dur e,thede fendant ’sabs enc eme r
elyr ende rshi sbonds man po tentiallyl i
abl eon i ts
bond. —The mi s chi ef i nt he RTC’ st reatment of pe ti
tioner ’
s non- appear ance at hi s
arr aignmenti n Cr imi nalCas eNo.82366aspr oofo fhi sl ossofs tandi ngbec ome smor e
evidentwhen onec ons i
derst heRul esofCour t’
st re at mento fa def endantwhoabs ents
hims elffrom pos t- ar rai gnmenthear ings .UnderSec tion21,Rul e114o ft heRe visedRul esof
Cr imi nalPr ocedur e,t he def endant ’s abs ence mer elyr ender s his bonds man po tent iall
y
li
abl eoni tsbond( subj ecttoc anc e l
lat i
ons houl dt hebonds manf ailtopr oduc et heac cus ed
wit hi n30days );t hedef endantr etainshi ss t
andi ngand,s houl dhef ailtos urrender ,wi llbe
triedi nabs entiaandc oul dbec onvic tedorac quit ted.I ndeed,t he30- dayper iodgr ant edt o
thebonds mant opr oduc et heac cusedunder scorest hef actt hatme r enon- appear anc edoes
noti psof actoconver tt heac cus ed’ss tatust othatofaf ugi tivewi t
houts tandi ng.
_______________

*SECOND DI
VISI
ON.

192

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro
Same ;DoubleJeopardy;Thedoc tr
inethatrecklessimprudenceunde rArticle365isa
singlequas i-
ofensebyi t
selfand no tme r
elya me anst ocommi totherc r
ime ss uchthat
convictionoracquit
talofsuchquasi-ofensebarssubsequentprose
cuti
onf orthes amequasi-
ofens e
,r egardl
essofit
svar iousr
esulti
ngac ts
,unde rgir
dedtheCour t’
sunbr oke nchai
no f
jurisprudenceon doublejeopardyasappl iedtoAr tic
le365s tart
ingwi th Peoplev.Diaz,
decidedi n 1954.—Thedoc trinethatr ec
klessimpr udenceunderAr t
icle365 i sa si
ngle
quasi-ofens ebyi tsel fandno tmer elyameanst oc ommi to therc ri
mess uc ht hatc onvi ct
ion
orac quit talofs uchquas i-ofens ebar ss ubs equentpr os ecutionf ort hes amequas i-ofens e,
regardles s ofi t
s var ious r esulting ac ts,under girded t his Cour t’s unbr oken c hai n of
juri
spr udenc e on doubl ej eopar dy as appl i
ed t o Ar ti
c le 365 s tar ti
ng wi thPe oplev .
Diaz,dec i
ded i n 1954.Ther e,a f ul lCour t ,s peaki ng t hr ough Mr .Jus ti
ce Mont emayor ,
orderedt hedi smi ssalo fac as ef or“ damaget opr oper tyt hr ur eckles si mpr udenc e”bec aus e
apr i
orc as eagai ns tt hes ameac cus edf or“ reckl essdr iving, ”ar isingf romt hes ameac tupon
whicht heir stpr osec ut i
onwasbas ed,hadbeendi smi ssedear l
ier.Sinc et hen,whene vert he
samel egalques t
ion wasbr oughtbef oret heCour t,t hati s ,whe therpr i
orc onvi ction or
acquittalo fr eckles si mpr udenc ebar ss ubsequentpr osec ution fort hes amequas i-ofens e,
regardles so ft he c ons equenc es al l
eged f or bo thc har ges ,t he Cour t unf ailingl y and
consistent ly ans wer ed i nt heair mat ivei nPe opl ev .Be lga( promul gated i n 1957 by t he
Cour ten banc ,per Re yes ,J. ),Yap v . Lut er o( promul gated i n 1959, unr epor ted, per
Conc epcion,J. ),Peopl ev . Nar vas( pr omul gat ed i n 1960 by t he Cour ten banc , per
Bengz onJ. ),Pe oplev .Si l
v a,4SCRA 95( 1962) ,(pr omul gat edi n1962byt heCour te nbanc ,
perPar edes ,J.),Pe opl ev .Mac abuhay,16SCRA 239( 1966) ,(
pr omul gat edi n 1966byt he
Cour tenbanc ,perMakal int al,J. ),Pe oplev .Buan,22SCRA 1383( 1968) ,(pr omul gat edi n
1968byt heCour te nbanc ,perRe yes ,J. B.L.,ac tingC.J. )
,Bue ranov .Cour tofAppe al s,115
SCRA 82( 1982) ,(pr omul gat edi n1982byt heCour tenbanc ,perRel ova,J. ),andPe oplev .
CityCour to fMani a,121SCRA637(
l 1983) ,(pr omul gat edi n1983byt heFi r stDi vision,per
Relova,J. ) .Thes ec ases uni for mly bar red t he s econd pr osecutions as c ons titut i
onal ly
imper mi ssibl eundert heDoubl eJeopar dyCl aus e.
Same ;Same ;Re asonf ort hi sc ons istents tanc eofe xtendi ngt hec ons titutionalpr otection
unde rt heDoubl eJe opar dyCl aus et oquas i-ofe ns eswasbe s
tar ticul ated byMr .Jus ti
ce
J.B.L.Re ye sinBuan. —
193

VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 193

Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro
Ther easonf ort hisc onsistents tanc eo fe xtendi ngt hec onsti
tut i
onalpr otectionunder
theDoubl eJeopar dyCl auset oquas i-ofens eswasbes tar t
iculatedbyMr .Jus ticeJ. B.L.
Reyesi nBuan,wher e,inbar ringas ubs equentpr osecutionfor“ ser
iousphys icalinjur iesand
damaget opr oper tyt hrur eckles simpr udenc e”bec auseo ftheac cused’
spr iorac qui ttalof
“sl
ightphys i
c alinjuriest hrur eckl
essi mpr udenc e,”wi t
h bo thc hargesgr ounded on t he
sameac t
,t heCour texplained:Reas onandpr ecedentbo thcoincidei nthatonc ec onvic t
edor
acquit
tedofas pec i
icac tofrec klessimpr udenc e ,theac cusedmayno tbepr osecutedagai n
forthats ameac t.Fort hee s
se nc eoft hequas iofe nseo fc r
imi nalne gli
genceunde rar ti
cle
365oft heRe vise
dPe nalCodel iesint hee xecut ionofani mpr udentorne gligentac tt hat,if
inte
ntional l
ydone ,woul dbepuni shabl easaf e
lony .Thel aw pe nalizesthust hene gligentor
carel
essac t,no tther esultthere of.Thegr avityo ft hec onsequenc eisonlyt akeni ntoac c
ount
tode terminet hepe nal t
y,i tdoe sno tqual i
fyt hes ubs tanc eoft heofe nse.And,ast hec ar el
es s
acti ss i
ngl e,whe thert hei nj uriousr esul
ts houl d afe ctonepe rson ors e
v e
ralpe r s
ons ,the
ofe ns e(crimi nalne g l
igenc e )r e
mai nsoneandt hes ame ,andc anno tbes pli
ti ntodi fe rent
crime sandpr os e
c utions.xxx.
Crimi nalLaw;Compl e x Cr i
me s
;Quas i-
ofe ns es;Ar ti
c l
e 48 i s a pr oce dur alde vi ce
allo wings inglepr osecution o fmul t
iplefe loniesf allingunde re itheroft woc at egor i
e s:( 1)
whe nas i
ngl eac tc onstitute st woo rmor egr aveorl essgr avef eloni es(thuse xcludi ngf r om i ts
ope rationl ightf eloni es)
;and( 2)whe nanofe ns ei sane ce s
s ar yme ansf orc ommi t
tingt he
othe r;Ar ticle365i sas ubs tant iver ulepe nal i
z ingno tan ac t,de ined asaf e lonybutt he
me ntalat ti
tudexxxbe hindt heac t
,t hedange rousr e cklessness ,l acko fcar eorf or es i
ghtxxx,
as ingleme ntalat tituder egar dle ssoft her esultingc onseque nc es.—Thec onfus ionbede vil
ing
theques t
ionpos edi nt hispe ti
t ion,t owhi c ht heMeTC s ucc umbed,s temsf rom per s is
tent
butawkwar dat tempt st ohar moni zec oncept uallyi ncompat ibles ubstant i
veandpr ocedur al
rul esi ncrimi nall aw,namel y,Ar ti
cle365deini ngandpenal i
z ingquas i-ofens esandAr ticle
48onc ompl exingofc rimes ,bo thundert heRe visedPenalCode.Ar ti
c l
e48i sapr ocedur al
de viceal l
o wings inglepr os ec utiono fmul ti
pl efel oniesf all
ingunderei theroft woc ategor ies:
(1)whenas ingleac tc ons titut est woormor egr aveorl es sgr avef elonies( t
huse xcl uding
from i ts oper ation l i
ghtf eloni es);and ( 2)when an o fens ei s a nec essar y means f or
commi tt
ingt heo ther.Thel egi s
lat urec raftedt hispr oc edur altoolt obeneitt he
194

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro
accusedwho ,i nl ieuo fservingmul ti
plepenal ties ,willonlys ervethemaxi mum oft he
penal t
yf ort hemos tseriousc rime.I nc ontrast,Ar tic le365i sas ubstantiver ulepenal i
zing
no tanac tdeinedasaf elonybut“ thement alat titudexxxbehi ndt heac t,thedanger ous
reckl essnes s,l ack ofc areorf oresightxxx, ”a s ingl ement alat t
ituder egardlessoft he
resul tingc ons equenc es.Thus ,Ar ticle365wasc raftedasonequas i-c
r i
mer esulti
ngi noneor
mor ec onsequenc es .
Same ;Same ;Same ;Cour thol dst hatpr os ecutionsunde rAr ti
c l
e365s hould pr oceed
from as ingl ec harger egardlessoft henumbe rors ev er it
yoft hec ons equence s;The reshal lbe
nos plitt
ingo fc har gesunde rAr ti
cle365,andonl yonei nformat i
ons hallbeil edint hes ame
ir stl e
v e
lc our t.—Wehol dt hatpr osecut ionsunderAr ti
cle365s houl dpr oceedf rom as i
ngle
char ger egar dl essoft henumberors e ver i
tyoft hec ons equenc es.I ni mpos ingpenal ties,the
judgewi lldonomor et han appl ythepenal tiesunderAr ti
cle365 f oreac hc onsequenc e
allegedandpr oven.I ns hort,ther es hal lbenos plittingo fc har gesunderAr t
icle365,and
onlyonei nformat ions hal lbeil edi nt hes ameir stl e velcour t
.
Same ;Same ;Same ;Ifitiss omi nde d,Congr essc anr e-
craftAr t
icle365bye xtendingt o
quas i-
crime st hes e ntencingf ormul aofAr ticl
e48s ot hatonl yt hemos tseve r
epe nal t
ys hall
bei mpos edunde ras inglepr osecutiono fal lresultingac ts,whe the rpe nalizedasgr ave,less
graveorl ightofe ns e
s —Ourr
. uli
ngt odays ecuresf ortheac cused facingan Ar ti
cle365
chargea s trongerand s impl erpr ot
ec tion oft heirc onsti
tut i
onalr ightundert heDoubl e
Jeopar dy Cl ause.Tr ue,t he y ar ether eby deni ed t he beneic entefec to ft he favorable
sentenc i
ng f ormula underAr t
icle 48,butany di s advant age thusc aused ismor ethan
compens at edbyt hec ert aintyo fnon- pr os ecutionf orquas i
-crimee fec t
squal ifyingas“ l
ight
ofens es”( or,asher e,f ort hemor es er iousc onsequenc epr osecuted belatedly).I fitiss o
mi nded,Congr essc an r e-c
r aftAr ti
cle365 by e xt ending t oquas i-
c r
imest hes entencing
formul ao fAr ti
cle48s ot hatonl ythemos tse verepenal tys hallbeimpos edunderas ingle
prosecutionofal lresult ingac t
s ,whe therpenal izedasgr ave,lessgr aveorl ightofens es
.
Thi swi l
ls t
illkeep intac tthedi st
inc tc oncepto fquas i-ofens es.Meanwhi le,t hel enient
schedul e ofpenal ties under Ar t
icle 365,beit ting c ri
mes oc cupying a l ower r ung o f
culpabili
ty ,shouldcus hiont heefec toft hisr uling.

195
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 195
Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro
PETI TION forrevi
ew oncert
iorarioftheorder
softheRegi
onalTrialCourtofPasi
g
Cit
y.
Thefactsar es
tat
edi nt
heopi nionoftheCourt.
Edwards onOngforpeti
tioner.
Jan Abe gai
lPonceandTe rencioAngelDeDi osMarti
ja & Chipeof
c orpr i
vat
e
respondent.

CARPI
O, :
 J.

TheCas
e

Thepe ti
tionseeksther e vie
w1 oftheOr ders2
oftheRegionalTrialCourtofPas i
g
City air mings ub-s
ile
nc oa l
i owerc ourt’
sr uling inding inappl
icabletheDoubl e
Jeopar dyClauset obaras econdpr osec
utionf orRec kl
essI mprudenceRes ulti
ngin
Homi c
ideandDamaget oPr operty
.Thi s
,de spi tetheaccused’
spre vi
ousc onvi
cti
on
forRec kl
essI mprudenceRes ult
inginSlightPhys ic
alInj
ur i
esarisi
ngf rom thesame
incidentgroundingthes econdpr osecuti
on.

TheFact
s

Fol
lowingavehicularc
olli
sioninAugus t2004,peti
tionerJas onI vl
er(pe
tit
ioner)
waschargedbefor
et heMe t
ropoli
tanTrialCour tofPas i
gCi t
y ,Br anc
h71( MeTC) ,
wit
ht wos epar
ateofenses:(1)Reckl
essI mprudenceRes ul
tingi n Sli
ghtPhysical
Inj
uri
es(Cr i
minalCaseNo.82367)forinjuri
ess ust
ainedbyr es pondentEvangeli
ne
L.Ponc e(respondentPonce);and(2)Reckles
sI mpr
udenc eResult
ingin Homi c
ide
and Damaget oPr operty(Cri
minalCaseNo.82366)f orthedeath ofrespondent
Ponce’s husband Nes t
or C.Ponce and damage tothe spous
e s Ponc
e’s vehi
cle.
Peti
tionerpostedbailforhi
stemporaryrel
easeinbot
hc ases.
__
____
____
____
_

1UnderRul
e45oft
he1997Rul
eso
fCi
vilPr
oce
dur
e.
2Dat
ed2Fe
bruar
y2006and2May2006.

196
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro
On7Sept ember2004,pe tit
ionerpl eadedgui ltyt othec har gei nCr imi nalCas e
No.82367 and was me t
ed out t he penal ty of publ icc ens ure.I nvoki ng t his
convict i
on,pe ti
tionermo vedt oquas ht heI nformat ioni nCr imi nalCas eNo.82366
forpl acinghi mi nj eopar dyofs econdpuni shmentf ort hes ameofens eofr ec kless
impr udenc e.
TheMeTCr efusedquas hal,indi ngnoi dent i
tyofofens esi nt hetwoc ases .3

Afteruns uccessful l
ys eekingr ec ons i
der ati
on,pe ti
tionerel e vated themat tert o
the Regi onal Tr ial Cour t of Pas ig Ci ty, Br anc h 157 ( RTC) ,i n a pe ti
tion
forcer ti
or ari(S.C.A.No.2803) .Meanwhi l
e,pe titioners oughtf rom t heMeTC t he
suspens ionofpr oceedi ngsi nCr iminalCas eNo.82366,i nc ludi ngthear raignment
on17May2005,i nvoki ngS. C.A.No.2803asapr ejudic i
alques t
ion.Wi t houtac ting
onpe tit
ioner ’smo tion,t heMeTC pr oceededwi tht hear rai gnmentand,bec aus eof
petit
ioner ’sabsenc e,c anc ell
edhi sbai landor deredhi sar res t.Se
4
vendaysl at er ,the
MeTC i s suedar es olutiondenyi ngpe titi
oner ’smo tiont os us pendpr oc eedi ngsand
postponi nghi sar r
ai gnmentunt ilaft erhisar rest.Pe
5
t
itioners oughtr econs ider ation
butasoft heil ingoft hispe tit
ion,t hemo tionr emai nedunr es ol ved.
Rel yingon t hear restor deragai ns tpet it
ioner,r espondentPonc es oughti nt he
RTC t hedi smissalofS. C.A.No.2803f orpe tit
ioner ’slo ssofs tandingt omai ntain
thes ui t
.Pe t
iti
onerc ont estedthemo tion.

TheRul
ingoft
heTri
alCourt

I
n an Or der dated 2 Febr
uary 2006,the RTC dismi
ssed S.
C.A.No.2803,
narrowl
y grounding itsruli
ng on pe
tit
ioner
’sfor
fei
tur
e ofstandi
ng t
o mai
ntai
n
S.C.A.No.2803ar i
sing
__
____
____
____
_
 3I
naRes
olut
iondat
ed4Oc
tober2004.
4I
nanOr
derdat
ed17May2005(
Rec
ords
,p.142)
.
5I
naRes
olut
iondat
ed24May2005.

197
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 197
Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro
from t he MeTC’ s or der t o ar rest pe titioner f or hi s non- appear anc e at t he
ar raignmenti n Cr i
mi nalCas eNo.82366.Thus ,wi thoutr eaching t hemer i
t sof
S. C.A. No. 2803, t he RTC efec tively air med t he MeTC. Pe titioner s ought
rec onsider ationbutt hi spr o
vedunavai l
ing. 6

Henc e,thispe tit

ion.
Petitionerdeni esabs condi ng.Hee xpl ainst hathi spe ti
tion in S.C.A.No.2803
cons trai ned hi mt of oregopar t
icipation i nt hepr oceedingsi n Crimi nalCas eNo.
82366.Pe ti
tionerdi st i
ngui sheshi sc asef rom t hel ineofj urisprudenc es anc ti
oni ng
dis mi ssalofappeal sf orabs c ondingappel l
ant sbec ausehi sappealbef oret heRTC
wasa s pecialc ivilac t
i on s eeking a pr e-tr i
alr elief
,no ta pos t-tri
alappealofa
judgmentofc onvi cti
on. 7

Petitionerl ament st heRTC’ sfailur et or eacht hemer itsofhi spe ti

ti oni nS. C.A.
2803.I nvoki ngj ur i
spr udenc e,pe t
itionerar guest hathi sc ons ti
tuti
onalr ightno tto
bepl acedt wic ei njeopar dyofpuni s
hmentf ort hes ameofens ebarshi spr osecution
inCr imi nalCas eNo.82366,havi ngbeenpr eviouslyc onvictedi nCr imi nalCas eNo.
82367f ort hes ameofens eofr eckles si mpr udenc ec har gedi n Cr i
mi nalCas eNo.
82366.Pe t
iti
oners ubmi tst hatt hemul tiplec onsequenc esofs uchcrimear emat eri
al
onl yt ode t
ermi nehi spenal ty.
Res pondentPonc eindsnor eason f ort heCour tt odi sturbt heRTC’ sdec i s
ion
for f
eiting pe t iti
oner ’ss tandi ng t o mai nt ain hi spe ti
tion in S. C.A.2803.On t he
mer i
ts ,r espondentPonc ec al lstheCour t’
sat tentiont oj urisprudenc ehol di
ngt hat
lightofens es( e.g.slightphys icalinjur ies )c anno tbec ompl exedunderAr tic
le48of
theRe visedPenalCodewi t
hgr aveorl essgr avef elonies( eg.homi
. c i
de) .Henc e,t he
pr osecut ionwasobl igedt osepar at et hec har gei nCr i
mi nalCas eNo.82366f ort he
slightphys ic
ali njuriesf rom Cr iminalCas eNo.82367f orthehomi cideanddamage
topr oper ty.
__
____
____
____
_

6Deni
edi
nanOr
derdat
ed2May2006.
7Rol
lo,pp.30-
33.

198
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro
IntheResol
uti
onof6June2007,wegr antedtheOic eoftheSoli
cit
orGener
al’
s
moti
onnottoileacommenttothepeti
tionasthepubli
crespondentj
udgeismerel
y
anominalpart
yandpri
vater
espondentisrepres
entedbycounsel
.

TheI
ssues

Twoques t
ionsarepr esentedf orresolution:(1)whe t
herpe t
iti
onerforf
eitedhis
st
andingt oseekr el
iefi
nS. C. A.2803whent heMeTC or deredhisarrestfol
lowi
ng
hisnon-appearanceatthear raignmenti nCr iminalCaseNo.82366;and( 2)ifint
he
negati
ve,whe ther peti
tioner’sc ons
titutionalr i
ght under the Double Jeopar
dy
ClausebarsfurtherproceedingsinCr iminalCas eNo .82366.

TheRul
ingoft
heCourt

Wehol dthat(1)pe t
itioner’
snon- appear
anc eatt hear r
aignmenti n Cri
mi nal
CaseNo.82366di dno tdivesthim ofper s
onalit
yt omai nt
ainthepeti
tioninS. C.A.
2803;and( 2)theprot
ectionafor dedbyt heCons tit
utionshiel
dingpetit
ionerfrom
prosec
utionsplaci
nghi mi njeopardyofs econd punishmentforthes ameofens e
barsfurt
herproceedi
ngsi nCr i
mi nalCaseNo.82366.

Pet
iti
oner’
s Non-
appear
ance at t
he Arrai
gnment i
n
Cri
minalCas
eNo.82366 di
d notDi
ves
thi
m ofSt
andi
ng t
o Mai
ntai
nthe
Pet
iti
oni
nS.
C.A.2803

Dismissal
s ofappeal
s gr
ounded on t
he appell
ant’
sescape fr
om cust
ody or
vi
olati
on oftheter
msofhi sbai
lbond aregover
ned bythes ec
ond par
agraph of
Secti
on8,Rule124,
8
i
n
__
____
____
____
_

8Thepr
ovi
sions
tat
es:“
Dis
mis
salo
fappe
alf
orabandonme
ntorf
ail
uret
opr
ose
cut
e.—xxxx
TheCour
tofAppeal
smayal
so,uponmo
tiono
ftheappel
leeormo
tupr
opr
io,di
smi
sst
heappe
ali
fthe
appel
lante
scapesf
rom pr
ison

199
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 199
Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro
rel
ation to Sec
tion 1,Rule 125,ofthe Revi
sed Rules on Cri
minalPr
ocedure
authori
zingthisCourtortheCourtofAppeal
sto“also,uponmo t
ionoft
heappel
lee
ormo tu pr opr io,di s mis st he appe ali ft he appel l
ant e s capes fro m pr ison or
coninement ,j umpsbai lorleest oaf oreign count rydur ingt hependenc yoft he
appeal .” The “ appeal ”c ontempl at ed i n Sec t
ion 8 of Rul e 124 i sa s ui tt o
revie wj udgme nt sofc onvi cti
ons .
The RTC’ sdi smissalofpe titioner ’ss pec i
alc ivilac t
ion f orcerti
or ar itor e view
apr e-arraignme ntanc illar yque stionont heappl icabil
ityoft heDuePr oc essCl ause
tobarpr oceedi ngsi nCr imi nalCas eNo.82366indsnobas isunderpr ocedur alr ules
andj ur isprudenc e.TheRTC’ sr elianc eonPe opl
ev .Espar as 9
undercut st hec ogenc y
ofi tsr ul i
ngbec auseEs par ass t andsf orapr opos i
tionc ontr ar ytot heRTC’ sr ul i
ng.
Ther e,t heCour tgr antedr evie wt oanappe albyanac cus edwhowass entenc edt o
deat hf ori mpor tingpr ohi biteddr ugse vent houghs hejumpedbai lpendi ngt r i
aland
was t hus t ried and c onvi ctedi n abs e
ntia. The Cour ti nEs par ast reated t he
mandat or yre vie w ofdeat hs ent enc esunderRepubl i
cAc tNo.7659asane xcept ion
toSec tion8ofRul e124. 10

The mi schi efi nt he RTC’ st reat ment ofpe titi

oner ’
s non- appear ance at hi s
arrai gnmenti nCr iminalCas eNo.82366aspr oofofhi sl os sofstandi ngbec omes
mor ee videntwhenonec ons ider st heRul esofCour t’
streat mentofadef endantwho
abs ent shi ms elff rom pos t -
ar raignmenthear ings .UnderSec tion21,Rul e11411 oft he
Re visedRul esofCr imi nalPr oc edur e,
__
____
____
____
_

o
rconinement
,jumpsbai
lorleest
oaf
ore
ignc
ount
rydur
ingt
hependenc
yoft
heappeal
.”

9 329Phi
l.339;260SCRA539(
1996)
.
10I
d.,atp.350;p.549.
11Thepr
ovi
sions
tat
es:“
For
fei
tur
eofbai
l.
—Whent
hepr
esenc
eoft
heac
cus
edi
srequi
redbyt
hec
our
t
ort
hes
eRul
es,hi
sbonds
mens
hal
lbeno
tiiedt
opr
oduc
ehi
m be
for
ethec
our
tonagi
vendat
eandt
ime.I
f
t
heac
cus
edf
ail
stoappeari
npe
rsonasr
equi
red,hi
sbai
lshal
lbede
clar
edf
orf
eit
edandt
hebonds
men
gi
vent
hir
ty(
30)dayswi
thi
nwhi
cht
opr
oduc
ethei
rpr
inc
ipalandt
osho
w whynoj
udg-

200
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro
thedef endant ’
sabs encemer el
yr endershisbonds manpo t
ential
lyl i
ableoni t
sbond
(subjectt ocanc el
lati
ons houldthebonds manf ailtoproducetheac cusedwi t
hin30
days )
;t hedef endantr e
tainshiss t
andingand,s houldhefailtos urrender,willbe
triedi n abs
e ntiaand could be convic
ted orac quitt
ed.Indeed,t he 30-day peri
od
grant ed tothebonds man t oproducet heaccused underscor
est hef actthatmer e
non-appe arancedoesno ti
psof actoconvertt heac cused’
ss tatust othatofaf ugit
ive
withouts tanding.
Further,t heRTC’sobs ervationthatpe titi onerpr ovi
ded“ noe xplanationwhyhe
fai
ledt oat t
endthes c
heduledpr oc
eeding” att
12
heMeTC i sbe l
iedbyt her ecor
ds.
Days bef oret he arraignment ,pe t
iti
oner s oughtt he suspens ion oft he MeTC’ s
proceedingsi n CriminalCas eNo.82366i nl i
ghtofhi spe titi
on wi ththeRTC i n
S.C.A.No.2803.Fol lowingt heMeTC’ srefus altodef erarr aignment( t
heor derfor
whi c
h wasr el
eas
ed daysaf tert he MeTC or dered petit
ioner ’
sar r es
t),petit
ioner
soughtr ec onsi
derati
on.Hi smo t
ion remained unr esol
ved asoft he iling ofthis
petit
ion.
__
____
____
____
_

ments
houl
dber
ender
edagai
nstt
hem f
ort
heamounto
fthei
rbai
l.Wi
thi
nthes
aidpe
rio
d,t
hebonds
men
mus
t:

(
a) pr
oduc
ethebo
dyoft
hei
rpr
inc
ipalorgi
vet
her
eas
onf
orhi
snon-
produc
tion;and
(
b) e
xpl
ainwhyt
heac
cus
eddi
dno
tappearbef
oret
hec
our
twhenir
str
equi
redt
odos
o.
Fai
li
ng i
nthes
etwor
equi
sit
es,a j
udgments
hal
lber
ender
ed agai
nstt
hebo
nds
men,j
oint
ly and
s
ever
all
y,f
ort
heamounto
fthebai
l.Thec
our
tshal
lno
treduc
eoro
ther
wis
emi
tigat
ethel
iabi
li
tyo
fthe
bonds
men,unl
esst
heac
cus
edhasbe
ens
urr
ender
edori
sac
qui
tted.
”
12Rol
lo,p.40.

201
VOL. 635, NOVEMBER 17, 2010 201
Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro
Pet
iti
oner’
sConvi
cti
oni
nCri
minalCas
eNo.82367
Barshi
sPros
ecut
ioni
nCri
minalCas
eNo.82366
Theac cused’snegat i
vec onstitut i
onalr ightno ttobe“ t
wi ceputi nj eopar dyof
puni shmentf ort hes ameofens e ”13
protectshimf r om,amongo thers,pos t-convi cti
on
pros ecut i
on fort he same ofens e,wi t
ht he pr iorver dictrender ed by a c our tof
compe tentj urisdict
ionuponaval i di nformat ion.14
Iti
sno tdisputedt hatpe tit ioner’
s
convi ct
i on in Cr iminalCas e No.82367 was r endered by a c ourtofc ompe t
ent
jurisdict i
on upon a val idc harge.Thus ,thec as et urnson t heques tion whe t
her
Crimi nalCas eNo.82366andCr i mi nalCas eNo.82367i nvolvet he“ sameofens e.”
Petitioneradopt stheair mat ivevi ew,s ubmi ttingt hatt het woc asesc onc er nt he
same ofens e ofr ecklessi mpr udenc e.The MeTC r uled otherwi s
e,indi ng t hat
Rec kles sI mpr udenceRes ulti
ngi n Sl ightPhys icalI njuri
esi san ent irelys epar ate
ofens ef rom Rec klessI mprudenc eRes ultingi nHomi cideandDamaget oPr oper t
y
“ast he[ l
atter]requirespr oofofanaddi ti
onalf actwhi chtheo therdoe sno t.”15
 Weindforpe
tit
ioner
.
Reckl
ess Imprudence i
s a Si
ngl
e
Cri
me, i
ts Cons
equences on Pers
ons
and Propert
y are Mat
eri
al Onl
y t
o
Det
ermi
net
hePenal
ty
Thetwochar
gesagainstpet
iti
oner
,ar
isi
ngf
rom t
hes
amef
act
s,wer
epr
osec
uted
undert
hesameprovi
sionoftheRe-
__
____
____
____
_

13Sec
tion21,Ar
tic
leI
II,1987Co
nst
itut
ion.
14Sec
tion7
,Rul
e117Re
vis
edRul
esofCr
imi
nalPr
oce
dur
e.Ther
ighthas
,ofc
our
se,br
oaders
copet
o
c
overno
tonl
ypr
iorgui
ltypl
easbutal
soac
qui
ttal
sandunc
ons
ent
eddi
smi
ssal
stobarpr
osec
uti
onsf
ort
he
s
ame,l
ess
erorgr
averofens
esc
over
edi
nthei
nit
ialpr
ocee
dings(
i )
d.
15Rol
lo,p.97
.

202
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro
vis
edPenalCode,asamended,namely,Ar
tic
le365deini
ngandpenal
izi
ngquas
i-
ofens
es.Thet
extofthepr
ovis
ionreads
:
“Imprude nc eand ne g
l ige nce—Anyper
. s
on who ,byr eckl essi mpr udenc e,shallcommi t
anyac twhi ch,had i tbeen i ntent ional ,woul dc ons titut eagr avef elony ,s hal
ls ufert he
penal t
y ofar re st
o may ori ni t
s maxi mum per i
od t opr isi on c orre
cc onali
i ni ts medi um
per i
od;ifitwoul dhavec ons tit
ut edal essgr avef elony ,t hepenal t
yofar restomay orini t
s
mi nimum andmedi um per iodss hal lbei mpos ed;i fitwoul dhavec onst i
tut edal ightfelony ,
thepenal tyofar rest
ome nori nitsmaxi mum per iods hal lbei mpos ed.
Anyper sonwho,bys impl eimpr udenc eornegl igenc e,s hal lcommi tanac twhi chwoul d
otherwisec ons tit
uteagr avef elony ,s halls ufert hepenal tyofar r
estomay orinitsmedi um
and maxi mum per i
ods ;i fi twoul d have c ons titut ed a l es ss eri
ous f elony ,the penal ty
ofar re
stomay ori nitsmi ni mum per iods hallbei mpos ed.
Whent hee xecutiono ft heac tc over edbyt hi sar ticles hal lhaveonl yr esultedindamage
tot heproper tyo fano ther ,t heofenders hal lbepuni s hedbyainer angi ngf rom anamount
equalt otheval ueofs aiddamagest othr eet imess uc hval ue,butwhi chs hallinnoc asebe
lessthant went y-
ivepes o s.
A ineno te xceedi ngt wohundr edpes osandc ens ur es hal lbei mpos eduponanyper s on
who,by s impl ei mpr udenc e or negl igenc e,s hal lc aus es ome wr ong whi ch,i f done
mal ic
iously,woul dhavec ons ti
tutedal i
ghtf el ony .
Int he impos it
ion oft hes e penal t
ies ,thec our ts halle xer ci
set heirs ound di s
cretion,
withoutr egardt other ulespr escribedi nAr ti cles i
xt y-four .
Thepr ovisionsc ont ainedi nthisar ticleshal lno tbeappl ic able: