Case Digest (G.R. No. 172716)
Facts:
Jason Ivler y Aguilar v. Hon. Maria Rowena Modesto‑San Pedro, Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, and Evangeline Ponce, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Jason Ivler y Aguilar was charged after an August 2004 vehicular collision with two separate informations filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Pasig City, Branch 71: (1) Criminal Case No. 82367 for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries (victim: Evangeline L. Ponce), and (2) Criminal Case No. 82366 for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property (death of Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the couple’s vehicle). Petitioner posted bail in both cases.
On 7 September 2004 petitioner pleaded guilty in Criminal Case No. 82367 and was sentenced to public censure. He then moved to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 82366 on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that his prior conviction for reckless imprudence barred a second prosecution arising from the same incident. The MeTC denied the motion to quash in a Resolution dated 4 October 2004, finding no identity of offenses.
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari (S.C.A. No. 2803) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 157 to challenge the MeTC’s refusal. He also sought from the MeTC suspension of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366 pending resolution of S.C.A. No. 2803. Despite that request, the MeTC proceeded to arraign petitioner on 17 May 2005; petitioner was absent, the MeTC cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest (Order dated 17 May 2005), and later issued a resolution (24 May 2005) denying the motion to suspend proceedings and postponing arraignment until after arrest. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the MeTC remained unresolved at the time he filed his Supreme Court petition.
Relying on the MeTC’s arrest order, respondent Ponce moved in the RTC to dismiss S.C.A. No. 2803 for petitioner’s alleged forfeiture of standing; the RTC, by Order dated 2 February 2006 (denied reconsideration 2 May 2006), dismissed S.C.A. No. 2803 on the narrow ground that petitioner had forfeited his personality to maintain the special civil action because he absented himself from the arraignment. Petitioner then brought a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the RTC orders and quashal of the Informat...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner’s non‑appearance at the arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366 (and the MeTC’s consequent order for his arrest) divest him of standing to maintain S.C.A. No. 2803 in the RTC?
- If not, does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar further prosecution of petitioner in Criminal Case No. 82366 in light of his prior conviction ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)