IVLER vs. HON.

MODESTO
January 25, 2017 § Leave a comment

G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010

FACTS: Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler was charged before the

Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MeTC), with two separate offenses: (1) reckless imprudence

resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce; and (2)

reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for the death of respondent Ponce’s

husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle.

Crimes charged: 1) reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries; and 2) reckless imprudence

resulting in homicide and damage to property

On September 7, 2004, Ivler pleaded guilty to the charge in reckless imprudence resulting in slight

physical injuries and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, Ivler moved to

quash the Information of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for placing

him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence.

MeTC: denied the motion to quash

RTC: denied Ivler’s Petition for Certiorari in dismissing his Motion to Quash

ISSUE: Whether or not Ivler’s constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further

proceedings in the information charging him with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage

to property (YES)
Defense: Ivler argues that his constitutional right not to be placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for the

same offense bars his prosecution in reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property

having been previously convicted in reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries

for the same offense. Ivler submits that the multiple consequences of such crime are material only to

determine his penalty

HELD: The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the RTC. Petitioner’s conviction in the case of reckless

imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries bars his prosecution in criminal reckless imprudence

resulting in homicide and damage to property

1) Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime; its Consequences on Persons and Property are Material Only to

Determine the Penalty

Quasi-offenses penalize “the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack

of care or foresight, the imprudencia punible,” unlike willful offenses which punish the intentional criminal

act. These structural and conceptual features of quasi-offenses set them apart from the mass of

intentional crimes.

2) Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence Bars Subsequent Prosecution for the Same Quasi-

offense

Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted

again for that same act. For the essence of the quasi-offense of criminal negligence under Article 365 of

the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done,

would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result

thereof.
The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not qualify the

substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one

person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and cannot be

split into different crimes and prosecutions.

3) Article 48 Does Not Apply to Acts Penalized Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code

Article 48 is a procedural device allowing single prosecution of multiple felonies falling under either of two

categories: (1) when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies (thus excluding from

its operation light felonies); and (2) when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. The

legislature crafted this procedural tool to benefit the accused who, in lieu of serving multiple penalties,

will only serve the maximum of the penalty for the most serious crime.

In contrast, Article 365 is a substantive rule penalizing not an act defined as a felony but the mental

attitude behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, a single mental attitude

regardless of the resulting consequences. Thus, Article 365 was crafted as one quasi-crime resulting in

one or more consequences. Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crime resulting in one or more

consequences.

Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crimes under Article 365. It is conceptually impossible for

a quasi-offense to stand for (1) a single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies; or (2) an

offense which is a necessary means for committing another.

Prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single charge regardless of the number or severity

of the consequences. In imposing penalties, the judge will do no more than apply the penalties under

Article 365 for each consequence alleged and proven. In short, there shall be no splitting of charges under

Article 365, and only one information shall be filed in the same first level court.