JAYSON IVLER CASE: PRIOR CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL FOR RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE BARS SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION FOR THE SAME QUASI-OFFENSE

In Jayson Ivler Y Aguilar vs. Hon. Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, the Supreme Court sufficiently explained that the doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to commit other crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting acts, undergirded this Court’s unbroken chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy as applied to Article 365 starting with People v. Diaz, [94 Phil. 715 (1954)] decided in 1954.

There, a full Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Montemayor, ordered the dismissal of a case for "damage to property thru reckless imprudence" because a prior case against the same accused for "reckless driving," arising from the same act upon which the first prosecution was based, had been dismissed earlier. Since then, whenever the same legal question was brought before the Court, that is, whether prior conviction or acquittal of reckless imprudence bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of the consequences alleged for both charges, the Court unfailingly and consistently answered in the affirmative in People v. Belga [100 Phil. 996 (1957) (barring subsequent prosecutions for physical injuries thru reckless imprudence and damage to property thru reckless imprudence following an acquittal for "reckless imprudence with physical injury")] (promulgated in 1957 by the Court en banc, per Reyes, J.), Yap v. Lutero [105 Phil. 1307 (1959) (Unrep.) (barring subsequent prosecution for "serious physical injuries" following an acquittal for "reckless driving")] (promulgated in 1959, unreported, per Concepcion, J.), People v. Narvas [107 Phil. 737 (1960) (barring subsequent prosecution for "damage to property thru reckless imprudence" following a conviction for "multiple slight and serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence.")] (promulgated in 1960 by the Court en banc, per Bengzon J.), People v. Silva [No. L-15974, 30 January 1962, 4 SCRA 95 (barring subsequent prosecution for "homicide thru reckless imprudence" following an acquittal for "slight physical injuries thru reckless imprudence").] (promulgated in 1962 by the Court en banc, per Paredes, J.), People v. Macabuhay [123 Phil. 48 (1966) (barring subsequent prosecution for "damage to property thru reckless imprudence" following an acquittal for two counts of "slight physical injuries thru reckless imprudence.")] (promulgated in 1966 by the Court en banc, per Makalintal, J.), People v. Buan [131 Phil. 498 (1968) (barring subsequent prosecution for "serious physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless imprudence" following an acquittal for "slight physical injuries thru reckless imprudence").] (promulgated in 1968 by the Court en banc, per Reyes, J.B.L., acting C. J.), Buerano v. Court of Appeals [200 Phil. 486 (1982) (reversing a subsequent conviction for "damage to property thru reckless imprudence" following a conviction for "slight and serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence").] (promulgated in 1982 by the Court en banc, per Relova, J.), and People v. City Court of Manila [206 Phil. 555 (1983) (barring subsequent prosecution for "homicide thru reckless imprudence" following a conviction for "serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence").] (promulgated in 1983 by the First Division, per Relova, J.). These cases uniformly barred the second prosecutions as constitutionally impermissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The reason for this consistent stance of extending the constitutional protection under the Double Jeopardy Clause to quasi-offenses was best articulated by Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Buan, where, in barring a subsequent prosecution for "serious physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless imprudence" because of the accused’s prior acquittal of "slight physical injuries thru reckless imprudence," with both charges grounded on the same act, the Court explained: [131 Phil. 498, 500 (1968).]

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. x x x (Emphasis supplied) x x x x x

Evidently, the Diaz line of jurisprudence on double jeopardy merely extended to its logical conclusion the reasoning of Quizon.      x x x x Hence, the Supreme Court found merit in petitioner’s submission that the lower courts erred in refusing to extend in his favor the mantle of protection afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause.

A more fitting jurisprudence could not be tailored to petitioner’s case than People v. Silva, No. L-15974, 30 January 1962, 4 SCRA 95, a Diaz progeny. There, the accused, who was also involved in a vehicular collision, was charged in two separate Informations with "Slight Physical Injuries thru Reckless Imprudence" and "Homicide with Serious Physical Injuries thru Reckless Imprudence." Following his acquittal of the former, the accused sought the quashal of the latter, invoking the Double Jeopardy Clause. The trial court initially denied relief, but, on reconsideration, found merit in the accused’s claim and dismissed the second case.  x x x x

Ergo, the Supreme Court granted the petition and DISMISSED the Information in Criminal Case No. 82366 against petitioner Jason Ivler y Aguilar pending with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 71 on the ground of double jeopardy (JASON IVLER y AGUILAR vs. HON. MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010, CARPIO, J.).