G.R. No. 93475 - Lamera vs. Court of Appeals

On the evening of March 14, 1985, at around 8:30 p.m., along Urbano Street, Pasig, Metro Manila, petitioner Antonio A. Lamera was driving an owner-type jeep bearing Plate No. NCC-313 UV.
The jeep allegedly "hit and bumped" a Suzuki tricycle bearing Plate No. NA-6575 MC, driven by Ernesto Reyes and owned by Ernesto Antonel.
As a result of the collision, the tricycle was damaged (amounting to P7,845.00), and Ernesto Reyes and two passengers, Paulino Gonzal and Patricio Quitalig, sustained physical injuries; Reyes and Gonzal were incapacitated for more than thirty days, while Quitalig was incapacitated for less than nine days.

Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), docketed as Criminal Case No. 64294 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch 68. This Information alleges that petitioner drove carelessly and negligently, causing the accident.
Violation of paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the RPC for abandonment of one’s victim, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2793 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig, Branch 71. This Information alleges that petitioner abandoned the injured victims and failed to help or render assistance without justifiable reason.

The MeTC of Pasig found petitioner guilty of abandonment under Article 275, par. 2, on June 29, 1987, sentencing him to six months of arresto mayor and to pay costs.
Petitioner appealed the Decision to the RTC of Pasig, Branch 68, docketed as Criminal Case No. 70648.
On July 31, 1989, the RTC affirmed the conviction with modification, reducing the imprisonment to two months.
Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as C.A.-G.R. CR No. 07351, assigning errors related to the findings of fact, misapplication of law, and questioning the validity of the proceedings.
The CA, in its Decision promulgated on November 9, 1989, dismissed the petition and upheld the conviction.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing that he could not be penalized twice for the same act – once for reckless imprudence and once for abandonment – on the ground that such is an absurdity and impermissible double jeopardy. The motion was denied via Resolution dated May 17, 1990.

Petitioner filed the instant petition raising the sole issue whether a valid charge for abandonment under Article 275, par. 2, can be filed where a charge for reckless imprudence under Article 365 is already pending based on the same accident.
Petitioner argues that the two charges stem from the same act and that reckless imprudence and accident are fundamentally different, thus barring simultaneous prosecution under both Articles.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment asserting that the two Articles punish different offenses, that prosecution under one does not bar the other, and that double jeopardy does not apply.
The Court required memoranda and noted that petitioner had failed to properly invoke double jeopardy doctrine in lower courts and that there was no bar to the filing of two separate Informations.

Whether a valid charge under Article 275, paragraph 2 (abandonment of a victim), can be filed when a charge for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries under Article 365 is already pending based on the same vehicular collision.
Whether the rule against double jeopardy applies to bar the prosecution for abandonment after petitioner has been charged with reckless imprudence arising from the same incident.