Case Summary (G.R. No. 93475)
Facts of the Case
On March 14, 1985, at approximately 8:30 PM, Antonio A. Laméra allegedly drove his owner-type jeep negligently and collided with a tricycle driven by Ernesto Reyes along Urbano Street, Pasig. The accident caused damage to the tricycle and resulted in physical injuries to Ernesto Reyes and two other passengers, Paulino Gonzal and Patricio Quitalig. Subsequently, two separate criminal informations were filed against Laméra: (a) reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple injuries under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (R.A. 3815); and (b) abandonment of one’s victim under paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the same Code.
Charges and Proceedings
Reckless Imprudence (Article 365): Filed on September 10, 1985, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, docketed as Criminal Case No. 64294. The charge stated that petitioner drove the jeep in a careless and negligent manner causing the collision and resulting damages and injuries.
Abandonment (Article 275, par. 2): Filed on November 14, 1985, before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2793. This charge alleged that petitioner abandoned the injured parties without providing assistance or help.
The MeTC rendered judgment on June 29, 1987, convicting petitioner for abandonment and sentencing him to six months of arresto mayor and fines. Petitioner appealed and the RTC affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to two months’ imprisonment. Dissatisfied, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the appeal on November 9, 1989. His motion for reconsideration was denied on May 17, 1990.
Legal Issue
Whether a valid charge for abandonment under paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code can be filed and prosecuted against petitioner when he was already charged with reckless imprudence under Article 365 for the same act of causing injury to another.
Petitioner’s Argument
Petitioner contended that the two charges—reckless imprudence and abandonment—arising from the same act of vehicular collision cannot coexist. He reasoned that recklessness involves culpable negligence while abandonment requires proof of "accidental" injury, thus the charges are incompatible. He argued that charging him for both offenses violates principles against double jeopardy because one could not be indicted simultaneously based on both accident and recklessness for the same incident.
Respondent’s Position
The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that Articles 365 and 275 penalize distinct and separate offenses. The principle of double jeopardy does not apply because the offenses, although arising from the same set of facts, have different essential elements and objectives under the law. Accordingly, prosecution for reckless imprudence is not a bar to prosecution for abandonment.
Court’s Analysis on Double Jeopardy and Distinction of Offenses
The Supreme Court emphasized that the principle of double jeopardy protects an accused only from subsequent prosecution for the same offense. It outlined the essential elements for double jeopardy to attach, including valid indictment, arraignment, plea, and termination of the prior case. Importantly, proof of "same offense" requires identity or substantial overlap of elements.
The Court distinguished the two offenses:
- Reckless Imprudence (Article 365): A quasi-offense committed by culpa (negligence). Failure to help the victim, if alleged, only increases the penalty by one degree but is not a separate offense by itself. The information must specifically allege failure to assist for this enhancement.
- Abandonment (Article 275, par. 2): A crime against personal security committed with dolo (intent), penalizing the failure to render assistance to a person accidentally wounded or injured. This constitutes a distinct offense separate from reckless imprudence.
The Court found that the two informations charged petitioner with separate offenses that arise from different legal grounds and elements:
- Reckless imprudence deals with negligence causing injury or damage.
- Abandonment penalizes willful failure to provide aid to an injured person.
Thus, an acquittal, conviction, or dismissal in one case does not bar prosecution in the other despite arising from the same incident.
Procedural Bar to Double Jeopardy Claim
The Court also held that the petitioner failed to invoke double jeopardy at the proper stages of the proceedings. Notably, when conviction was rendered in the abandonment case by the MeTC in June 1987, petitioner had not yet been arraigned in the reckless imprudence case (April 1989). One of the requisites for double jeopardy to attach is a prior arraignment in the earlier case. Since this condition was unmet, double jeopardy did not apply.
Jurisprudential Support
The Court cited precedents:
- People vs. Bocar—legal jeopardy attaches only after arraignment and plea in a valid case.
- People vs. Doriquez and People vs. Bacolod—prosecution for separate offenses arising from the same act is not prohibited by do
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 93475)
Facts of the Case
- On the evening of March 14, 1985, at around 8:30 PM, along Urbano Street, Pasig, Metro Manila, petitioner Antonio A. Lamera was driving an owner-type jeep.
- The jeep allegedly "hit and bumped" a Suzuki tricycle driven by Ernesto Reyes, resulting in damage to the tricycle and physical injuries to Ernesto Reyes and passenger Paulino Gonzal.
- Two separate criminal informations were filed against petitioner:
- For reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, filed on September 10, 1985, docketed as Criminal Case No. 64294 in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig (Branch 68).
- For violation of paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code for Abandonment of one's victim, filed November 14, 1985, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2793 in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig (Branch 71).
- The charges stemmed from the same incident where petitioner allegedly hit the tricycle and failed to render assistance to the injured victims.
Trial Court Proceedings and Decisions
- The Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig found petitioner guilty of abandonment under Article 275, paragraph 2, on June 29, 1987, sentencing him to six months of arresto mayor and ordering payment of costs.
- Petitioner appealed the conviction; the Regional Trial Court of Pasig affirmed the decision on July 31, 1989, reducing the penalty from six months to two months.
- Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty in the separate case (Criminal Case No. 64294 for reckless imprudence) before Branch 68 of the Regional Trial Court on April 27, 1989.
Petitioner's Arguments on Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 07351) on August 31, 1989, challenging:
- The finding that the jeep driven by petitioner hit the tricycle.
- The conclusion that petitioner abandoned the victims due to loss of presence of mind caused by the accident scene.
- The credibility and sufficiency of evidence supporting conviction.
- The validity of all preceding trial court proceedings.
- Petitioner argued that he could not be validly charged for abandonment under Article 275 paragraph 2 after being charged for reckless imprudence under Article 365 based on the same incident.
- He contended that the charges conflicted because reckless imprudence involves negligence, whereas abandonment presupposes an accidental injury without recklessness.
Court of Appeals Decision
- The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated November 9, 1989, dismissed the petition, ruling:
- Article 275 paragraph 2 criminalizes failure to help or render assistance to another who has been accidentally wounded or injured.
- It suffices that petitioner accidentally injured the victims and failed to assist them; proving negligence is unnecessary for abandonment.
- Reckless imprudence under Article 365 requires proof of negligence causing injury.
- The two offenses are dist