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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 177960)

Key Dates and Procedural Timeline

Information filed by the Provincial Prosecutor: 29 December 2004. Arraignment and plea: 10 January 2005 (MTC). Motion to amend information filed by respondents: 17 January 2005; Prosecutor’s Omnibus Motion to withdraw that motion: 21 January 2005; withdrawal granted by MTC: 21 January 2005. Demurrer to evidence filed by petitioner after prosecution rested: 15 April 2005; MTC order granting demurrer and acquittal: 16 May 2005. Petition for certiorari to RTC: date not specified in prompt but RTC order issued 23 August 2005 affirming acquittal and remanding civil aspect. Motions for reconsideration denied by RTC: 12 September 2005. Petition for review to Court of Appeals (CA): docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 01179; CA Decision remanding to RTC: 17 August 2006; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: 25 April 2007. Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court decision reversing CA: rendered January 29, 2009 (decision date used to apply the 1987 Constitution).

Charges and Allegations in the Information

Petitioner was charged under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, less serious physical injuries, and damage to property. The information alleged that on the evening of 28 December 2004 the accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drove a fully loaded 10-wheeler cargo truck and hit a Colt Galant driven by Lou Gene R. Sendiong, causing his instantaneous death, injuries to two passengers, and extensive damage to the Colt Galant. The information as filed did not include an allegation of abandonment; respondents later sought but did not secure an effective amendment to add abandonment as an aggravating circumstance.

Attempted Amendment and Withdrawal

Respondents filed a motion to amend the information to add an allegation that the truck driver abandoned the victims while Lou Gene R. Sendiong was still alive inside the car. The Provincial Prosecutor filed an Omnibus Motion treating respondents’ motion to amend as withdrawn; the MTC granted the withdrawal on 21 January 2005. The record therefore shows that the information received and prosecuted by the trial court remained the original information without the abandonment allegation.

Trial Proceedings and Demurrer to Evidence

Trial proceeded with respondents testifying for the prosecution. After the prosecution rested, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence dated 15 April 2005 asserting insufficiency of proof to establish criminal liability for reckless imprudence. The MTC granted leave to file and ultimately granted the demurrer in its order dated 16 May 2005, resulting in petitioner’s acquittal for insufficiency of evidence.

MTC Findings Supporting Acquittal

The MTC found that the prosecution failed to prove both elements necessary for conviction: (1) the fact of the crime (all elements of reckless imprudence resulting in the charged consequences), and (2) that the accused was the perpetrator. The court noted absence of direct identification that petitioner was the driver at the time, absence of a death certificate and medical certificates to prove death and injuries, and absence of documentary or testimonial proof of the extent of property damage. The MTC also evaluated the physical evidence and police sketch and concluded that the proximate cause of the accident was the Colt Galant’s swerving into the truck’s lane, which damaged the rear of the truck and precipitated the collision — not negligent driving by petitioner.

Legal Effect of Demurrer to Evidence and Reviewability

The MTC’s grant of a demurrer to evidence resulted in a dismissal on the merits tantamount to an acquittal. Under established rules, an acquittal resulting from a successful demurrer to evidence is not appealable by the prosecution without running afoul of double jeopardy. Nevertheless, such dismissal is reviewable only by certiorari under Rule 65, and reversal on certiorari requires a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or denial of due process.

RTC Proceedings on Certiorari and Civil Aspect

Respondents filed a Rule 65 petition in the RTC alleging grave abuse by the MTC in granting the demurrer and failing to consider prosecution evidence and to follow procedural requirements. The RTC affirmed the MTC’s acquittal, finding that the MTC had adequately considered and recited the facts and followed Rule 119 procedures. The RTC nonetheless remanded the case to the MTC to proceed on the civil aspect because the MTC’s acquittal did not expressly declare that the facts giving rise to civil liability did not exist.

Court of Appeals’ Decision and Reasoning

On petition for review the Court of Appeals concluded that the matter fell within RTC jurisdiction rather than the MTC because the prosecution had not proven the total value of property damage and respondents were claiming P1,500,000 in civil damages. The CA relied on precedent holding that jurisdiction in complex crimes involving reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, physical injuries and damage to property is determined by the fine or damages for property, not by the penalties for physical injuries or homicide, and cited Section 36 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 and the 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure. The CA therefore remanded the case to the RTC for proper disposition on the merits.

Petitioner’s Supreme Court Arguments

Petitioner argued that, when the case was filed on 29 December 2004, jurisdiction was governed by Section 32(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, which extended first-level court jurisdiction to offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years, explicitly including offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence. Petitioner further argued that the attempted amendment alleging abandonment was legally withdrawn and therefore did not vest RTC jurisdiction, and that respondents erred in invoking certiorari instead of appeal.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

The decision was rendered in 2009 and, consistent with the court’s instruction, the analysis and disposition applied law under the 1987 Constitution. The primary statutory and jurisprudential authorities relied upon in the analysis include Article 365 and Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, R.A. No. 7691 (amending jurisdiction of first-level courts), provisions governing demurrer to evidence and Rule 65 certiorari, and various precedents cited in the record (e.g., People v. de los Santos; People v. Uy; People v. Sandiganbayan; Salazar v. People), all as reflected in the record.

Supreme Court Analysis on Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time the criminal action is instituted. Because R.A. No. 7691 had taken effect prior to the filing of the information on 29 December 2004, the MTC’s jurisdiction had been lawfully expanded to include offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years irrespective of fines, explicitly encompassing offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence. The complex crime charged, reckless

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 177960)

Facts and Information

Date, time and place of incident: about 11:55 o'clock in the evening of 28 December 2004 at Brgy. Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, Philippines.
Vehicles involved and identification:
- Vehicle 1: Colt Galant automobile, plate number NLD-379, driven by Lou Gene R. Sendiong, with two female passengers (Dexie Duran and Elvie Sy).
- Vehicle 2: 10-wheeler cargo truck, plate number ULP-955, color blue, fully loaded with sacks of coconut shell, registered in the name of Ruben Villabeto of Sta. Agueda Pamplona, Negros Oriental.
Alleged consequences:
- Instantaneous death of Lou Gene R. Sendiong.
- Less serious physical injuries to Dexie Duran and Elvie Sy.
- Extensive damage to the Colt Galant registered in the name of Cristina P. Weyer.
- Claimed damage to heirs of Lou Gene R. Sendiong and the other offended parties.
Charging document (Information filed 29 December 2004 by the Provincial Prosecutor's Office, Sibulan):
- Accused (petitioner) Jeffrey Reso Dayap alleged to have willfully, unlawfully and feloniously driven in a reckless and imprudent manner the 10-wheeler truck thereby hitting the Colt Galant, causing the deaths, injuries and damage described.
- Offense charged: Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide, Less Serious Physical Injuries, and Damage to Property — an act defined and penalized by Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (as alleged in the Information).

Arraignment and Plea

Arraignment: Petitioner was arraigned before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sibulan, Negros Oriental on 10 January 2005.
Plea: Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Attempted Amendment of Information and Withdrawal

Motion to amend: On 17 January 2005, respondents Pretzy-Lou P. Sendiong, Genesa Sendiong and Dexie Duran filed a motion for leave to file an amended information seeking to add allegation of abandonment by the driver of the 10-wheeler truck (alleging the driver abandoned the victims while Lou-Gene R. Sendiong was still alive inside the car).
Withdrawal by Prosecutor: On 21 January 2005, the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Omnibus Motion praying that the motion to amend be considered withdrawn.
MTC action: On 21 January 2005 (record reflects 21 January 2003 in one place but the operative record shows the withdrawal and that the MTC granted the withdrawal), the MTC granted the withdrawal and the motion to amend was considered withdrawn.
Result: The Information filed on 29 December 2004 remained unamended; petitioner was deemed charged only with the offense in the original Information absent any aggravating circumstance of abandonment.

Trial Proceedings and Evidence

Course of trial: Pre-trial and trial proceeded before the MTC.
Prosecution: Respondents testified for the prosecution and presented evidence including a police blotter sketch and Exhibit "7" (a picture of vehicle 2).
Defense: After the prosecution rested, petitioner sought and was granted leave to file a demurrer to evidence; petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence dated 15 April 2005, asserting failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Respondents filed a Comment dated 25 April 2005.
Defense did not present further evidence after the grant of the demurrer.

Demurrer to Evidence — MTC Order and Findings (Order dated 16 May 2005)

Grant of demurrer: The MTC granted the demurrer to evidence and acquitted petitioner for insufficiency of evidence.
Core factual and evidentiary findings:
- The prosecution failed to establish essential allegations in the Information; the facts and circumstances constituting the allegations were not proven.
- The court found no evidence identifying the accused as the person who committed the crime; witnesses never identified petitioner as the driver at the time of the incident.
- The prosecution did not establish that the accused was driving the truck.
- No proof of death: no death certificate was offered in evidence to establish the alleged death of Lou Gene R. Sendiong.
- No proof of injuries: no medical certificates nor medical witness were presented to establish the alleged less serious physical injuries of Dexie Duran and Elvie Sy.
- No proof of damage: no witness testified concerning the damage to the Colt Galant and no documentary evidence was presented to establish same.
- The mother of the victim testified only on expenses and shock but could not identify the accused as the perpetrator.
- The court characterized the prosecution as having "practically bungled this case from its inception."
Alternative causation finding:
- The MTC accepted the defense contention that the proximate cause of the accident was the swerving of the Colt Galant (vehicle 1) into the lane of the cargo truck (vehicle 2), causing vehicle 1 to ram into the rear left portion of vehicle 2 and produce the damage depicted in Exhibit "7."
- The court concluded the collision and subsequent swerving of vehicle 2 were effects of vehicle 1's ramming and not the result of any negligent act of the accused.
Legal conclusions:
- The prosecution failed to prove (1) the fact of the crime and (2) that the accused was the perpetrator — both required for conviction.
- Because the prosecution failed to discharge its burden, the demurrer was granted and the accused was acquitted.
Incidental relief: The MTC ordered the cancellation and release of the bail bond posted for the accused's temporary liberty to the accused or his duly authorized representative.

Petition for Certiorari to the RTC (First-level review) and RTC Ruling (Order dated 23 August 2005)

Respondents' petition: Respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging the MTC dismissed the case without considering prosecution evidence, failed to observe the trial procedure under Sec. 11, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, and failed to rule on civil liability despite evidence.
RTC disposition:
- The RTC affirmed the MTC's acquittal, finding that the MTC's detailed recital of facts disproved the allegation that it failed to consider the evidence.
- The RTC found the MTC conducted the trial in the manner prescribed by Sec. 11, Rule 119, noting the demurrer to evidence was properly filed and granted under Sec. 23, Rule 119.
- However, the RTC determined that the MTC failed to rule on the accused's civil liability because the acquittal did not include a declaration that the facts from which civil liability might arise did not exist; thus, the civil aspect was not passed upon.
- Remedy ordered by the RTC: Affirmed the MTC's acquittal and remanded the case to the MTC for further proceedings on the civil aspect of the case.
Dispositive language: "WHEREFORE, the questioned order of the Municipal Trial Court of Sibulan on accused's acquittal is AFFIRMED. The case is REMANDED to the court of origin or its successor for further proceedings on the civil aspect of the case."

Court of Appeals Proceedings, Decision and Resolution (CA-G.R. SP No. 01179; Decision dated 17 August 2006; Resolution dated 25 April 2007)

Appellate petition: Respondents sought review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 42.
Court of Appeals' reasoning and holdings:
- Jurisdictional conclusion: The Court of Appeals ruled that because there was no proof of the total value of the properties damaged, the criminal case falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and proceedings before the MTC were null and void.
- Reliance on precedent and rules:
  - Cited Tulor v. Garcia (corrected in the Supreme Court record to Cuyos v. Garcia) for the proposition that in complex crimes involving reckless imprudence resulting in homicide or physical injuries and damage to property, the court with jurisdiction is determined by the fine imposable for the damage to property, not by the penalty for physical injuries charged.
  - Found support in Sec. 36 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 and the 1991 Rule 8 on Summary Procedure, which govern summary procedure in first-level courts for offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.00.
- Application: Because there was no pr