Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Reodica vs.

CA and People of the Philippines


Oct. 17, 1987 Reodica was driving a van along Paranaque and because of her recklessness her van hit the car of complainant
Bonsol. Complainant sustained physical injuries and damage to his car amounted to P 8, 542.00
3 days later a complaint was filed against Reodica with the Fiscals Office
Jan 13, 1988, an information was filed with the RTC of Makati charging Reodica with reckless imprudence resulting to
damage to property with slight physical injuries
Arraignment entered a plea of not guilty.
RTC decision Reodica convicted for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property with slight physical injuries and
sentenced to 6 months arresto mayor and to pay a a fine of P 13, 542.00
CA affirms RTC decision and denied Reodicas MR in its resolution
Petitioner contends that (1) the penalty for the offense should have been arresto menor (2) Her offense should not have
been considered a complex crime and should have been filed separately as light felonies (3) reckless imprudence resulting
to slight physical injuries being a light felony, action should have prescribed in 2 months (the information was filed 3 months
after the incident) (4) RTC had no jurisdiction since it does not deal with arresto menor cases and that the rules of summary
procedure should govern and should have been filed with the Metropolitan trial court
OSG (1) penalty should be arresto menor (2) should be a complex crime (3) action did not prescribe because of the
complaint filed with the fiscals office 3 days after the incident. Prescriptive period was interrupted (4) RTC had jurisdiction



the penalty is correct

Article 48 of the RPC is applicable
the RTC had jurisdiction
the action has prescribed





No, Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it
been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in
its maximum period shall be imposed. Exception is (When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than
those provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the courts shall impose the penalty next lower in
degree than that which should be imposed in the period which they may deem proper to apply.) Slight PI is punished under
266 which prescribes imprisonment of 1-30 days as compared to 365 which prescribes 21-30 days hence, the penalty under
266 can either be lower or equal to that prescribed in 365, the exception therefore applies. The penalty should be public
censure (next lower in degree) As to RI resulting to damage to property the penalty is arresto mayor (1 mo. -4 months)
because the exception does not apply. The penalty for malicious mischief (less grave felony) is higher than that prescribed in
365 hence 365 applies.
No, ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. -- When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or
when an offense is necessary a means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period. Since one of the acts is a light felony, it cannot be complexed and should be filed
No, The jurisdiction to try a criminal action is to be determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action,
unless the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before
its enactment. At the time of the filing of the information in this case, the law in force was Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
otherwise known as The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Section 32(2) hereof provided that except in cases falling
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts
(MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) had exclusive original jurisdiction over all
offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months, or a fine of not more than four
thousand pesos, or both fine and imprisonment, regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the
civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof. Both
offenses are cognizable by the MeTCs
No, Art. 91 of RPC states that period of prescription is interrupted by the filing of a complaint or information. The filing of
complaint with the fiscals office 3 days after the incident is an interruption of prescriptive period. (light felonies prescribe in
2 months; less grave prescribe in 5 years)

Petition Granted

Sarmiento and Limpin vs. CA and Associated Banking Corp.


September 6, 1978, defendant Gregorio Limpin, Jr. and Antonio Apostol, doing business under the name and style of Davao
Libra Industrial Sales, filed an application for an Irrevocable Domestic Letter of Credit with the plaintiff Bank for the amount
of P495,000.00 in favor of LS Parts Hardware and Machine Shop for the purchase of assorted scrap irons

Bank issued Domestic Letter of Credit No. DLC No. DVO-78-006 in favor of LS Parts for P495,000.00

Trust Receipt dated September 6, 1978, was executed by defendant Limpin and Antonio Apostol which provides: In
consideration of the Associated Banking Corporation releasing to Gregorio Limpin and Antonio Apostol goods mentioned in
the trust receipt, we hereby jointly and severally undertake and agree to pay, on demand, to the Associated Bank
Corporation all sums and amount of money which said Associated Banking Corporation may call upon us to pay arising out
of, pertaining to, and/or any manner connected with the trust receipt, WE FURTHER AGREE that our liability in this
undertaking shall be direct and immediate and not contingent upon the pursuit by the Associated Banking Corporation of
whatever remedies it may have against the aforesaid Gregorio Limpin and Antonio Apostol. It was signed by Sarmiento.

Petitioners failed to comply with the Trust receipt hence private respondent made demands for compliance.

On June 11, 1986, a complaint for Violation of the Trust Receipt Law was filed against the defendants before the City Fiscals

Thereafter, the corresponding Information was filed against the defendants. Defendant Lorenzo Sarmiento, Jr. was, however,
dropped from the Information while defendant Gregorio Limpin, Jr. was convicted

Separate civil actions were to be filed

Petitioners claim that they cannot be held liable because the vessel that transported the scrap iron capsized and that filing
of a separate civil suit is barred.

RTC ruled for private respondents without any award for civil liability.

CA affirms RTC

WON filing of a separate civil action is barred because of PRs failure to expressly reserve it in the previous criminal action
With respect to Sarmiento, No because his name was dropped in the criminal complaint and this is not a bar for the institution of a
civil case against him
With respect to Limpin, No.
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective December 1, 2000 Rule 111 provides:
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. -- (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its
evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
Jurisprudence however provides that a reservation may be expressed or implied. In Jarantilla, this Court ruled that the failure of the
trial court to make any pronouncement, favorable or unfavorable, as to the civil liability of the accused amounts to a reservation of
the right to have the civil liability litigated and determined in a separate action, for nowhere in the Rules of Court is it provided that if
the court fails to determine the civil liability, it becomes no longer enforceable.
Furthermore, private respondents right to file a separate complaint for a sum of money is governed by the provisions of Article
31 of the Civil Code, to wit:

Article 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil
action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
In the present case, private respondents complaint against petitioners was based on the failure of the latter to comply with
their obligation as spelled out in the Trust Receipt executed by them. This breach of obligation is separate and distinct from any
criminal liability for misuse and/or misappropriation of goods or proceeds realized from the sale of goods, documents or instruments
released under trust receipts, punishable under Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law (P.D. 115) in relation to Article 315(1), (b) of the
Revised Penal Code. Being based on an obligation ex contractuand not ex delicto, the civil action may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings instituted against petitioners regardless of the result of the latter. Petition Denied