VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 87: Reodica vs. Court of Appeals

8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 292 8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 292
365 applies. Hence, the proper penalty for

reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries is public censure, this being the penalty
next lower in degree to arresto menor.
Same; Same; Same; The imposable penalty

for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 87
property to the extent of P8,542.00
Reodica vs. Court of Appeals
* _______________
G.R. No. 125066. July 8, 1998.
* FIRST DIVISION.
ISABELITA REODICA, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, and PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. 88
Criminal Procedure; Offenses; Penalty; The

proper penalty for reckless imprudence resulting 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
in slight physical injuries is public censure, this ANNOTATED
being the penalty next lower in degree to arresto
menor.—According to the first paragraph of the Reodica vs. Court of Appeals
aforequoted Article, the penalty for reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries, would be arresto mayor in its minimum and
a light felony, is arresto menor in its maximum medium periods.—As to reckless imprudence
period, with a duration of 21 to 30 days. If the resulting in damage to property in the amount
offense of slight physical injuries is, however, of P8,542.00, the third paragraph of Article 365,
committed deliberately or with malice, it is which provides for the penalty of fine, does not
penalized with arresto menor under Article 266 apply since the reckless imprudence in this case
of the Revised Penal Code, with a duration of 1 did not result in damage to property only. What
day to 30 days. Plainly, the penalty then under applies is the first paragraph of Article 365,
Article 266 may be either lower than or equal to which provides for arresto mayor in its
the penalty prescribed under the first minimum and medium periods (1 month and 1
paragraph of Article 365. This being the case, day to 4 months) for an act committed through
the exception in the sixth paragraph of Article reckless imprudence which, had it been
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dd67c56b9ee5bbe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/40 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dd67c56b9ee5bbe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/40
intentional, would have constituted a less grave deliberate intent; and there is fault when the
felony. Note that if the damage to the extent of wrongful act results from imprudence,
P8,542.00 were caused deliberately, the crime negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. As
would have been malicious mischief under earlier stated, reckless imprudence resulting in
Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code, and the slight physical injuries is punishable by public
penalty would then be arresto mayor in its censure only. Article 9, paragraph 3, of the
medium and maximum periods (2 months and 1 Revised Penal Code defines light felonies as
day to 6 months which is higher than that infractions of law carrying the penalty of arresto
prescribed in the first paragraph of Article 365). menor or a fine not exceeding P200.00, or both.
If the penalty under Article 329 were equal to or Since public censure is classified under Article
lower than that provided for in the first 25 of the Code as a light penalty, and is
paragraph, then the sixth paragraph of Article considered under the graduated scale provided
365 would apply, i.e., the penalty next lower in in Article 71 of the same Code as a penalty
degree, which is arresto menor in its maximum
period to arresto mayor in its minimum period 89
or imprisonment from 21 days to 2 months.
Accordingly, the imposable penalty for reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property to
the extent of P8,542.00 would be arresto mayor VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 89
in its minimum and medium periods, which Reodica vs. Court of Appeals
could be anywhere from a minimum of 1 month
and 1 day to a maximum of 4 months, at the
discretion of the court, since the fifth paragraph lower than arresto menor, it follows that the
of Article 365 provides that in the imposition of offense of reckless imprudence resulting in
the penalties therein provided “the courts shall slight physical injuries is a light felony.
exercise their sound discretion without regard
to the rules prescribed in Article 64.” Same; Same; Same; Since arresto mayor is
a correctional penalty under Article 25 of the
Revised Penal Code, the quasi offense in
Same; Same; Classification of; The offense
question is a less grave felony.—On the other
of reckless imprudence resulting in slight
hand, reckless imprudence also resulting in
physical injuries is a light felony.—Felonies are
damage to property is, as earlier discussed,
committed not only by means of deceit (dolo),
penalized with arresto mayor in its minimum
but likewise by means of fault (culpa). There is
and medium periods. Since arresto mayor is a
deceit when the wrongful act is performed with
correctional penalty under Article 25 of the
Revised Penal Code, the quasi offense in vs. Teleron, L-37446, May 31, 1974, 57 SCRA
question is a less grave felony—not a light 363, 365].
felony as claimed by petitioner.
Same; Same; Petitioner may no longer
Same; Same; Complex Crimes; In Lontok v. question, at this stage, the duplicitous character
Gorgonio, the Court declared that where one of of the information; Defect was deemed waived by
the resulting offenses in criminal negligence her failure to raise it in a motion to quash before
constitutes a light felony, there is no complex she pleaded to the information.—Following
crime.—Clearly, if a reckless, imprudent or Lontok, the conclusion is inescapable here, that
negligent act results in two or more grave or the quasi offense of reckless imprudence
less grave felonies, a complex crime is resulting in slight physical injuries should have
committed. However, in Lontok v. Gorgonio, been charged in a separate information because
this Court declared that where one of the it is not covered by Article 48 of the Revised
resulting offenses in criminal negligence Penal Code. However, petitioner may no longer
constitutes a light felony, there is no complex question, at
crime, thus: Applying Article 48, it follows that
if one offense is light, there is no complex crime. 90
The resulting offenses may be treated as
separate or the light felony may be absorbed by
the grave felony. Thus, the light felonies of
damage to property and slight physical injuries, 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
both resulting from a single act of imprudence,
do not constitute a complex crime. They cannot Reodica vs. Court of Appeals
be charged in one information. They are
separate offenses subject to distinct penalties
this stage, the duplicitous character of the
(People vs. Turla, 50 Phil. 1001; See People vs.
information, i.e., charging two separate offenses
Estipona, 70 Phil. 513). Where the single act of
in one information, to wit: (1) reckless
imprudence resulted in double less serious
imprudence resulting in damage to property;
physical injuries, damage to property
and (2) reckless imprudence resulting in slight
amounting to P10,000 and slight physical
physical injuries. This defect was deemed
injuries, a chief of police did not err in filing a
waived by her failure to raise it in a motion to
separate complaint for the slight physical
quash before she pleaded to the information.
injuries and another complaint for the lesiones
Under Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court,
menos graves and damage to property [Arcaya
when two or more offenses are charged in a
single complaint or information and the accused Same; Same; Same; The filing of the
fails to object to it before trial, the court may complaint even with the fiscal’s office suspends
convict the accused of as many offenses as are the running of the statute of limitations.—
charged and proved and impose on him the Notably, the aforequoted article, in declaring
penalty for each of them. that the prescriptive period “shall be
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
Same; Jurisdiction; Reckless imprudence information,” does not distinguish whether the
resulting in slight physical injuries was complaint is filed for preliminary examination
cognizable by the MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs.— or investigation only or for an action on the
Similarly, since offenses punishable by merits. Thus, in Francisco v. Court of Appeals
imprisonment of not exceeding 4 years and 2 and People v. Cuaresma, this Court held that
months were within the jurisdictional ambit of the filing of the complaint even with the fiscal’s
the MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs, it follows that office suspends the running of the statute of
those penalized with censure, which is a penalty limitations.
lower than arresto menor under the graduated
scale in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code 91
and with a duration of 1 to 30 days, should also
fall within the jurisdiction of said courts. Thus,
VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 91
reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries was cognizable by said courts. Reodica vs. Court of Appeals
Same; Same; Prescription; Reckless PETITION for review on certiorari of a

imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries, decision of the Court of Appeals.
being a light felony, prescribes in two months.—
Pursuant to Article 90 of the Revised Penal The facts are stated in the opinion of the
Code, reckless imprudence resulting in slight Court.
physical injuries, being a light felony, prescribes Movement of Attorney’s for
in two months. On the other hand, reckless Brotherhood, Integrity & Nationalism, Inc.
imprudence resulting in damage to property in (MABINI) for petitioner.
the amount of P8,542.00, being a less grave The Solicitor General for public
felony whose penalty is arresto mayor in its respondents.
minimum and medium periods, prescribes in
five years. DAVIDE, JR., J.:

On the evening of 17 October 1987, ANNOTATED

petitioner Isabelita Reodica was driving a Reodica vs. Court of Appeals
van along Doña Soledad Avenue, Better
Living Subdivision, Parañaque, Metro
That on or about the 17th day of October, 1987 in the
Manila. Allegedly because of her
Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila,
recklessness, her van hit the car of
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
complainant Norberto Bonsol. As a result,
Honorable Court, the abovementioned accused,
complainant sustained physical injuries,
Isabelita Velasco Reodica, being then the driver
while the damage to his car amounted to
and/or person in charge of a Tamaraw bearing plate
P8,542.00.
No. NJU-306, did then and there willfully,
Three days after the incident, or on 20
unlawfully and feloniously drive, manage and
October 1987, the complainant filed an
1
operate the same in a reckless, careless, negligent
Affidavit of Complaint against petitioner
and imprudent manner, without regard to traffic
with the Fiscal’s Office. 2
laws, rules and regulations and without taking the
On 13 January 1988, an information
necessary care and precaution to avoid damage to
was filed before the Regional Trial Court
property and injuries to person, causing by such
(RTC) of Makati (docketed as Criminal
negligence, carelessness and imprudence the said
Case No. 33919) charging petitioner with
vehicle to bump/collide with a Toyota Corolla bearing
“Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
plate no. NIM-919 driven and owned by Norberto
Damage to Property with Slight Physical
Bonsol, thereby causing damage amounting to
Injury.” The information read:
P8,542.00, to the damage and prejudice of its owner,
The undersigned 2nd Asst. Fiscal accuses in the aforementioned amount of P8,542.00.
Isabelita Reodica of the crime of Reckless That as further consequence due to the strong
Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property impact, said Norberto Bonsol suffered bodily injuries
with Slight Physical Injury as follows: which required medical attendance for a period of
less than nine (9) days and incapacitated him from
performing his customary labor for the same period
_______________
of time.
1 Original Record (OR), 131.
2 Id., 1. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not
guilty to the charge. Trial then ensued.
92 On 31 January 1991, the RTC of3
Makati, Branch 145, rendered a decision
convicting petitioner of the “quasi offense
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
of reckless imprudence resulting in now punished with penalty of arresto mayor in

damage to property with slight physical its maximum period (People v. Aguiles, L-
injuries,” and sentencing her: 11302, October5
28, 1960, cited in Gregorio’s
book, p. 718).
[t]o suffer imprisonment of six (6) months of
arresto mayor, and to pay the complainant, As to the sum of P13,542.00, this
Norberto Bonsol y Atienza, the sum of Thirteen represented the cost of the car repairs
Thousand Five Hundred Forty-Two (P13,542), (P8,542.00) and medical expenses
Philippine Currency, without subsidiary (P5,000.00).
impairment
4
in case of insolvency; and to pay the Petitioner appealed from the decision to
costs. the Court of Appeals, which docketed the
case as CA-G.R. CR No. 14660. After her
_______________ motions for extension of time to file her
brief were granted, she filed a Motion to
3 Annex “C” of Petition, Rollo, 52-56. Per Judge Job Withdraw Appeal for Probation Purposes,
B. Madayag. and to Suspend, Ex Abundanti Cautela,
4 Rollo, 56. Period for Filing Appellant’s Brief.
However, respondent Court of Appeals
93
denied this motion 6
and directed petitioner
to file her brief.
VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 93 After passing upon the errors imputed
by petitioner to the trial court, respondent
Reodica vs. Court of Appeals 7
Court of Appeals rendered a decision on 31
January 1996 affirming the appealed
The trial court justified imposing a 6- decision.
month prison term in this wise: Petitioner subsequently filed a motion
8
As a result of the reckless imprudence of the for reconsideration raising new issues,
accused, complainant suffered slight physical thus:
injuries (Exhs. D, H and I). In view of the NOW THAT AN ACQUITTAL SEEMS
resulting physical injuries, the penalty to be IMPOSSIBLE, MAY WE REVISIT THE
imposed is not fine, but imprisonment PENALTY AND MOVE THAT IT BE
(Gregorio, Fundamental of Criminal Law REVIEWED AND SET ASIDE SINCE IT IS
Review, Eight Edition 1988, p. 711). Slight RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO BE
physical injuries thru reckless imprudence is ERROR TO COMPLEX DAMAGE TO
PROPERTY AND SLIGHT PHYSICAL 45 of the Rules of Court premised on the

INJURIES, AS BOTH ARE LIGHT OF- following grounds:
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS’

_______________
DECISION DATED JANUARY 31, 1996 AND
5 Id. MORE SO ITS RESOLUTION DATED MAY
6 Rollo, 35. 24, 1996, ARE CONTRARY TO LAW AND
7 Annex “A” of Petition, Rollo, 27-49. Per Mabutas, Jr., GROSSLY ERRONEOUS IN THAT THEY
R., J. with Elbinias, J., and Valdez, Jr., S., JJ., concurring. IMPOSED A PENALTY IN EXCESS OF WHAT
8 Annex “D” of Petition, Rollo, 57-69. IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW FOR THE CRIME
OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING
94 IN SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES, ON THE
BASIS OF A CLERICAL ERROR IN A
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS SECONDARY SOURCE.
ANNOTATED
A. IN THE 11 CASE OF PEOPLE v.
AGUILAR, THE SAME CASE WHERE
THE COURT A QUO BASED ITS
FENSES, OVER WHICH THE RESPONDENT
FINDING OF A PENALTY WHEN IT
COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION AND EVEN
AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE
ASSUMING SUCH JURISDICTION, IT
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, WHAT
CANNOT IMPOSE A PENALTY IN 9EXCESS
WAS STATED IN THE ORIGINAL
OF WHAT IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
TEXT OF SAID CASE IS THAT THE
...
PENALTY FOR SLIGHT PHYSICAL
REVERSAL OF THE DECISION REMAINS
INJURIES THROUGH RECKLESS
POSSIBLE ON GROUNDS OF
IMPRUDENCE IS ARRESTO MENOR
PRESCRIPTION 10 OR LACK OF
AND NOT ARRESTO MAYOR. IT IS
JURISDICTION.
GRAVE ERROR FOR THE
In its Resolution of 24 May 1996, the Court RESPONDENT COURT TO PUNISH
of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for PETITIONER MORE THAN SHE
reconsideration for lack of merit, as well as SHOULD OR COULD BE PUNISHED
her supplemental motion for BECAUSE OF A CLERICAL ERROR
reconsideration. Hence, the present COPIED FROM A SECONDARY
petition for review on certiorari under Rule SOURCE.

_______________ imprudence. Concretely, the title of the

case was not People v. Aguiles, but People
9 Id., 58.
v. Aguilar; while the ruling was that the
10 Id., 60.
penalty for such quasi offense was arresto
11 Erroneously cited by the trial court as People v. menor—not arresto mayor.
Aguiles. As regards the second assigned error,
petitioner avers that the courts below
95
should have pronounced that there were
two separate light felonies involved,
VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 95 namely: (1) reckless imprudence with
Reodica vs. Court of Appeals slight physical injuries; and (2) reckless
imprudence with damage to property,
instead of considering them a complex
B. THE RESPONDENT COURT OF
crime. Two light felonies, she insists, “do
APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
not . . . rate a single penalty of arresto
DISCRETION WHEN IT COMPLEXED
mayor or imprisonment 12of six months,”
THE CRIME OF RECKLESS
citing Lontok v. Gorgonio, thus:
IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN
DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AND Where the single act of imprudence resulted in
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES double less serious physical injuries, damage to
IMPOSING A SINGLE EXCESSIVE property amounting to P10,000.00 and slight
PENALTY IN ITS ELLIPTICAL physical injuries, a chief of police did not err in
RESOLUTION OF MAY 24, 1996. filing a separate complaint for the slight
C. THE RESPONDENT COURT OF physical injuries and another complaint for the
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN lesiones menos graves and damage to property
IT AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT’S (Arcaya vs. Teleron, L-37446, May 31, 1974, 57
DECISION NOTWITHSTANDING THE SCRA 363, 365).
DEFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION AND ...
LACK OF JURISDICTION. The case of Angeles vs. Jose, 96 Phil. 151,
cited by investigating fiscal, is different from
Anent the first ground, petitioner claims the instant case because in that case the
that the courts below misquoted not only
the title, but likewise the ruling of the case _______________
cited as authority regarding the penalty for
89 SCRA 632, 636 [1979].
slight physical injuries through reckless 12

96 in a separate information. And since, as a light

offense, it prescribes in two months, Lontok’s
criminal liability therefor was already
ANNOTATED extinguished (Arts. 89[5], 90 and 91, Revised
Penal Code in relation to Sec. 2[e] and [f], Rule
117, Rules of Court). The trial court committed
a grave abuse of discretion in not sustaining
negligent act resulted in the offenses of lesiones
Lontok’s motion to quash that part of the
menos graves and damage to property which
information charging him with that light
were both less grave felonies and which,
offense.
therefore, constituted a complex crime.
In the instant case, following the ruling in Petitioner further claims that the
the Turla case, the offense of lesiones leves information was filed with the wrong court,
through reckless imprudence should have been since Regional Trial Courts do not deal
charged in a separate information. with arresto menor cases. She submits that
damage to property and slight physical
She then suggests that “at worst, the injuries are light felonies and thus covered
penalties of two light offenses, both by the rules on summary procedure;
imposable in their maximum period and therefore, only the filing with the proper
computed or added together, only sum up Metropolitan Trial Court could have tolled
to 60 days imprisonment and not six the statute of limitations, this time
months as imposed by the lower courts.” invoking Zaldivia v. Reyes.
13
On the third assigned error, petitioner

insists that the offense of slight physical
_______________
injuries through reckless imprudence,
being punishable only by arresto menor, is 13 211 SCRA 277 [1992].
a light offense; as such, it prescribes in two
months. Here, since the information was 97
filed only on 13 January 1988, or almost
three months from the date the vehicular
VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 97
collision occurred, the offense had already
prescribed, again citing Lontok, thus: Reodica vs. Court of Appeals
In the instant case, following the ruling in the

In its Comment filed on behalf of public
Turla case, the offense of lesiones leves through
respondents, the Office of the Solicitor
reckless imprudence should have been charged
General (OSG) agrees with petitioner that In her Reply to the Comment of the
the penalty should have been arresto OSG, petitioner expressed gratitude and
menor in its maximum period, instead of appreciation to the OSG in joining cause
arresto mayor, pursuant to Article 365 of with her as to the first assigned error.
the Revised Penal Code. However, she considers the OSG’s reliance
18
As to the second assigned error, the on Buerano v. Court of Appeals as
OSG contends that conformably 14
with misplaced, for nothing there validates the
Buerano v. Court of Appeals, which “complexing” of the crime of reckless
frowns upon splitting of crimes and imprudence with physical injuries and
prosecution, it was proper for the trial
court to “complex” reckless imprudence _______________
with slight physical injuries and damage to
property because what the law seeks to 14 115 SCRA 82 [1982].
penalize is the single act of reckless 15 160 SCRA 302 [1988].
imprudence, not the results thereof; hence, 16 172 SCRA 415, [1989].
there was no need for two separate 17 A.M. MTJ-91-559, 13 October 1993.
informations. 18 Supra note 14.
To refute the third assigned error, the
98
OSG submits that although the Municipal
Trial Court had jurisdiction to impose
arresto menor for slight physical injuries, 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
the Regional Trial Court properly took ANNOTATED
cognizance of this case because it had the Reodica vs. Court of Appeals
jurisdiction to impose the higher penalty
for the damage to property, which was a
fine equal to thrice the value of P8,542.00. damage to property; besides, in that case,
On this15 score, the OSG cites Cuyos v. two separate informations were filed—one
Garcia. for slight and serious physical injuries
The OSG then debunks petitioner’s through reckless imprudence and the other
defense of prescription of the crime, for damage to property through reckless
arguing that the prescriptive period here imprudence. She then insists that in19
this
was tolled by the filing of the complaint case, following Arcaya
20
v. Teleron and
with the fiscal’s office three days after the Lontok v. Gorgonio, two informations
incident, pursuant 17to People v. Cuaresma
16
should have been filed. She 21
likewise
and Chico v. Isidro. submits that Cuyos v. Garcia would only
apply here on the assumption that it was _______________

proper to “complex” damage to property
19 57 SCRA 363 [1974].
through reckless imprudence with slight
20 Supra note 12.
physical injuries through
22
reckless
21 Supra note 15.
imprudence. Chico v. Isidro is likewise
“inapposite,” for it deals with attempted
22 Supra note 17.
homicide, which is not covered by the Rule 23 Supra note 16.

on Summary Procedure. 24 Supra note 14.
Petitioner finally avers that People v.
23 99
Cuaresma should not be given retroactive
effect; otherwise, it would either unfairly
prejudice her or render 24
nugatory the en VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 99
banc ruling in Zaldivia favorable to her. Reodica vs. Court of Appeals
The pleadings thus raise the following
issues:
VI. Whether the quasi offenses in
I. Whether the penalty imposed on question have already prescribed.
petitioner is correct.
II. Whether the quasi offenses of
reckless imprudence resulting in I. The Proper Penalty.
damage to property in the amount
of P8,542.00 and reckless We agree with both petitioner and the OSG
imprudence resulting in slight that the penalty of six months of arresto
physical injuries are light felonies. mayor imposed by the trial court and
III. Whether the rule on complex affirmed by respondent Court of Appeals is
crimes under Article 48 of the incorrect. However, we cannot subscribe to
Revised Penal Code applies to the their submission that the penalty of arresto
quasi offenses in question. menor in its maximum period is the proper
penalty.
IV. Whether the duplicity of the
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code
information may be questioned for
provides:
the first time on appeal.
V. Whether the Regional Trial Court Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence.—Any
had jurisdiction over the offenses in person who, by reckless imprudence, shall
question. commit any act which, had it been intentional,
would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the 100

penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its medium period; if it
would have constituted a less grave felony, the
ANNOTATED
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and
medium periods shall be imposed; if it would Reodica vs. Court of Appeals
have constituted a light felony, the penalty of
arresto menor in its maximum period shall be 1. When the penalty provided for the offense is
imposed. equal to or lower than those provided in the
Any person who, by simple imprudence or first two paragraphs of this article, in which
negligence, shall commit an act which would case the courts shall impose the penalty next
otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer lower in degree than that which should be
the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and imposed in the period which they may deem
maximum periods; if it would have constituted a proper to apply.
less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor
in its minimum period shall be imposed. According to the first paragraph of the
When the execution of the act covered by this aforequoted Article, the penalty for
article shall have only resulted in damage to the reckless imprudence resulting in slight
property of another, the offender shall be physical injuries, a light felony, is arresto
punished by a fine ranging from an amount menor in its maximum period, with a
equal to the value of said damages to three duration of 21 to 30 days. If the offense of
times such value, but which shall in no case be slight physical injuries is, however,
less than 25 pesos. committed deliberately or with malice, it is
A fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure penalized with arresto menor under Article
shall be imposed upon any person who, by 266 of the Revised Penal Code, with a
simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause duration of 1 day to 30 days. Plainly, the
some wrong which, if done maliciously, would penalty then under Article 266 may be
have constituted a light felony. either lower than or equal to the penalty
In the imposition of these penalties, the prescribed under the first paragraph of
courts shall exercise their sound discretion, Article 365. This being the case, the
without regard to the rules prescribed in Article exception in the sixth paragraph of Article
64. 365 applies. Hence, the proper penalty for
The provisions contained in this article shall reckless imprudence resulting in slight
not be applicable: physical injuries is public censure, this

being the penalty

25
next lower in degree to 365). If the penalty under Article 329 were
arresto menor. equal to or lower than that provided for in
As to reckless imprudence resulting in the first paragraph, then the sixth
damage to property in the amount of paragraph of Article 365 would apply, i.e.,
P8,542.00, the third paragraph of Article the penalty next lower in degree, which is
365, which provides for the penalty of fine, arresto menor in its maximum period to
does not apply since the reckless arresto mayor in its minimum period or
imprudence in this case did not result in imprisonment from 21 days to 2 months.
damage to property only. What applies is Accordingly, the imposable penalty for
the first paragraph of Article 365, which reckless imprudence resulting in damage
provides for arresto mayor in its minimum to property to the extent of P8,542.00
and medium periods (1 month and 1 day to would be arresto mayor in its minimum
4 months) for an act committed through and medium periods, which could be
reckless imprudence which, had it been anywhere from a minimum of 1 month and
intentional, would have constituted a less 1 day to a maximum of 4 months, at the
grave felony. Note that if the damage to discretion of the court, since the fifth
the extent of P8,542.00 were caused paragraph of Article 365 provides that in
deliberately, the crime would have been the imposition of the penalties therein
malicious mischief under Article 329 of the provided “the courts shall exercise their
Revised Penal Code, and the penalty would sound discretion without regard to the
then be arresto mayor in its medium and rules prescribed in Article 64.”
maximum periods (2 months and 1 day to 6
months which is higher than that
II. Classification of the Quasi Offense
prescribed in the first paragraph of Article
in Question.
_______________ Felonies are committed not only by means

of deceit (dolo), but likewise by means of
25 Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code; People v.
fault (culpa). There is deceit when the
Leynez, 65 Phil. 608, 610-611 [1938].
wrongful act is performed with deliberate
101 intent; and there is fault when the
wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 101 skill.
26

As earlier stated, reckless imprudence felony as claimed by petitioner.

resulting in slight physical injuries is
punishable by public censure only. Article
III. Applicability of the Rule on
9, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code
Complex Crimes.
defines light felonies as infractions of law
carrying the penalty of arresto menor or a Since criminal negligence may, as here,
fine not exceeding P200.00, or both. Since result in more than one felony, should
public censure is classified under Article 25 Article 48 of the Revised Code on complex
of the Code as a light penalty, and is crimes be applied? Article 48 provides as
considered under the graduated scale follows:
provided in Article 71 of the same Code as
a penalty lower than arresto menor, it “ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.—When a
follows that the offense of reckless single act constitutes two or more grave or less
imprudence resulting in slight physical grave felonies, or when an offense is necessary a
injuries is a light felony. means for committing the other, the penalty for
On the other hand, reckless imprudence the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
also resulting in damage to property is, as same to be applied in its maximum period.
earlier discussed, penalized with arresto
mayor in its minimum and medium Clearly, if a reckless, imprudent or
periods. Since arresto mayor is a negligent act results in two or more grave
correctional penalty under Article 25 of the or less grave felonies, a complex crime is
committed.27
However, in Lontok v.
Gorgonio, this Court declared that where
_______________
one of the resulting offenses in criminal
26 Article 3, Revised Penal Code. negligence constitutes a light felony, there
is no complex crime, thus:
102
Applying Article 48, it follows that if one offense
is light, there is no complex crime. The
resulting offenses may be treated as separate or
ANNOTATED
the light felony may be absorbed by the grave
Reodica vs. Court of Appeals felony. Thus, the light felonies of damage to
property and slight physical injuries, both
Revised Penal Code, the quasi offense in resulting from a single act of imprudence, do
question is a less grave felony—not a light not constitute a complex crime. They cannot be
charged in one information. They are separate Following Lontok, the conclusion is
offenses subject to distinct penalties (People vs. inescapable here, that the quasi offense of
Turla, 50 Phil. 1001; See People vs. Estipona, reckless imprudence resulting in slight
70 Phil. 513). physical injuries should have been charged
Where the single act of imprudence resulted in a separate information because it is not
in double less serious physical injuries, damage covered by Article 48 of the Revised Penal
to property amounting to P10,000 and slight Code. However, petitioner may no longer
physical injuries, a chief of police did not err in question, at this stage, the duplicitous
filing a separate complaint for the slight character of the information, i.e., charging
physical injuries and another complaint for the two separate offenses in one information,
lesiones menos graves and damage to property to wit: (1) reckless imprudence resulting in
[Arcaya vs. Teleron, L-37446, May 31, 1974, 57 damage to property; and (2) reckless
SCRA 363, 365]. imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries. This defect was deemed waived by
_______________ her failure to raise it in a motion to quash28
before she pleaded to the information.
27 Supra note 12 at 635-636. Under Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules of
Court, when two or more offenses are
103
charged in a single complaint or
information and the accused fails to object
VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 103 to it before trial, the court may convict the
accused of as many offenses as are charged
and proved and impose
29
on him the penalty
for each of them.
Hence, the trial court erred in considering
the following felonies as a complex crime:
the less grave felony of reckless V. Which Court Has Jurisdiction Over
imprudence resulting in damage to the
property in the amount of P8,542.00 and Quasi Offenses in Question.
the light felony of reckless imprudence
resulting in physical injuries. The jurisdiction to try a criminal action is
to be determined by the law in force at the
time of the institution of the action, unless
IV. The Right to Assail the Duplicity of the statute expressly provides, or is
the Information. construed to the effect that it is intended to
operate as 30to actions pending before its thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value
enactment. or amount thereof.”
The criminal jurisdiction of the lower
_______________ courts was then determined by the
duration of the imprisonment and the
28 Section 8, Rule 117, Rules of Court. amount of fine prescribed by law for the
29 See also People v. Conte, 247 SCRA 583 [1995]). offense charged. The question thus arises
30 People v. Velasco, 252 SCRA 135 [1996]). as to which court has jurisdiction over
offenses punishable by censure, such as
104
reckless imprudence resulting in slight
physical injuries.
ANNOTATED _______________
Reodica vs. Court of Appeals 31 This Section has been amended by Section 2 of
R.A. No. 7691, which was approved by President Fidel
At the time of the filing of the information V. Ramos on 25 March 1994. As amended, the
in this case, the law in force was Batas provision now reads in part as follows:
Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as
“The Judiciary Reorganization Act of “Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
31
1980.” Section 32(2) thereof provided that Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
except in cases falling within the exclusive in Criminal Cases.—Except in cases falling within the
original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and
Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall
Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and exercise:
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) “(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable
had exclusive original jurisdiction over “all with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the
offenses punishable with imprisonment of amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or
not exceeding four years and two months, other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such
or a fine of not more than four thousand offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value
pesos, or both fine and imprisonment, or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving
regardless of other imposable accessory or damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have
other penalties, including the civil liability exclusive original jurisdiction thereof.”
arising from such offenses or predicated
105 which is a penalty lower than arresto

menor under the graduated scale in Article
71 of the Revised Penal Code and with a
VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 105
duration of 1 to 30 days, should also fall
Reodica vs. Court of Appeals within the jurisdiction of said courts. Thus,
reckless imprudence resulting in slight
32
In Uy Chin Hua v. Dinglasan, this court physical injuries was cognizable by said
found that a lacuna existed in the law as to courts.
which court had jurisdiction over offenses As to the reckless imprudence resulting
penalized with destierro, the duration of in damage to property in the amount of
which was from 6 months and 1 day to 6 P8,542.00, the same was also under the
years, which was co-extensive with prision jurisdiction of MeTCs, MTCs or MCTCs
correccional. We then interpreted the law because the imposable penalty therefor
in this wise: was arresto mayor in its minimum and
medium periods—the duration of which
Since the legislature has placed offenses was from 1 month and 1 day to 4 months.
penalized with arresto mayor under the Criminal Case No. 33919 should,
jurisdiction of justice of the peace and municipal therefore, be dismissed for lack of
courts, and since by Article 71 of the Revised jurisdiction on the part of the RTC of
Penal Code, as amended by Section 3 of Makati.
Commonwealth Act No. 217, it has placed
destierro below arresto mayor as a lower penalty
_______________
than the latter, in the absence of any express
provision of law to the contrary it is logical and 32 86 Phil. 617 [1950].
reasonable to infer from said provisions that its
intention was to place offenses penalized with 106
destierro also under the jurisdiction of justice of
the peace and municipal courts and not under 106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
that of courts of first instance. ANNOTATED
Similarly, since offenses punishable by Reodica vs. Court of Appeals
imprisonment of not exceeding 4 years and
2 months were within the jurisdictional
ambit of the MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs, it
follows that those penalized with censure,
unjustifiably stopped by any reason not

imputable to him. (emphasis supplied)
VI. Prescription of the Quasi Offenses
in Question. Notably, the aforequoted article, in
declaring that the prescriptive period
Pursuant to Article 90 of the Revised Penal “shall be interrupted by the filing of the
Code, reckless imprudence resulting in complaint or information,” does not
slight physical injuries, being a light distinguish whether the complaint is filed
felony, prescribes in two months. On the for preliminary examination or
other hand, reckless imprudence resulting investigation only or for an action on the
in damage to property in the amount of 33
merits. 34 Thus, in Francisco v. Court of
P8,542.00, being a less grave felony whose Appeals and People v. Cuaresma, this
35
penalty is arresto mayor in its minimum Court held that the filing of the complaint
and medium periods, prescribes in five even with the fiscal’s office suspends the
years. running of the statute of limitations.
To resolve the issue of whether these
quasi offenses have already prescribed, it
_______________
is necessary to determine whether the
filing of the complaint with the fiscal’s 33 People v. Olarte, 19 SCRA 494 [1967].
office three days after the incident in 34 122 SCRA 538 [1983].
question tolled the running of the 35 Supra note 16.
prescriptive period.
Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code 107
provides:
ART. 91. Computation of prescription of VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 107

offenses.—The period of prescription shall Reodica vs. Court of Appeals
commence to run from the day on which the
crime is discovered by the offended party, the 36
We cannot apply Section 9 of the Rule on
authorities, or their agents, and shall be
Summary Procedure, which provides that
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
in cases covered thereby, such as offenses
information, and shall commence to run again
punishable by imprisonment not exceeding
when such proceedings terminate without the
6 months, as in the instant case, “the
accused being convicted or acquitted, or are
prosecution commences by the filing of a
complaint or information directly with the
MeTC, RTC or MCTC without need of a _______________

prior preliminary examination or
36 Now Section 11 of the Revised Rules of Summary
investigation; provided that in
Procedure, which reads in part as follows:
Metropolitan Manila and Chartered Cities,
said cases may be commenced only by SEC. 11. How commenced.—The filing of criminal cases
information.” However, this Section cannot falling within the scope of this Rule shall be either by
be taken to mean that the prescriptive complaint or information: Provided, however, that in
period is interrupted only by the filing of a Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities, such cases
complaint or information directly with said shall be commenced only by information, except when the
courts. offense cannot be prosecuted de oficio.
It must be stressed that prescription in
criminal cases is a matter of substantive 37 Zaldivia v. Reyes, supra note 13 at 284.
law. Pursuant to Section 5(5), Article VIII
108
of the Constitution, this Court, in the
exercise of its rule-making power, is not
allowed to diminish, increase or modify 108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
37
substantive rights. Hence, in case of ANNOTATED
conflict between the Rule on Summary Reodica vs. Court of Appeals
Procedure promulgated by this Court and
the Revised Penal Code, the latter prevails.
riod was not interrupted by the filing of the
Neither does Zaldivia control in this
complaint with the Office of the Provincial
instance. It must be recalled that what was
Prosecutor, as such did not constitute a
involved therein was a violation of a
judicial proceeding; what could have tolled
municipal ordinance; thus, the applicable
the prescriptive period there was only the
law was not Article 91 of the Revised Penal
filing of the information in the proper
Code, but Act. No. 3326, as amended,
court.
entitled “An Act to Establish Periods of
In the instant case, as the offenses
Prescription for Violations Penalized by
involved are covered by the Revised Penal
Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances
Code, Article 91 thereof, the rulings in
and to Provide When Prescription Shall
Francisco and Cuaresma apply. Thus, the
Begin to Run.” Under Section 2 thereof, the
prescriptive period for the quasi offenses in
period of prescription is suspended only
question was interrupted by the filing of
when judicial proceedings are instituted
the complaint with the fiscal’s office three
against the guilty party. Accordingly, this
days after the vehicular mishap and
Court held that the prescriptive pe-
remained tolled pending the termination of

this case. We cannot, therefore, uphold
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
petitioner’s defense of prescription of the
offenses charged in the information in this
case.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
GRANTED. The challenged decision of
respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR No. 14660 is SET ASIDE as the
Regional Trial Court, whose decision was
affirmed therein, had no jurisdiction over
Criminal Case No. 33919.
Criminal Case No. 33919 is ordered
DISMISSED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Vitug, Panganiban and

Quisumbing, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment set aside.
Note.—The matter of interruption of

the prescriptive period due to the filing of
the complaint or information had been the
subject of conflicting decisions of the Court.
(Llenes vs. Dicdican, 260 SCRA 207)
——o0o——
109

VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 87: Reodica vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 87: Reodica vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 87: Reodica vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 292 8/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 292

365 applies. Hence, the proper penalty for

Same; Same; Same; The imposable penalty

Criminal Procedure; Offenses; Penalty; The

Same; Same; Prescription; Reckless PETITION for review on certiorari of a

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dd67c56b9ee5bbe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/40 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dd67c56b9ee5bbe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/40

On the evening of 17 October 1987, ANNOTATED

of reckless imprudence resulting in now punished with penalty of arresto mayor in

PROPERTY AND SLIGHT PHYSICAL 45 of the Rules of Court premised on the

RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS’

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dd67c56b9ee5bbe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/40 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dd67c56b9ee5bbe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/40

_______________ imprudence. Concretely, the title of the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dd67c56b9ee5bbe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/40 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dd67c56b9ee5bbe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/40

96 in a separate information. And since, as a light

On the third assigned error, petitioner

In the instant case, following the ruling in the

apply here on the assumption that it was _______________

homicide, which is not covered by the Rule 23 Supra note 16.

would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the 100

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dd67c56b9ee5bbe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/40 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dd67c56b9ee5bbe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/40

being the penalty

_______________ Felonies are committed not only by means

Reodica vs. Court of Appeals

As earlier stated, reckless imprudence felony as claimed by petitioner.

Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and exercise:

105 which is a penalty lower than arresto

unjustifiably stopped by any reason not

ART. 91. Computation of prescription of VOL. 292, JULY 8, 1998 107

MeTC, RTC or MCTC without need of a _______________

remained tolled pending the termination of

Bellosillo, Vitug, Panganiban and

Petition granted, judgment set aside.

Note.—The matter of interruption of

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dd67c56b9ee5bbe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/40 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001741dd67c56b9ee5bbe003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/40

You might also like