Case Digest (G.R. No. 147406)
Facts:
Venancio Figueroa y Cervantes, G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008, the Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Venancio Figueroa y Cervantes, was charged by information filed July 8, 1994 with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (Criminal Case No. 2235‑M‑94) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan, Branch 18. Trial proceeded and on August 19, 1998 the RTC convicted petitioner under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code; the RTC imposed imprisonment and awarded civil damages to the victim’s heirs.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). For the first time on appeal he challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC, arguing that after amendment by Republic Act No. 7691 of Section 32(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) had exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years, and the crime charged fell within that jurisdiction.
In its February 28, 2001 decision in CA‑G.R. CR No. 22697, the CA held that petitioner had actively participated in the four‑year trial and belatedly attacked jurisdiction, so he was estopped by laches from challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction; it therefore affirmed conviction but modified the penalty and the damages awarded. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court raising, among others, whether laches esto...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May a litigant be estopped by laches from assailing a trial court’s lack of jurisdiction when the alleged infirmity is first raised on appeal after active participation in trial?
- Was the petitioner’s admission that stopping a bus at 40 kph was difficult sufficient evidence to sustain conviction for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide?
- Was the CA justified in classifying the place of the accident under Item 4 of Section 35(b) of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code (thereby imposing a 20 kph limit) absent proof by the prosecution?
- Was the CA justified in convicting petitioner for homicide through reckless imprudence with violation of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code when the information did not allege such violation and the prosecution failed to prove it?
- Did the uncontroverted testimony of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)