G.R. No.

172716

November 17, 2010

JASON IVLER y AGUILAR, Petitioner, vs. HON. MARIA ROWENA MODES O!SAN "EDRO, J#$%e o& '(e Me'ro)o*+',- r+,* .o#r', /r,-0( 71, ",1+% .+'y, ,-$ EVANGELINE "ON.E, Respondents. DECISION .AR"IO, J.: The Case The petition seeks the review1 of the Orders2 of the Regiona Tria Co!rt of Pasig Cit" affir#ing s!$%si en&io a ower &o!rt's r! ing finding inapp i&a$ e the Do!$ e (eopard" C a!se to $ar a se&ond prose&!tion for Re&k ess I#pr!den&e Res! ting in )o#i&ide and Da#age to Propert". This, despite the a&&!sed's previo!s &onvi&tion for Re&k ess I#pr!den&e Res! ting in S ight Ph"si&a In*!ries arising fro# the sa#e in&ident gro!nding the se&ond prose&!tion. The +a&ts +o owing a vehi&! ar &o ision in ,!g!st 2--., petitioner (ason Iv er /petitioner0 was &harged $efore the 1etropo itan Tria Co!rt of Pasig Cit", 2ran&h 31 /1eTC0, with two separate offenses4 /10 Re&k ess I#pr!den&e Res! ting in S ight Ph"si&a In*!ries /Cri#ina Case No. 526730 for in*!ries s!stained $" respondent Evange ine 8. Pon&e /respondent Pon&e09 and /20 Re&k ess I#pr!den&e Res! ting in )o#i&ide and Da#age to Propert" /Cri#ina Case No. 526770 for the death of respondent Pon&e's h!s$and Nestor C. Pon&e and da#age to the spo!ses Pon&e's vehi& e. Petitioner posted $ai for his te#porar" re ease in $oth &ases. On 3 Septe#$er 2--., petitioner p eaded g!i t" to the &harge in Cri#ina Case No. 52673 and was #eted o!t the pena t" of p!$ i& &ens!re. Invoking this &onvi&tion, petitioner #oved to :!ash the Infor#ation in Cri#ina Case No. 52677 for p a&ing hi# in *eopard" of se&ond p!nish#ent for the sa#e offense of re&k ess i#pr!den&e. The 1eTC ref!sed :!asha , finding no identit" of offenses in the two &ases.6 ,fter !ns!&&essf! " seeking re&onsideration, petitioner e evated the #atter to the Regiona Tria Co!rt of Pasig Cit", 2ran&h 1;3 /RTC0, in a petition for &ertiorari /S.C.,. No. 25-60. 1eanwhi e, petitioner so!ght fro# the 1eTC the s!spension of pro&eedings in Cri#ina Case No. 52677, in& !ding the arraign#ent on 13 1a" 2--;, invoking S.C.,. No. 25-6 as a pre*!di&ia :!estion. <itho!t a&ting on petitioner's #otion, the 1eTC pro&eeded with the arraign#ent and, $e&a!se of petitioner's a$sen&e, &an&e ed his $ai and ordered his arrest.. Seven da"s ater, the 1eTC iss!ed a reso !tion den"ing petitioner's #otion to s!spend pro&eedings and postponing his arraign#ent !nti after his arrest.; Petitioner so!ght re&onsideration $!t as of the fi ing of this petition, the #otion re#ained !nreso ved. Re "ing on the arrest order against petitioner, respondent Pon&e so!ght in the RTC the dis#issa of S.C.,. No. 25-6 for petitioner's oss of standing to #aintain the s!it. Petitioner &ontested the #otion. The R! ing of the Tria Co!rt In an Order dated 2 +e$r!ar" 2--7, the RTC dis#issed S.C.,. No. 25-6, narrow " gro!nding its r! ing on petitioner's forfeit!re of standing to #aintain S.C.,. No. 25-6 arising fro# the 1eTC's order to arrest petitioner for his non%appearan&e at the arraign#ent in Cri#ina Case No. 52677. Th!s, witho!t rea&hing the #erits of S.C.,. No. 25-6, the RTC effe&tive " affir#ed the 1eTC. Petitioner so!ght re&onsideration $!t this proved !navai ing.7 )en&e, this petition. Petitioner denies a$s&onding. )e e=p ains that his petition in S.C.,. No. 25-6 &onstrained hi# to forego parti&ipation in the pro&eedings in Cri#ina Case No. 52677. Petitioner disting!ishes his &ase fro# the ine of *!rispr!den&e san&tioning dis#issa of appea s for a$s&onding appe ants $e&a!se his appea $efore the RTC was a spe&ia &ivi a&tion seeking a pre%tria re ief, not a post%tria appea of a *!dg#ent of &onvi&tion.3 Petitioner a#ents the RTC's fai !re to rea&h the #erits of his petition in S.C.,. 25-6. Invoking *!rispr!den&e, petitioner arg!es that his &onstit!tiona right not to $e p a&ed twi&e in *eopard" of p!nish#ent for the sa#e offense $ars his prose&!tion in Cri#ina Case No. 52677, having $een previo!s " &onvi&ted in Cri#ina Case No. 52673 for the sa#e offense of re&k ess i#pr!den&e &harged in Cri#ina Case No. 52677. Petitioner s!$#its that the #! tip e &onse:!en&es of s!&h &ri#e are #ateria on " to deter#ine his pena t". Respondent Pon&e finds no reason for the Co!rt to dist!r$ the RTC's de&ision forfeiting petitioner's standing to #aintain his petition in S.C.,. 25-6. On the #erits, respondent Pon&e &a s the Co!rt's attention to *!rispr!den&e ho ding that ight offenses /e.g. s ight ph"si&a in*!ries0 &annot $e &o#p e=ed !nder ,rti& e .5 of the Revised Pena Code with grave or ess grave fe onies /e.g. ho#i&ide0. )en&e, the prose&!tion was o$ iged to separate the &harge in Cri#ina Case No. 52677 for the s ight ph"si&a in*!ries fro# Cri#ina Case No. 52673 for the ho#i&ide and da#age to propert".

In the Reso !tion of 7 (!ne 2--3, we granted the Offi&e of the So i&itor >enera 's #otion not to fi e a &o##ent to the petition as the p!$ i& respondent *!dge is #ere " a no#ina part" and private respondent is represented $" &o!nse . The Iss!es Two :!estions are presented for reso !tion4 /10 whether petitioner forfeited his standing to seek re ief in S.C.,. 25-6 when the 1eTC ordered his arrest fo owing his non%appearan&e at the arraign#ent in Cri#ina Case No. 526779 and /20 if in the negative, whether petitioner's &onstit!tiona right !nder the Do!$ e (eopard" C a!se $ars f!rther pro&eedings in Cri#ina Case No. 52677. The R! ing of the Co!rt <e ho d that /10 petitioner's non%appearan&e at the arraign#ent in Cri#ina Case No. 52677 did not divest hi# of persona it" to #aintain the petition in S.C.,. 25-69 and /20 the prote&tion afforded $" the Constit!tion shie ding petitioner fro# prose&!tions p a&ing hi# in *eopard" of se&ond p!nish#ent for the sa#e offense $ars f!rther pro&eedings in Cri#ina Case No. 52677. Petitioner's Non%appearan&e at the ,rraign#ent in Cri#ina Case No. 52677 did not Divest hi# of Standing to 1aintain the Petition in S.C.,. 25-6 Dis#issa s of appea s gro!nded on the appe ant's es&ape fro# &!stod" or vio ation of the ter#s of his $ai $ond are governed $" the se&ond paragraph of Se&tion 5, R! e 12.,5 in re ation to Se&tion 1, R! e 12;, of the Revised R! es on Cri#ina Pro&ed!re a!thori?ing this Co!rt or the Co!rt of ,ppea s to @a so, !pon #otion of the appe ee or #ot! proprio, dis#iss the appea if the appe ant es&apes fro# prison or &onfine#ent, *!#ps $ai or f ees to a foreign &o!ntr" d!ring the penden&" of the appea .@ The @appea @ &onte#p ated in Se&tion 5 of R! e 12. is a s!it to review *!dg#ents of &onvi&tions. The RTC's dis#issa of petitioner's spe&ia &ivi a&tion for &ertiorari to review a pre%arraign#ent an&i ar" :!estion on the app i&a$i it" of the D!e Pro&ess C a!se to $ar pro&eedings in Cri#ina Case No. 52677 finds no $asis !nder pro&ed!ra r! es and *!rispr!den&e. The RTC's re ian&e on People v. EsparasA !nder&!ts the &ogen&" of its r! ing $e&a!se Esparas stands for a proposition &ontrar" to the RTC's r! ing. There, the Co!rt granted review to an appea $" an a&&!sed who was senten&ed to death for i#porting prohi$ited dr!gs even tho!gh she *!#ped $ai pending tria and was th!s tried and &onvi&ted in a$sentia. The Co!rt in Esparas treated the #andator" review of death senten&es !nder Rep!$ i& ,&t No. 37;A as an e=&eption to Se&tion 5 of R! e 12..1The #is&hief in the RTC's treat#ent of petitioner's non%appearan&e at his arraign#ent in Cri#ina Case No. 52677 as proof of his oss of standing $e&o#es #ore evident when one &onsiders the R! es of Co!rt's treat#ent of a defendant who a$sents hi#se f fro# post%arraign#ent hearings. Bnder Se&tion 21, R! e 11.11 of the Revised R! es of Cri#ina Pro&ed!re, the defendant's a$sen&e #ere " renders his $onds#an potentia " ia$ e on its $ond /s!$*e&t to &an&e ation sho! d the $onds#an fai to prod!&e the a&&!sed within 6- da"s09 the defendant retains his standing and, sho! d he fai to s!rrender, wi $e tried in a$sentia and &o! d $e &onvi&ted or a&:!itted. Indeed, the 6-%da" period granted to the $onds#an to prod!&e the a&&!sed !nders&ores the fa&t that #ere non%appearan&e does not ipso fa&to &onvert the a&&!sed's stat!s to that of a f!gitive witho!t standing. +!rther, the RTC's o$servation that petitioner provided @no e=p anation wh" he fai ed to attend the s&hed! ed pro&eeding@12 at the 1eTC is $e ied $" the re&ords. Da"s $efore the arraign#ent, petitioner so!ght the s!spension of the 1eTC's pro&eedings in Cri#ina Case No. 52677 in ight of his petition with the RTC in S.C.,. No. 25-6. +o owing the 1eTC's ref!sa to defer arraign#ent /the order for whi&h was re eased da"s after the 1eTC ordered petitioner's arrest0, petitioner so!ght re&onsideration. )is #otion re#ained !nreso ved as of the fi ing of this petition. Petitioner's Convi&tion in Cri#ina Case No. 52673 2ars his Prose&!tion in Cri#ina Case No. 52677 The a&&!sed's negative &onstit!tiona right not to $e @twi&e p!t in *eopard" of p!nish#ent for the sa#e offense@16prote&ts hi# fro#, a#ong others, post%&onvi&tion prose&!tion for the sa#e offense, with the prior verdi&t rendered $" a &o!rt of &o#petent *!risdi&tion !pon a va id infor#ation.1. It is not disp!ted that petitioner's &onvi&tion in Cri#ina Case No. 52673 was rendered $" a &o!rt of &o#petent *!risdi&tion !pon a va id &harge. Th!s, the &ase t!rns on the :!estion whether Cri#ina Case No. 52677 and Cri#ina Case No. 52673 invo ve the @sa#e offense.@ Petitioner adopts the affir#ative view, s!$#itting that the two &ases &on&ern the sa#e offense of re&k ess i#pr!den&e. The 1eTC r! ed otherwise, finding that Re&k ess I#pr!den&e Res! ting in S ight Ph"si&a In*!ries is an entire " separate offense fro# Re&k ess I#pr!den&e Res! ting in )o#i&ide and Da#age to Propert" @as the C atterD re:!ires proof of an additiona fa&t whi&h the other does not.@1; <e find for petitioner. Re&k ess I#pr!den&e is a Sing e Cri#e, its Conse:!en&es on Persons and Propert" are 1ateria On " to Deter#ine the Pena t" The two &harges against petitioner, arising fro# the sa#e fa&ts, were prose&!ted !nder the sa#e provision of the Revised Pena Code, as a#ended, na#e ", ,rti& e 67; defining and pena i?ing :!asi%offenses. The te=t of the provision reads4

I#pr!den&e and neg igen&e. E ,n" person who, $" re&k ess i#pr!den&e, sha &o##it an" a&t whi&h, had it $een intentiona , wo! d &onstit!te a grave fe on", sha s!ffer the pena t" of arresto #a"or in its #a=i#!# period to prision &orre&&iona in its #edi!# period9 if it wo! d have &onstit!ted a ess grave fe on", the pena t" of arresto #a"or in its #ini#!# and #edi!# periods sha $e i#posed9 if it wo! d have &onstit!ted a ight fe on", the pena t" of arresto #enor in its #a=i#!# period sha $e i#posed. ,n" person who, $" si#p e i#pr!den&e or neg igen&e, sha &o##it an a&t whi&h wo! d otherwise &onstit!te a grave fe on", sha s!ffer the pena t" of arresto #a"or in its #edi!# and #a=i#!# periods9 if it wo! d have &onstit!ted a ess serio!s fe on", the pena t" of arresto #a"or in its #ini#!# period sha $e i#posed. <hen the e=e&!tion of the a&t &overed $" this arti& e sha have on " res! ted in da#age to the propert" of another, the offender sha $e p!nished $" a fine ranging fro# an a#o!nt e:!a to the va !e of said da#ages to three ti#es s!&h va !e, $!t whi&h sha in no &ase $e ess than twent"%five pesos. , fine not e=&eeding two h!ndred pesos and &ens!re sha $e i#posed !pon an" person who, $" si#p e i#pr!den&e or neg igen&e, sha &a!se so#e wrong whi&h, if done #a i&io!s ", wo! d have &onstit!ted a ight fe on". In the i#position of these pena ties, the &o!rt sha e=er&ise their so!nd dis&retion, witho!t regard to the r! es pres&ri$ed in ,rti& e si=t"%fo!r. The provisions &ontained in this arti& e sha not $e app i&a$ e4 1. <hen the pena t" provided for the offense is e:!a to or ower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of this arti& e, in whi&h &ase the &o!rt sha i#pose the pena t" ne=t ower in degree than that whi&h sho! d $e i#posed in the period whi&h the" #a" dee# proper to app ". 2. <hen, $" i#pr!den&e or neg igen&e and with vio ation of the ,!to#o$i e 8aw, to death of a person sha $e &a!sed, in whi&h &ase the defendant sha $e p!nished $" prision &orre&&iona in its #edi!# and #a=i#!# periods. Re&k ess i#pr!den&e &onsists in vo !ntar", $!t witho!t #a i&e, doing or fai ing to do an a&t fro# whi&h #ateria da#age res! ts $" reason of ine=&!sa$ e a&k of pre&a!tion on the part of the person perfor#ing or fai ing to perfor# s!&h a&t, taking into &onsideration his e#p o"#ent or o&&!pation, degree of inte igen&e, ph"si&a &ondition and other &ir&!#stan&es regarding persons, ti#e and p a&e. Si#p e i#pr!den&e &onsists in the a&k of pre&a!tion disp a"ed in those &ases in whi&h the da#age i#pending to $e &a!sed is not i##ediate nor the danger & ear " #anifest. The pena t" ne=t higher in degree to those provided for in this arti& e sha $e i#posed !pon the offender who fai s to end on the spot to the in*!red parties s!&h he p as #a" $e in this hand to give. Str!&t!ra ", these nine paragraphs are &o apsi$ e into fo!r s!$%gro!pings re ating to /10 the pena ties atta&hed to the :!asi% offenses of @i#pr!den&e@ and @neg igen&e@ /paragraphs 1%209 /20 a #odified pena t" s&he#e for either or $oth :!asi%offenses /paragraphs 6%., 7 and A09 /60 a generi& r! e for tria &o!rts in i#posing pena ties /paragraph ;09 and /.0 the definition of @re&k ess i#pr!den&e@ and @si#p e i#pr!den&e@ /paragraphs 3%50. Con&ept!a ", :!asi%offenses pena i?e @the #enta attit!de or &ondition $ehind the a&t, the dangero!s re&k essness, a&k of &are or foresight, the i#pr!den&ia p!ni$ e,@17 !n ike wi f! offenses whi&h p!nish the intentiona &ri#ina a&t. These str!&t!ra and &on&ept!a feat!res of :!asi%offenses set the# apart fro# the #ass of intentiona &ri#es !nder the first 16 Tit es of 2ook II of the Revised Pena Code, as a#ended. Indeed, the notion that :!asi%offenses, whether re&k ess or si#p e, are distin&t spe&ies of &ri#e, separate " defined and pena i?ed !nder the fra#ework of o!r pena aws, is nothing new. ,s ear " as the #idd e of the ast &ent!r", we a read" so!ght to $ring & arit" to this fie d $" re*e&ting in F!i?on v. (!sti&e of the Pea&e of Pa#panga the proposition that @re&k ess i#pr!den&e is not a &ri#e in itse f $!t si#p " a wa" of &o##itting it = = =@13 on three points of ana "sis4 /10 the o$*e&t of p!nish#ent in :!asi%&ri#es /as opposed to intentiona &ri#es09 /20 the egis ative intent to treat :!asi%&ri#es as distin&t offenses /as opposed to s!$s!#ing the# !nder the #itigating &ir&!#stan&e of #ini#a intent0 and9 /60 the different pena t" str!&t!res for :!asi%&ri#es and intentiona &ri#es4 The proposition /inferred fro# ,rt. 6 of the Revised Pena Code0 that @re&k ess i#pr!den&e@ is not a &ri#e in itse f $!t si#p " a wa" of &o##itting it and #ere " deter#ines a ower degree of &ri#ina ia$i it" is too $road to deserve !n:!a ified assent. There are &ri#es that $" their str!&t!re &annot $e &o##itted thro!gh i#pr!den&e4 #!rder, treason, ro$$er", #a i&io!s #is&hief, et&. In tr!th, &ri#ina neg igen&e in o!r Revised Pena Code is treated as a #ere :!asi offense, and dea t with separate " fro# wi f! offenses. It is not a #ere :!estion of & assifi&ation or ter#ino og". In intentiona &ri#es, the a&t itse f is p!nished9 in neg igen&e or i#pr!den&e, what is prin&ipa " pena i?ed is the #enta attit!de or &ondition $ehind the a&t, the dangero!s re&k essness, a&k of &are or foresight, the i#pr!den&ia p!ni$ e. = = = = <ere &ri#ina neg igen&e $!t a #oda it" in the &o##ission of fe onies, operating on " to red!&e the pena t" therefor, then it wo! d $e a$sor$ed in the #itigating &ir&!#stan&es of ,rt. 16, spe&ia " the a&k of intent to &o##it so grave a wrong as the one a&t!a " &o##itted. +!rther#ore, the theor" wo! d re:!ire that the &orresponding pena t" sho! d $e fi=ed in proportion to the pena t" pres&ri$ed for ea&h &ri#e when &o##itted wi f! ". +or ea&h pena t" for the wi f! offense, there wo! d then $e a &orresponding pena t" for the neg igent variet". 2!t instead, o!r Revised Pena Code /,rt. 67;0 fi=es the pena t" for re&k ess i#pr!den&e at arresto #a"or #a=i#!#, to prision &orre&&iona C#edi!#D, if the wi f! a&t wo! d &onstit!te a grave fe on", notwithstanding that the pena t" for the atter &o! d range a the wa" fro# prision #a"or to death, a&&ording to the &ase. It &an $e seen that the a&t!a

pena t" for &ri#ina neg igen&e $ears no re ation to the individ!a wi f! &ri#e, $!t is set in re ation to a who e & ass, or series, of &ri#es.15 /E#phasis s!pp ied0 This e=p ains wh" the te&hni&a " &orre&t wa" to a ege :!asi%&ri#es is to state that their &o##ission res! ts in da#age, either to person or propert".1A ,&&ording ", we fo!nd the (!sti&e of the Pea&e in F!i?on witho!t *!risdi&tion to hear a &ase for @Da#age to Propert" thro!gh Re&k ess I#pr!den&e,@ its *!risdi&tion $eing i#ited to tr"ing &harges for 1a i&io!s 1is&hief, an intentiona &ri#e &on&ept!a " in&o#pati$ e with the e e#ent of i#pr!den&e o$taining in :!asi%&ri#es. F!i?on, rooted in Spanish aw2- /the nor#ative an&estr" of o!r present da" pena &ode0 and sin&e repeated " reiterated,21 stands on so id &on&ept!a fo!ndation. The &ontrar" do&trina prono!n&e#ent in Peop e v. +a er22that @CrDe&k ess i#p!den&e is not a &ri#e in itse f = = = C$!tD si#p " a wa" of &o##itting it = = =,@26 has ong $een a$andoned when the Co!rt en $an& pro#! gated F!i?on in 1A;; near " two de&ades after the Co!rt de&ided +a er in 1A6A. F!i?on re*e&ted +a er's &on&ept!a i?ation of :!asi%&ri#es $" ho ding that :!asi%&ri#es !nder ,rti& e 67; are distin&t spe&ies of &ri#es and not #ere " #ethods of &o##itting &ri#es. +a er fo!nd e=pression in post%F!i?on *!rispr!den&e2. on " $" dint of ingering do&trina &onf!sion arising fro# an indis&ri#inate f!sion of &ri#ina aw r! es defining ,rti& e 67; &ri#es and the &o#p e=ing of intentiona &ri#es !nder ,rti& e .5 of the Revised Pena Code whi&h, as wi $e shown short ", rests on erroneo!s &on&eption of :!asi%&ri#es. Indeed, the F!i?onian &on&eption of :!asi%&ri#es !ndergirded a re ated $ran&h of *!rispr!den&e app "ing the Do!$ e (eopard" C a!se to :!asi%offenses, $arring se&ond prose&!tions for a :!asi%offense a eging one res! ting a&t after a prior &onvi&tion or a&:!itta of a :!asi%offense a eging another res! ting a&t $!t arising fro# the sa#e re&k ess a&t or o#ission !pon whi&h the se&ond prose&!tion was $ased. Prior Convi&tion or ,&:!itta of Re&k ess I#pr!den&e 2ars S!$se:!ent Prose&!tion for the Sa#e F!asi%Offense The do&trine that re&k ess i#pr!den&e !nder ,rti& e 67; is a sing e :!asi%offense $" itse f and not #ere " a #eans to &o##it other &ri#es s!&h that &onvi&tion or a&:!itta of s!&h :!asi%offense $ars s!$se:!ent prose&!tion for the sa#e :!asi%offense, regard ess of its vario!s res! ting a&ts, !ndergirded this Co!rt's !n$roken &hain of *!rispr!den&e on do!$ e *eopard" as app ied to ,rti& e 67; starting with Peop e v. Dia?,2; de&ided in 1A;.. There, a f! Co!rt, speaking thro!gh 1r. (!sti&e 1onte#a"or, ordered the dis#issa of a &ase for @da#age to propert" thr! re&k ess i#pr!den&e@ $e&a!se a prior &ase against the sa#e a&&!sed for @re&k ess driving,@ arising fro# the sa#e a&t !pon whi&h the first prose&!tion was $ased, had $een dis#issed ear ier. Sin&e then, whenever the sa#e ega :!estion was $ro!ght $efore the Co!rt, that is, whether prior &onvi&tion or a&:!itta of re&k ess i#pr!den&e $ars s!$se:!ent prose&!tion for the sa#e :!asi%offense, regard ess of the &onse:!en&es a eged for $oth &harges, the Co!rt !nfai ing " and &onsistent " answered in the affir#ative in Peop e v. 2e ga27 /pro#! gated in 1A;3 $" the Co!rt en $an&, per Re"es, (.0, Gap v. 8!tero23 /pro#! gated in 1A;A, !nreported, per Con&ep&ion, (.0, Peop e v. Narvas25 /pro#! gated in 1A7- $" the Co!rt en $an&, per 2eng?on (.0, Peop e v. Si va2A/pro#! gated in 1A72 $" the Co!rt en $an&, per Paredes, (.0, Peop e v. 1a&a$!ha"6- /pro#! gated in 1A77 $" the Co!rt en $an&, per 1aka inta , (.0, Peop e v. 2!an61 /pro#! gated in 1A75 $" the Co!rt en $an&, per Re"es, (.2.8., a&ting C. (.0, 2!erano v. Co!rt of ,ppea s62 /pro#! gated in 1A52 $" the Co!rt en $an&, per Re ova, (.0, and Peop e v. Cit" Co!rt of 1ani a66 /pro#! gated in 1A56 $" the +irst Division, per Re ova, (.0. These &ases !nifor# " $arred the se&ond prose&!tions as &onstit!tiona " i#per#issi$ e !nder the Do!$ e (eopard" C a!se. The reason for this &onsistent stan&e of e=tending the &onstit!tiona prote&tion !nder the Do!$ e (eopard" C a!se to :!asi% offenses was $est arti&! ated $" 1r. (!sti&e (.2.8. Re"es in 2!an, where, in $arring a s!$se:!ent prose&!tion for @serio!s ph"si&a in*!ries and da#age to propert" thr! re&k ess i#pr!den&e@ $e&a!se of the a&&!sed's prior a&:!itta of @s ight ph"si&a in*!ries thr! re&k ess i#pr!den&e,@ with $oth &harges gro!nded on the sa#e a&t, the Co!rt e=p ained46. Reason and pre&edent $oth &oin&ide in that on&e &onvi&ted or a&:!itted of a spe&ifi& a&t of re&k ess i#pr!den&e, the a&&!sed #a" not $e prose&!ted again for that sa#e a&t. +or the essen&e of the :!asi offense of &ri#ina neg igen&e !nder arti& e 67; of the Revised Pena Code ies in the e=e&!tion of an i#pr!dent or neg igent a&t that, if intentiona " done, wo! d $e p!nisha$ e as a fe on". The aw pena i?es th!s the neg igent or &are ess a&t, not the res! t thereof. The gravit" of the &onse:!en&e is on " taken into a&&o!nt to deter#ine the pena t", it does not :!a if" the s!$stan&e of the offense. ,nd, as the &are ess a&t is sing e, whether the in*!rio!s res! t sho! d affe&t one person or severa persons, the offense /&ri#ina neg igen&e0 re#ains one and the sa#e, and &an not $e sp it into different &ri#es and prose&!tions.6; = = = /E#phasis s!pp ied0 Evident ", the Dia? ine of *!rispr!den&e on do!$ e *eopard" #ere " e=tended to its ogi&a &on& !sion the reasoning of F!i?on. There is in o!r *!rispr!den&e on " one r! ing going against this !n$roken ine of a!thorit". Pre&eding Dia? $" #ore than a de&ade, E P!e$ o de +i ipinas v. Estipona,67 de&ided $" the pre%war &o onia Co!rt in Nove#$er 1A.-, a owed the s!$se:!ent prose&!tion of an a&&!sed for re&k ess i#pr!den&e res! ting in da#age to propert" despite his previo!s &onvi&tion for #! tip e ph"si&a in*!ries arising fro# the sa#e re&k ess operation of a #otor vehi& e !pon whi&h the se&ond prose&!tion was $ased. Estipona's in&onsisten&" with the post%war Dia? &hain of *!rispr!den&e s!ffi&es to i#p ied " overr! e it. ,t an" rate, a do!$ts on this #atter were aid to rest in 1A52 in 2!erano.63 There, we reviewed the Co!rt of ,ppea s' &onvi&tion of an a&&!sed for @da#age to propert" for re&k ess i#pr!den&e@ despite his prior &onvi&tion for @s ight and ess serio!s ph"si&a in*!ries thr! re&k ess i#pr!den&e,@ arising fro# the sa#e a&t !pon whi&h the se&ond &harge was $ased. The Co!rt of ,ppea s had re ied on Estipona. <e reversed on the strength of 2!an465

ThCeD view of the Co!rt of ,ppea s was inspired $" the r! ing of this Co!rt in the pre%war &ase of Peop e vs. Estipona de&ided on Nove#$er 1., 1A.-. )owever, in the &ase of Peop e vs. 2!an, 22 SCR, 1656 /1ar&h 2A, 1A750, this Co!rt, speaking thr! (!sti&e (. 2. 8. Re"es, he d that H Reason and pre&edent $oth &oin&ide in that on&e &onvi&ted or a&:!itted of a spe&ifi& a&t of re&k ess i#pr!den&e, the a&&!sed #a" not $e prose&!ted again for that sa#e a&t. +or the essen&e of the :!asi offense of &ri#ina neg igen&e !nder ,rti& e 67; of the Revised Pena Code ies in the e=e&!tion of an i#pr!dent or neg igent a&t that, if intentiona " done, wo! d $e p!nisha$ e as a fe on". The aw pena i?es th!s the neg igent or &are ess a&t, not the res! t thereof. The gravit" of the &onse:!en&e is on " taken into a&&o!nt to deter#ine the pena t", it does not :!a if" the s!$stan&e of the offense. ,nd, as the &are ess a&t is sing e, whether the in*!rio!s res! t sho! d affe&t one person or severa persons, the offense /&ri#ina neg igen&e0 re#ains one and the sa#e, and &an not $e sp it into different &ri#es and prose&!tions. ==== . . . the e=oneration of this appe ant, (ose 2!an, $" the (!sti&e of the Pea&e /now 1!ni&ipa 0 Co!rt of >!ig!into, 2! a&an, of the &harge of s ight ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e, prevents his $eing prose&!ted for serio!s ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e in the Co!rt of +irst Instan&e of the provin&e, where $oth &harges are derived fro# the &onse:!en&es of one and the sa#e vehi&! ar a&&ident, $e&a!se the se&ond a&&!sation p a&es the appe ant in se&ond *eopard" for the sa#e offense.6A /E#phasis s!pp ied0 Th!s, for a intents and p!rposes, 2!erano had effe&tive " overr! ed Estipona. It is noteworth" that the So i&itor >enera in 2!erano, in a reversa of his ear ier stan&e in Si va, *oined &a!ses with the a&&!sed, a fa&t whi&h did not es&ape the Co!rt's attention4 Then So i&itor >enera , now (!sti&e +e i= I. 1akasiar, in his 1,NI+EST,TION dated De&e#$er 12, 1A7A /page 52 of the Ro o0 ad#its that the Co!rt of ,ppea s erred in not s!staining petitioner's p ea of do!$ e *eopard" and s!$#its that @its affir#ator" de&ision dated (an!ar" 25, 1A7A, in Cri#ina Case No. -;126%CR finding petitioner g!i t" of da#age to propert" thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e sho! d $e set aside, witho!t &osts.@ )e stressed that @if do!$ e *eopard" e=ists where the re&k ess a&t res! ted into ho#i&ide and ph"si&a in*!ries. then the sa#e &onse:!en&e #!st perfor&e fo ow where the sa#e re&k ess a&t &a!sed #ere " da#age to propert"%not death%and ph"si&a in*!ries. Ieri ", the va !e of a h!#an ife ost as a res! t of a vehi&! ar &o ision &annot $e e:!ated with an" a#o!nt of da#ages &a!sed to a #otors vehi& e arising fro# the sa#e #ishap.@.- /E#phasis s!pp ied0 )en&e, we find #erit in petitioner's s!$#ission that the ower &o!rts erred in ref!sing to e=tend in his favor the #ant e of prote&tion afforded $" the Do!$ e (eopard" C a!se. , #ore fitting *!rispr!den&e &o! d not $e tai ored to petitioner's &ase than Peop e v. Si va, .1 a Dia? progen". There, the a&&!sed, who was a so invo ved in a vehi&! ar &o ision, was &harged in two separate Infor#ations with @S ight Ph"si&a In*!ries thr! Re&k ess I#pr!den&e@ and @)o#i&ide with Serio!s Ph"si&a In*!ries thr! Re&k ess I#pr!den&e.@ +o owing his a&:!itta of the for#er, the a&&!sed so!ght the :!asha of the atter, invoking the Do!$ e (eopard" C a!se. The tria &o!rt initia " denied re ief, $!t, on re&onsideration, fo!nd #erit in the a&&!sed's & ai# and dis#issed the se&ond &ase. In affir#ing the tria &o!rt, we :!oted with approva its ana "sis of the iss!e fo owing Dia? and its progen" Peop e v. 2e ga4 .2 On (!ne 27, 1A;A, the ower &o!rt re&onsidered its Order of 1a" 2, 1A;A and dis#issed the &ase, ho ding4 E CTDhe Co!rt $e ieves that the &ase fa s s:!are " within the do&trine of do!$ e *eopard" en!n&iated in Peop e v. 2e ga, = = = In the &ase &ited, Ciria&o 2e ga and (ose 2e ga were &harged in the (!sti&e of the Pea&e Co!rt of 1a i ipot, , $a", with the &ri#e of ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e arising fro# a &o ision $etween the two a!to#o$i es driven $" the# /Cri#. Case No. 550. <itho!t the aforesaid &o#p aint having $een dis#issed or otherwise disposed of, two other &ri#ina &o#p aints were fi ed in the sa#e *!sti&e of the pea&e &o!rt, in &onne&tion with the sa#e &o ision one for da#age to propert" thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e /Cri#. Case No. A;0 signed $" the owner of one of the vehi& es invo ved in the &o ision, and another for #! tip e ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e /Cri#. Case No. A70 signed $" the passengers in*!red in the a&&ident. 2oth of these two &o#p aints were fi ed against (ose 2e ga on ". ,fter tria , $oth defendants were a&:!itted of the &harge against the# in Cri#. Case No. 55. +o owing his a&:!itta , (ose 2e ga #oved to :!ash the &o#p aint for #! tip e ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e fi ed against hi# $" the in*!red passengers, &ontending that the &ase was *!st a d!p i&ation of the one fi ed $" the Chief of Po i&e wherein he had *!st $een a&:!itted. The #otion to :!ash was denied and after tria (ose 2e ga was &onvi&ted, where!pon he appea ed to the Co!rt of +irst Instan&e of , $a". In the #eanti#e, the &ase for da#age to propert" thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e fi ed $" one of the owners of the vehi& es invo ved in the &o ision had $een re#anded to the Co!rt of +irst Instan&e of , $a" after (ose 2e ga had waived the se&ond stage of the pre i#inar" investigation. ,fter s!&h re#and, the Provin&ia +is&a fi ed in the Co!rt of +irst Instan&e two infor#ations against (ose 2e ga, one for ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e, and another for da#age to propert" thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e. 2oth &ases were dis#issed $" the Co!rt of +irst Instan&e, !pon #otion of the defendant (ose 2e ga who a eged do!$ e *eopard" in a #otion to :!ash. On appea $" the Prov. +is&a , the order of dis#issa was affir#ed $" the S!pre#e Co!rt in the fo owing ang!age4 . The :!estion for deter#ination is whether the a&:!itta of (ose 2e ga in the &ase fi ed $" the &hief of po i&e &onstit!tes a $ar to his s!$se:!ent prose&!tion for #! tip e ph"si&a in*!ries and da#age to propert" thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e. In the &ase of PeoCp eD v. +. Dia?, >. R. No. 8%7;15, pro#. 1ar&h 6-, 1A;., the a&&!sed was &harged in the #!ni&ipa &o!rt of Pasa" Cit" with re&k ess driving !nder se&. ;2 of the Revised 1otor Iehi& e 8aw, for having driven an a!to#o$i e in a fast and re&k ess #anner ... there$" &a!sing an a&&ident.' ,fter the a&&!sed had p eaded not g!i t" the &ase was dis#issed in that &o!rt for fai !re of the >overn#ent to prose&!te'. 2!t so#e ti#e thereafter the &it" attorne" fi ed an infor#ation in the Co!rt of +irst Instan&e of Ri?a , &harging the sa#e a&&!sed with da#age to propert" thr! re&k ess i#pr!den&e. The a#o!nt of the da#age was a eged to

$e P2.A.;-. P eading do!$ e *eopard", the a&&!sed fi ed a #otion, and on appea $" the >overn#ent we affir#ed the r! ing. ,#ong other things we there said thro!gh 1r. (!sti&e 1onte#a"or E The ne=t :!estion to deter#ine is the re ation $etween the first offense of vio ation of the 1otor Iehi& e 8aw prose&!ted $efore the Pasa" Cit" 1!ni&ipa Co!rt and the offense of da#age to propert" thr! re&k ess i#pr!den&e &harged in the Ri?a Co!rt of +irst Instan&e. One of the tests of do!$ e *eopard" is whether or not the se&ond offense &harged ne&essari " in& !des or is ne&essari " in& !ded in the offense &harged in the for#er &o#p aint or infor#ation /R! e 116, Se&. A0. ,nother test is whether the eviden&e whi&h proves one wo! d prove the other that is to sa" whether the fa&ts a eged in the first &harge if proven, wo! d have $een s!ffi&ient to s!pport the se&ond &harge and vi&e versa9 or whether one &ri#e is an ingredient of the other. = = = ==== The foregoing ang!age of the S!pre#e Co!rt a so disposes of the &ontention of the prose&!ting attorne" that the &harge for s ight ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e &o! d not have $een *oined with the &harge for ho#i&ide with serio!s ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e in this &ase, in view of the provisions of ,rt. .5 of the Revised Pena Code, as a#ended. The prose&!tion's &ontention #ight $e tr!e. 2!t neither was the prose&!tion o$ iged to first prose&!te the a&&!sed for s ight ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e $efore pressing the #ore serio!s &harge of ho#i&ide with serio!s ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e. )aving first prose&!ted the defendant for the esser offense in the (!sti&e of the Pea&e Co!rt of 1e"&a!a"an, 2! a&an, whi&h a&:!itted the defendant, the prose&!ting attorne" is not now in a position to press in this &ase the #ore serio!s &harge of ho#i&ide with serio!s ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e whi&h arose o!t of the sa#e a eged re&k ess i#pr!den&e of whi&h the defendant have $een previo!s " & eared $" the inferior &o!rt..6 Signifi&ant ", the So i&itor >enera had !rged !s in Si va to ree=a#ine 2e ga /and hen&e, Dia?0 @for the p!rpose of de i#iting or & arif"ing its app i&ation.@.. <e de& ined the invitation, th!s4 The State in its appea & ai#s that the ower &o!rt erred in dis#issing the &ase, on the gro!nd of do!$ e *eopard", !pon the $asis of the a&:!itta of the a&&!sed in the (P &o!rt for S ight Ph"si&a In*!ries, thr! Re&k ess I#pr!den&e. In the sa#e $reath said State, thr! the So i&itor >enera , ad#its that the fa&ts of the &ase at $ar, fa s:!are " on the r! ing of the 2e ga &ase = = =, !pon whi&h the order of dis#issa of the ower &o!rt was an&hored. The So i&itor >enera , however, !rges a re%e=a#ination of said r! ing, !pon &ertain &onsiderations for the p!rpose of de i#iting or & arif"ing its app i&ation. <e find, neverthe ess, that f!rther e !&idation or dis:!isition on the r! ing in the 2e ga &ase, the fa&ts of whi&h are ana ogo!s or si#i ar to those in the present &ase, wi "ie d no pra&ti&a advantage to the govern#ent. On one hand, there is nothing whi&h wo! d warrant a de i#itation or & arifi&ation of the app i&a$i it" of the 2e ga &ase. It was & ear. On the other, this Co!rt has reiterated the views e=pressed in the 2e ga &ase, in the identi&a &ase of Gap v. )on. 8!tero, et&., 8%1277A, ,pri 6-, 1A;A..; /E#phasis s!pp ied0 ,rti& e .5 Does not ,pp " to ,&ts Pena i?ed Bnder ,rti& e 67; of the Revised Pena Code The &onf!sion $edevi ing the :!estion posed in this petition, to whi&h the 1eTC s!&&!#$ed, ste#s fro# persistent $!t awkward atte#pts to har#oni?e &on&ept!a " in&o#pati$ e s!$stantive and pro&ed!ra r! es in &ri#ina aw, na#e ", ,rti& e 67; defining and pena i?ing :!asi%offenses and ,rti& e .5 on &o#p e=ing of &ri#es, $oth !nder the Revised Pena Code. ,rti& e .5 is a pro&ed!ra devi&e a owing sing e prose&!tion of #! tip e fe onies fa ing !nder either of two &ategories4 /10 when a sing e a&t &onstit!tes two or #ore grave or ess grave fe onies /th!s e=& !ding fro# its operation ight fe onies.709 and /20 when an offense is a ne&essar" #eans for &o##itting the other. The egis at!re &rafted this pro&ed!ra too to $enefit the a&&!sed who, in ie! of serving #! tip e pena ties, wi on " serve the #a=i#!# of the pena t" for the #ost serio!s &ri#e. In &ontrast, ,rti& e 67; is a s!$stantive r! e pena i?ing not an a&t defined as a fe on" $!t @the #enta attit!de = = = $ehind the a&t, the dangero!s re&k essness, a&k of &are or foresight = = =,@.3 a sing e #enta attit!de regard ess of the res! ting &onse:!en&es. Th!s, ,rti& e 67; was &rafted as one :!asi%&ri#e res! ting in one or #ore &onse:!en&es. Ordinari ", these two provisions wi operate s#ooth ". ,rti& e .5 works to &o#$ine in a sing e prose&!tion #! tip e intentiona &ri#es fa ing !nder Tit es 1%16, 2ook II of the Revised Pena Code, when proper9 ,rti& e 67; governs the prose&!tion of i#pr!dent a&ts and their &onse:!en&es. )owever, the &o#p e=ities of h!#an intera&tion &an prod!&e a h"$rid :!asi%offense not fa ing !nder either #ode s H that of a sing e &ri#ina neg igen&e res! ting in #! tip e non%&ri#e da#ages to persons and propert" with var"ing pena ties &orresponding to ight, ess grave or grave offenses. The ens!ing prose&!toria di e##a is o$vio!s4 how sho! d s!&h a :!asi%&ri#e $e prose&!tedJ Sho! d ,rti& e .5's fra#ework app " to @&o#p e=@ the sing e :!asi%offense with its #! tip e /non% &ri#ina 0 &onse:!en&es /e=& !ding those a#o!nting to ight offenses whi&h wi $e tried separate "0J Or sho! d the prose&!tion pro&eed !nder a sing e &harge, &o e&tive " a eging a the &onse:!en&es of the sing e :!asi%&ri#e, to $e pena i?ed separate " fo owing the s&he#e of pena ties !nder ,rti& e 67;J (!rispr!den&e adopts $oth approa&hes. Th!s, one ine of r! ings /none of whi&h invo ved the iss!e of do!$ e *eopard"0 app ied ,rti& e .5 $" @&o#p e=ing@ one :!asi%&ri#e with its #! tip e &onse:!en&es.5 !n ess one &onse:!en&e a#o!nts to a ight fe on", in whi&h &ase &harges were sp it $" gro!ping, on the one hand, res! ting a&ts a#o!nting to grave or ess grave fe onies and fi ing the &harge with the se&ond eve &o!rts and, on the other hand, res! ting a&ts a#o!nting to ight fe onies and fi ing the &harge with the first eve &o!rts..A E=pe&ted ", this is the approa&h the 1eTC i#p ied " san&tioned /and respondent Pon&e invokes0, even tho!gh !nder Rep!$ i& ,&t No. 37A1,;- the 1eTC has now e=& !sive origina *!risdi&tion to i#pose the #ost serio!s pena t" !nder ,rti& e 67; whi&h is prision &orre&&iona in its #edi!# period. Bnder this approa&h, the iss!e of do!$ e *eopard" wi not arise if the @&o#p e=ing@ of a&ts pena i?ed !nder ,rti& e 67; invo ves on " res! ting a&ts pena i?ed as grave or ess grave fe onies $e&a!se there wi $e a sing e prose&!tion of a the res! ting a&ts. The

iss!e of do!$ e *eopard" arises if one of the res! ting a&ts is pena i?ed as a ight offense and the other a&ts are pena i?ed as grave or ess grave offenses, in whi&h &ase ,rti& e .5 is not dee#ed to app " and the a&t pena i?ed as a ight offense is tried separate " fro# the res! ting a&ts pena i?ed as grave or ess grave offenses. The se&ond *!rispr!dentia path ni=es ,rti& e .5 and san&tions a sing e prose&!tion of a the effe&ts of the :!asi%&ri#e &o e&tive " a eged in one &harge, regard ess of their n!#$er or severit",;1 pena i?ing ea&h &onse:!en&e separate ". Th!s, in ,nge es v. (ose,;2 we interpreted paragraph three of ,rti& e 67;, in re ation to a &harge a eging @re&k ess i#pr!den&e res! ting in da#age to propert" and ess serio!s ph"si&a in*!ries,@ as fo ows4 CTDhe third paragraph of said arti& e, = = = reads as fo ows4 <hen the e=e&!tion of the a&t &overed $" this arti& e sha have on " res! ted in da#age to the propert" of another, the offender sha $e p!nished $" a fine ranging fro# an a#o!nt e:!a to the va !e of said da#age to three ti#es s!&h va !e, $!t whi&h sha in no &ase $e ess than 2; pesos. The a$ove%:!oted provision si#p " #eans that if there is on " da#age to propert" the a#o!nt fi=ed therein sha $e i#posed, $!t if there are a so ph"si&a in*!ries there sho! d $e an additiona pena t" for the atter. The infor#ation &annot $e sp it into two9 one for the ph"si&a in*!ries, and another for the da#age to propert", = = =.;6/E#phasis s!pp ied0 2" @additiona pena t",@ the Co!rt #eant, ogi&a ", the pena t" s&he#e !nder ,rti& e 67;. Evident ", these approa&hes, whi e para e , are irre&on&i a$ e. Coheren&e in this fie d de#ands &hoosing one fra#ework over the other. Either /10 we a ow the @&o#p e=ing@ of a sing e :!asi%&ri#e $" $reaking its res! ting a&ts into separate offenses /e=&ept for ight fe onies0, th!s re%&on&ept!a i?e a :!asi%&ri#e, a$andon its present fra#ing !nder ,rti& e 67;, dis&ard its &on&eption !nder the F!i?on and Dia? ines of &ases, and treat the #! tip e &onse:!en&es of a :!asi%&ri#e as separate intentiona fe onies defined !nder Tit es 1%16, 2ook II !nder the pena &ode9 or /20 we for$id the app i&ation of ,rti& e .5 in the prose&!tion and senten&ing of :!asi%&ri#es, re:!ire sing e prose&!tion of a the res! ting a&ts regard ess of their n!#$er and severit", separate " pena i?e ea&h as provided in ,rti& e 67;, and th!s #aintain the distin&t &on&ept of :!asi%&ri#es as &rafted !nder ,rti& e 67;, arti&! ated in F!i?on and app ied to do!$ e *eopard" ad*!di&ation in the Dia? ine of &ases.1avvphi1 , $e&o#ing regard of this Co!rt's p a&e in o!r s&he#e of govern#ent den"ing it the power to #ake aws &onstrains !s to keep invio ate the &on&ept!a distin&tion $etween :!asi%&ri#es and intentiona fe onies !nder o!r pena &ode. ,rti& e .5 is in&ongr!ent to the notion of :!asi%&ri#es !nder ,rti& e 67;. It is &on&ept!a " i#possi$ e for a quasi-offense to stand for /10 a sing e act &onstit!ting two or #ore grave or ess grave felonies9 or /20 anoffense whi&h is a ne&essar" #eans for &o##itting another. This is wh", wa" $a&k in 1A75 in 2!an, we re*e&ted the So i&itor >enera 's arg!#ent that do!$ e *eopard" does not $ar a se&ond prose&!tion for s ight ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e a eged " $e&a!se the &harge for that offense &o! d not $e *oined with the other &harge for serio!s ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e fo owing ,rti& e .5 of the Revised Pena Code4 The So i&itor >enera stresses in his $rief that the &harge for s ight ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e &o! d not $e *oined with the a&&!sation for serio!s ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e, $e&a!se ,rti& e .5 of the Revised Pena Code a ows on " the &o#p e=ing of grave or ess grave fe onies. This sa#e arg!#ent was &onsidered and re*e&ted $" this Co!rt in the &ase of Peop e vs. CSi vaD = = =4 CTDhe prose&!tion's &ontention #ight $e tr!e. 2!t neither was the prose&!tion o$ iged to first prose&!te the a&&!sed for s ight ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e $efore pressing the #ore serio!s &harge of ho#i&ide with serio!s ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e. )aving first prose&!ted the defendant for the esser offense in the (!sti&e of the Pea&e Co!rt of 1e"&a!a"an, 2! a&an, whi&h a&:!itted the defendant, the prose&!ting attorne" is not now in a position to press in this &ase the #ore serio!s &harge of ho#i&ide with serio!s ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e whi&h arose o!t of the sa#e a eged re&k ess i#pr!den&e of whi&h the defendant has $een previo!s " & eared $" the inferior &o!rt. C<De #!st perfor&e r! e that the e=oneration of this appe ant = = = $" the (!sti&e of the Pea&e = = = of the &harge of s ight ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e, prevents his $eing prose&!ted for serio!s ph"si&a in*!ries thro!gh re&k ess i#pr!den&e in the Co!rt of +irst Instan&e of the provin&e, where $oth &harges are derived fro# the &onse:!en&es of one and the sa#e vehi&! ar a&&ident, $e&a!se the se&ond a&&!sation p a&es the appe ant in se&ond *eopard" for the sa#e offense.;. /E#phasis s!pp ied0 Indeed, this is a &onstit!tiona " &o#pe ed &hoi&e. 2" prohi$iting the sp itting of &harges !nder ,rti& e 67;, irrespe&tive of the n!#$er and severit" of the res! ting a&ts, ra#pant o&&asions of &onstit!tiona " i#per#issi$ e se&ond prose&!tions are avoided, not to #ention that s&ar&e state reso!r&es are &onserved and diverted to proper !se. )en&e, we ho d that prose&!tions !nder ,rti& e 67; sho! d pro&eed fro# a sing e &harge regard ess of the n!#$er or severit" of the &onse:!en&es. In i#posing pena ties, the *!dge wi do no #ore than app " the pena ties !nder ,rti& e 67; for ea&h &onse:!en&e a eged and proven. In short, there sha $e no sp itting of &harges !nder ,rti& e 67;, and on " one infor#ation sha $e fi ed in the sa#e first eve &o!rt.;; O!r r! ing toda" se&!res for the a&&!sed fa&ing an ,rti& e 67; &harge a stronger and si#p er prote&tion of their &onstit!tiona right !nder the Do!$ e (eopard" C a!se. Tr!e, the" are there$" denied the $enefi&ent effe&t of the favora$ e senten&ing for#! a !nder ,rti& e .5, $!t an" disadvantage th!s &a!sed is #ore than &o#pensated $" the &ertaint" of non%prose&!tion for :!asi%&ri#e effe&ts :!a if"ing as @ ight offenses@ /or, as here, for the #ore serio!s &onse:!en&e prose&!ted $e ated "0. If it is so #inded, Congress &an

re%&raft ,rti& e 67; $" e=tending to :!asi%&ri#es the senten&ing for#! a of ,rti& e .5 so that on " the #ost severe pena t" sha $e i#posed !nder a sing e prose&!tion of a res! ting a&ts, whether pena i?ed as grave, ess grave or ight offenses. This wi sti keep inta&t the distin&t &on&ept of :!asi%offenses. 1eanwhi e, the enient s&hed! e of pena ties !nder ,rti& e 67;, $efitting &ri#es o&&!p"ing a ower r!ng of &! pa$i it", sho! d &!shion the effe&t of this r! ing. WHERE2ORE, we GRAN the petition. <e REVERSE the Orders dated 2 +e$r!ar" 2--7 and 2 1a" 2--7 of the Regiona Tria Co!rt of Pasig Cit", 2ran&h 1;3. <e DISMISS the Infor#ation in Cri#ina Case No. 52677 against petitioner (ason Iv er " ,g!i ar pending with the 1etropo itan Tria Co!rt of Pasig Cit", 2ran&h 31 on the gro!nd of do!$ e *eopard". 8et a &op" of this r! ing $e served on the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the )o!se of Representatives. SO ORDERED.