Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-16478 August 31, 1961

PEOPLE OF THE PH L PP NES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MO!ESTO MALA"ANAN # ARAN! A defendant-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff- appellee. Ozaeta, Gibbs and Ozaeta for defendant-appellant. RESOLUT ON "ARRERA, J.$ Appellant Modesto Malabanan was charged in the Court of irst !nstance of "aguna #in Cri$. Case No. B-%&'( with the cri$e of )double serious ph*sical in+uries with da$age to propert* thru rec,less i$prudence,) under the following infor$ation.hat on or about /anuar* 0&, %123, in the Municipalit* of Bi4an Province of "aguna, Republic of the Philippines, and within the +urisdiction of this 5onorable Court, the accused abovena$ed, being then the driver and person in charge of a B.C6 Bus No. 7&0 bearing Plate No. .P8-%02&0 #Batangas 92:(, did then and there wilfull*, unlawfull*, rec,lessl* and i$prudentl* $anage, operate and drive said vehicle while passing along the National 5ighwa* within the said $unicipalit* in a negligent, careless and i$prudent $anner, without due regard to traffic rules and regulations and in violation of the Motor ;ehicle "aw, and without ta,ing the necessar* precautions to avoid accident to persons and da$age to propert*, causing b* such negligence, carelessness and i$prudence, said truc, being driven and operated b* the herein accused, to hu$p stri,e and collide with a +eepne* bearing Plate No. .P8-<132 #Manila 92:( thereb* causing serious ph*sical in+uries to its driver, Prodito Rufon * =o*o and his lone passenger 5onorato ;illarico which will re>uire $edical attendance for a period of at least ten %& $onths and will incapacitate the$ to perfor$ their custo$ar* labor for the sa$e period of ti$e, and causing da$ ages to the last na$ed +eepne* in the a$ount of P7,&&&.&&, to the da$age and pre+udice of /anuaria .anchingco, owner of said +eepne* in the afore$entioned su$ of P7,&&&.&&. C6N.RAR? .6 "A@. 8pon arraign$ent, appellant pleaded not guilt*. .he case was then tried and, while the prosecution was presenting its first witness, the in+ured parties #5onorato ;illarico and Prodito

Rufon( reserved their right to file separate civil actions for da$ages arising fro$ the cri$inal act. After trial, appellant was found guilt* as charged and sentenced as follows@5ERE 6RE, the Court hereb* finds that the guilt of Modesto Malabanan of the co$pleA cri$e of double serious ph*sical in+uries and da$age to propert* thru rec,less i$prudence has been proven be*ond reasonable doubt and there being present no $odif*ing circu$stances in the co$$ission thereof, the accused in accordance with the provisions of Article 7:2 in relation to Article <' of the Revised Penal Code, is hereb* sentenced to pa* a fine of P',&&&.&& with subsidiar* i$prison$ent in case of insolvenc* but not to eAceed siA #:( $onths, and to pa* the costs. No pronounce$ent is herein $ade regarding the civil liabilit* of the accused for the reason that the offended parties reserved their right to file separate civil actions. Bissatisfied with said +udg$ent of the trial court, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, presenting factual and legal >uestions, but said court, on 6ctober 7%, %121, elevated the case to us, on the ground that the appeal raises this legal issue. ).he trial court erred in assu$ing +urisdiction over the sub+ect $atter of the offense charged in the infor$ation.) Appellant contends that the trial court has no +urisdiction over the offense at bar, citing as authorit* the case of "apuC v. Court of Appeals, et al. #=.R. No. "-:7'0, pro$. March 7&, %12<(. !t is urged that inas$uch as the cri$e with which appellant was charged is the co$pleA cri$e of $ultiple serious ph*sical in+uries with da$ages to propert* thru rec,less i$prudence, punishable pursuant to Article <', of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 7:2 of the sa$e Code, with the penalt* for the $ore serious offense to be i$posed in its $aAi$u$ period, he could onl* be properl* tried b* the /ustice of the Peace Court of Bi4an "aguna, instead of the Court of irst !nstance of "aguna, for the reason that of the two resulting offenses in said co$pleA cri$e, na$el*, $ultiple serious ph*sical in+uries and da$ages to propert*, the for$er is graver or $ore serious than the latterD and, since said offense of $ultiple serious ph*sical in+uries is punishable with a prison ter$ of arresto mayor in its $ediu$ and $aAi$u$ periods, #a prison ter$ the $aAi$u$ of which does not eAceed : $onths(, it is the +ustice of the peace court #pursuant to Eec. '3 FbG of the /udiciar* Act(% which has +urisdiction over the offense. !t is true that, following the ruling of this Court in the case of "apuC v. Court of Appeals, =.R. No. "-:7'0, March 7&, %12< #<& 6.=. %' Eupp.(. in i$posing the corresponding penalt*, to the >uasi-offense of rec,less i$prudence resulting in ph*sical in+uries and da$age to propert*, Article <' of the Revised Penal Code should be applied. 5owever, there $a* be cases, as the one at bar, where the i$posable penalt* for the ph*sical in+uries charged would co$e within the +urisdiction of the $unicipal or +ustice of the peace court, while the fine, for the da$age to propert* would fall on the Court of irst !nstance. As the infor$ation can not be split into two, one for da$ages and another for the ph*sical in+uries, the +urisdiction of the court to ta,e cogniCance of the case $ust be deter$ined not b* the corresponding penalt* for the ph*sical in+uries charged but b* the fine i$posable for the da$age to propert* resulting fro$ the rec,less i$prudence. #Angeles, etc., v. /ose, et al. =.R. No. "-:<1<, Nov. 0<, %12<(. .he reason for this rule was given in the recent case of People v. Villanueva, =.R. No. "-%2&%<, pro$ulgated April 01, %1:%, when this Court said-

Considering that it is the court of first instance that would undoubtedl* have +urisdiction if the onl* offense that resulted fro$ appellant9s i$prudence were the da$age to propert* in the a$ount of P0,:7:.&&, it would be absurd to hold that for the graver offense of serious and less serious ph*sical in+uries co$bined with da$age to propert* through rec,less i$prudence, +urisdiction would lie in the +ustice of the peace court. .he presu$ption is against absurdit*, and it is the dut* of the courts to interpret the law in such a wa* as to avoid absurd results...... Moreover, we cannot discard the possibilit* that the prosecution may not be able to prove all the supposed offenses constituting the co$pleA cri$e charged. @here we to hold that it is the +ustice of the peace court that has +urisdiction in this case, if later the prosecution should fail to prove the ph*sical in+uries aspect of the case and establish onl* the da$age to propert* in the a$ount of P0,:7:.&&, the inferior court would find itself without +urisdiction to i$pose the fine for the da$age to propert* co$$itted, since such fine can not be less than the a$ount of the da$age. Again, it is to avoid this further absurdit* that we $ust hold that the +urisdiction lies in the court of first instance in this case. #E$phasis supplied.( @e therefore conclude that the trial court correctl* too, cogniCance of this case. Considering that the +urisdictional issue raised b* appellant is alread* a settled $atter since the pro$ulgation in %12< of our decision in the case of Angeles v. /ose, #supra(, and, conse>uentl*, unsubstantial as to bring his appeal within our appellate +urisdiction #Eee People v. Cuello, =.R. No. "-%<7&3, pro$. March 03, %1:%( and that the review of the decision of the trial court in >uestion would re>uire a deter$ination or revision of the factual findings of the trial court, as disclosed in Errors Nos. !! to ;! #Eee Appellant9s Brief(0 assigned b* appellant, we are constrained to re$and the case to the Court of Appeals for deter$ination and disposition, in accordance with law. Eo ordered. Bengzon, .!., Padilla, oncepcion, "eyes, !.B.#. and Parades, !!., concur. Bautista $ngelo, !., on leave, too, no part. %izon, %e #eon and &atividad, !!., too, no part.