G.R. No. 177960 - Dayap vs. Sendiong

On 29 December 2004, the Provincial Prosecutor's Office of Sibulan, Negros Oriental filed an Information against petitioner Jeffrey Reso Dayap charging him with Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide, Less Serious Physical Injuries, and Damage to Property.
The Information alleged that at about 11:55 p.m. on 28 December 2004, petitioner recklessly drove a fully-loaded 10-wheeler cargo truck in Barangay Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, hitting a Colt Galant automobile driven by Lou Gene R. Sendiong and carrying two female passengers, Dexie Duran and Elvie Sy.
The collision allegedly caused the instantaneous death of Lou Gene R. Sendiong, less serious injuries to the two female passengers, and extensive damage to the Colt Galant.
Petitioner was arraigned on 10 January 2005 before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sibulan and pleaded not guilty.

On 17 January 2005, respondents filed a motion for leave to amend the information to include an allegation that petitioner abandoned the victims while Lou Gene R. Sendiong was still alive, which respondents claimed aggravated the offense.
However, on 21 January 2005, the Provincial Prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the amendment request, which the MTC granted, thus the amendment was considered withdrawn and the Information remained unamended.

Prosecution witnesses, including respondents, testified during trial.
After the prosecution rested, petitioner moved for and was granted leave to file a demurrer to evidence dated 15 April 2005, arguing the prosecution failed to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution filed a Comment opposing the demurrer.
On 16 May 2005, the MTC granted the demurrer to evidence and acquitted petitioner of all charges for insufficiency of evidence.

The MTC found that the prosecution failed to establish that petitioner was the driver who caused the accident.
No witness positively identified petitioner as the driver at the time of the collision.
The death of Lou Gene R. Sendiong was not proven with a death certificate or adequate evidence.
The less serious injuries to the two female passengers and damage to the vehicle were also not sufficiently proven.
The MTC noted that the cause of the accident was more likely the swerving of the Colt Galant into the cargo truck’s lane rather than petitioner’s recklessness.
The prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving the elements of the crime and petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MTC for dismissal without proper consideration of evidence and failure to observe trial procedures and rule on civil liability.
On 23 August 2005, the RTC affirmed the MTC’s acquittal but remanded the case to the MTC for further proceedings on the civil aspect of the case.
The RTC found that the MTC properly considered the evidence and followed proper procedure.
However, the RTC ruled that the civil liability was unresolved and remanded for the same.
Motions for reconsideration by both parties were denied by the RTC on 12 September 2005.

Respondents filed a petition for review under Rule 42 with the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 01179.
The CA ruled on 17 August 2006 that, due to lack of proof of the property damage value and claims of P1,500,000.00 in civil damages, jurisdiction lay with the RTC, rendering MTC proceedings null and void.
The CA relied on precedent (Cuyos v. Garcia), the Judiciary Reorganization Act, and the 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure, which set jurisdiction based on amount of damage to property in reckless imprudence cases involving homicide or injuries.
On 25 April 2007, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, emphasizing the RTC’s jurisdiction on grounds of the alleged aggravated reckless imprudence and abandonment.

Petitioner argued that the MTC had jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 7691 which expanded first-level courts’ jurisdiction over criminal negligence cases involving damage to property regardless of fines or accessory penalties, and that the amended information alleging abandonment was never legally filed or enforced.
Petitioner contended the CA erred in ruling jurisdiction belonged to the RTC and in remanding for civil liability proceedings.
Petitioner further argued respondents should have appealed MTC’s dismissal by appeal, not a special civil action for certiorari.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that jurisdiction over the criminal case belonged to the Regional Trial Court instead of the Municipal Trial Court.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in remanding the case for further proceedings on the civil aspect despite the acquittal by demurrer to evidence.
Whether the MTC properly acquitted petitioner based on insufficiency of evidence and whether such acquittal extinguished civil liability.
Whether the respondents’ remedy via certiorari from the MTC’s dismissal was proper.