Reodica vs. CA
Reodica vs. CA
Reodica vs. CA
CA slight physical injuries, as both are light offenses, over which the
G.R. No. 125066. July 8, 1998 respondent court had no jurisdiction and even assuming such jurisdiction, it
TOPIC: Complex crime cannot impose a penalty in excess of what is authorized by law.” = DENIED
DOCTRINE: Art. 48 on penalty for complex crime provides that when a single act ISSUE: W/N CA erred when it affirmed RTC in complexing the crime of reckless
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is necessary imprudence resulting in damage to property and slight physical injuries imposing a
a means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be single excessive penalty – YES
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. Both offenses cannot
constitute a complex crime because reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical The proper penalty for reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries is
injuries is not either a grave or less grave felony. Therefore, each felony should be public censure, this being the penalty next lower in degree to arresto menor.
filed as a separate complaint subject to distinct penalties. Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code defines light felonies as
infractions of law carrying the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
ER: Petitioner was driving recklessly when it hit the car of Bonsol. She was charged exceeding P200.00, or both = Hence, this is a LIGHT FELONY.
with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Slight Physical Injury
before the MeTC. She contends that there was an error in making the two crimes The imposable penalty for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property to the
complex. SC ruled in her favor. Art. 48 provides that if one offense is light, there is no extent of P8,542.00 would be arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods.
complex crime = there must be two or more grave or less grave felonies for a complex Since arresto mayor is a correctional penalty under Article 25 of the Revised
crime to be committed. Penal Code = Hence, this is a LESS GRAVE FELONY.
FACTS: If a reckless, imprudent or negligent act, results in two or more grave or less grave
On the evening of 17 October 1987, Petitioner Isabelita Reodica was driving felonies, a complex crime is committed.
a van along Doña Soledad Avenue, Better Living Subdivision, Parañaque. However, in Lontok v. Gorgonio, this Court declared that where one of the
o Allegedly because of her recklessness, her van hit the car of resulting offenses in criminal negligence constitutes a light felony, THERE IS
complainant Norberto Bonsol. NO COMPLEX CRIME.
o As a result, complainant sustained physical injuries, while the Thus, applying Article 48, it follows that if one offense is light, there is no
damage to his car amounted to P8,542.00. complex crime.
Thus, on 20 October 1987, complainant filed an Affidavit of Complaint The resulting offenses may be treated as separate or the light felony may
against petitioner with the Fiscal's Office. Later, on 13 January 1988, an be absorbed by the grave felony. Thus, the light felonies of damage to
information was filed before the RTC charging petitioner with "Reckless property and slight physical injuries, both resulting from a single act of
Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Slight Physical Injury." imprudence, do not constitute a complex crime. They cannot be charged in
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial then one information. They are separate offenses subject to distinct penalties
ensued. (People vs. Turla).
RTC RULING: Convicted petitioner of the "quasi offense of reckless Where the single act of imprudence resulted in double less serious physical
imprudence resulting in damage to property with slight physical injuries," injuries, damage to property amounting to P10,000 and slight physical
and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto injuries, a chief of police did not err in filing a separate complaint for the
mayor, and to pay the complainant, Norberto Bonsol y Atienza, the sum of slight physical injuries and another complaint for the lesiones menos graves
P13,542, representing the cost of the car repairs (P8,542.00) and medical and damage to property.
expenses (P5,000.00) without subsidiary impairment in case of insolvency;
and to pay the costs. On the issue of jurisdiction:
CA RULING: Affirmed RTC. 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
Petitioner filed for MR where: “Now that an acquittal seems impossible, may imprudence resulting to damage to property is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
we revisit the penalty and move that it be reviewed and set aside since it is The case was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction of the RTC of Makati and the decision of the CA was set
respectfully submitted to be error to complex damage to property and aside.