People V Buan

Today is Tuesday, August 25, 2020
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-25366 March 29, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
JOSE BUAN, accused-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Felipe C. Magat and Amado D. Dyoco for accused-appellant.
REYES, J.B.L., Actg. C.J.:
Direct appeal by the accused from an order of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, in its Criminal Case No.
5243 (for serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence), overruling a motion to
quash on the ground of double jeopardy.
Stripped to essentials, the case arose in this wise:
The accused was driving a passenger bus of the La Mallorca Company on July 23, 1962, along the MacArthur
Highway in the municipality of Guiguinto, Bulacan. Allegedly because of his negligence — and recklessness, the
vehicle driven by him struck and collided with the passenger jeep of Sergio Lumidao, damaging said jeep and
causing it to turn turtle, and injuring its passengers. Six of the latter suffered slight physical injuries requiring medical
attendance for 5 to 9 days: three other riders came out with serious bodily injuries that needed medical attention for
30 to 45 days; while the jeep was damaged to the extent of P1,395.00.
A charge was filed against the accused-appellant, one for slight physical injuries through reckless
imprudence, in the Justice of the Peace Court of Guiguinto, for which he was tried and acquitted on December 16,
1963. Prior to this acquittal, however, the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed in the Court of First Instance the
information in the case now before us, for serious physical injuries, and damage to property through reckless
imprudence. Admittedly, both charges referred to the same highway collision.
When the accused was arraigned in the Court of First Instance, his counsel moved to quash the charges on
the ground that he had already been acquitted of the same offense by the Justice of the Peace Court. The
prosecution opposed the motion and the Court denied the motion quash. Unable to secure reconsideration, the
accused appealed to this Court.
Sole issue before us, therefore, is whether the second case placed the appellant twice in jeopardy for the
same offense, and is barred by the previous acquittal.
We agree with the appellant that the Court below erred in not dismissing the information for "serious physical
injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence," in view of the appellant's previous acquittal by the
Justice of the Peace Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan, for the same imprudence.
Reason and precedent both coincide in that 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 can not be split into
different crimes and prosecutions. This has been the constant ruling of the Spanish Supreme Court, and is also that
of this Court in its most recent decisions on the matter.
Thus, in People vs. Silva, L-15974, January 30, 1962, where as the result of the same vehicular accident one
man died, two persons were seriously injured while another three suffered only slight physical injuries, we ruled that
the acquittal on a charge of slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence, was a bar to another prosecution
for homicide through reckless imprudence. In People vs. Diaz, L-6518, March 30, 1954, the ruling was that the
dismissal by the Municipal Court of a charge of reckless driving barred a second information of damage to property
through reckless imprudence based on the same negligent act of the accused. In People vs, Belga, 100 Phil. 996,
dismissal of an information for physical injuries through needless imprudence as a result of a collision between two
automobiles was declared, to block two other prosecutions, one for damage to property through reckless
imprudence and another for multiple physical injuries arising from the same collision. The same doctrine was
reasserted in Yap vs. Lutero, et al., L-12669, April 30, 1959. In none of the cases cited did the Supreme Court
regard as material that the various offenses charged for the same occurrence were triable in Courts of differing
category, or that the complainants were not the individuals.
As for the Spanish jurisprudence, Cuello Calon, in his Derecho Penal (12th Ed.), Vol. I, p. 439, has this to
say: 1äwphï1.ñët
Aun cuando de un solo hecho imprudente se originen males diversos, como el hecho culposo es uno
solo, existe un solo delito de imprudencia. Esta es jurisprudencia constante del Tribunal Supremo. De
acuerdo con esta doctrinael automovilista imprudente que atropella y causa lesiones a dos personas y
ademas daños, no respondera de dos delitos de lesiones y uno de daños por imprudencia, sino de un solo
delito culposo.
The said author cites in support of the text the following decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain (footnotes 2
and 3).
8 octubre 1887, 18 octubre 1927.
Si con el hecho imprudente se causa la muerte de una persona y ademas se ocasionan daños, existe
un solo hecho punible, pues uno solo fue el acto, aun cuando deben apreciarse dos enorden a la
responsabilidad civil, 14 diciembre 1931 si a consecuencia de un solo acto imprudente se produjeron tres
delitos, dos de homicidio y uno de daños, como todos son consecuencia de un solo acto culposo, no cabe
penarlos por separado, 2 abril 1932.
The Solicitor General stresses in his brief that the charge for slight physical injuries through reckless
imprudence could not be joined with the accusation for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence,
because Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code allows only the complexing of grave or less grave felonies. This same
argument was considered and rejected by this Court in the case of People vs. Diaz, supra:
... The prosecution's contention might be true. But neither was the prosecution obliged to first prosecute
the accused for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence before pressing the more serious charge
of homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. Having first prosecuted the defendant
for the lesser offense in the Justice of the Peace Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan, which acquitted the
defendant, the prosecuting attorney is not now in a position to press in this case the more serious charge of
homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence which arose out of the same alleged
reckless imprudence of which the defendant has been previously cleared by the inferior court.
In view of the foregoing, we must perforce rule that the exoneration of this appellant, Jose Buan, by the
Justice of the Peace (now Municipal) Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan, of the charge of slight physical injuries through
reckless imprudence, prevents his being prosecuted for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence in the
Court of First Instance of the province, where both charges are derived from the consequences of one and the same
vehicular accident, because the second accusation places the appellant in second jeopardy for the same offense.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed, and the Court of First Instance of Bulacan is directed to
quash and dismiss the charge in its Criminal Case No. 5243. No costs. So ordered.
Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Castro, J., took no part.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

People V Buan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Buan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Buan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Today is Tuesday, August 25, 2020

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. L-25366 March 29, 1968

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

REYES, J.B.L., Actg. C.J.:

Stripped to essentials, the case arose in this wise:

8 octubre 1887, 18 octubre 1927.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

You might also like