IVLER vs. HON.

MODESTO

G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010

FACTS:

Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Pasig City (MeTC), with two separate offenses: (1) reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries sustained by
respondent Evangeline L. Ponce; and (2) reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for the death of
respondent Ponces husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponces vehicle.

Crimes charged: 1) reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries; and 2) reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and
damage to property

On September 7, 2004, Ivler pleaded guilty to the charge in reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries and was meted
out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, Ivler moved to quash the Information of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and damage to property for placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence.

MeTC: denied the motion to quash

RTC: denied Ivlers Petition for Certiorari in dismissing his Motion to Quash

ISSUE: Whether or not Ivlers constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings in the information
charging him with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property (YES)

Defense: Ivler argues that his constitutional right not to be placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense bars his
prosecution in reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property having been previously convicted in reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries for the same offense. Ivler submits that the multiple consequences of such
crime are material only to determine his penalty

HELD: The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the RTC. Petitioners conviction in the case of reckless imprudence resulting in slight
physical injuries bars his prosecution in criminal reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property
1) Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime; its Consequences on Persons and Property are Material Only to Determine the Penalty
Quasi-offenses penalize the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the
imprudencia punible, unlike willful offenses which punish the intentional criminal act. These structural and conceptual features of
quasi-offenses set them apart from the mass of intentional crimes.
2) Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence Bars Subsequent Prosecution for the Same Quasi-offense
Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. For
the essence of the quasi-offense of criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an
imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or
careless act, not the result thereof.
The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the offense.
And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal
negligence) remains one and the same, and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.
3) Article 48 Does Not Apply to Acts Penalized Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code
Article 48 is a procedural device allowing single prosecution of multiple felonies falling under either of two categories: (1) when a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies (thus excluding from its operation light felonies); and (2) when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other. The legislature crafted this procedural tool to benefit the accused who, in
lieu of serving multiple penalties, will only serve the maximum of the penalty for the most serious crime.
In contrast, Article 365 is a substantive rule penalizing not an act defined as a felony but the mental attitude behind the act, the
dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, a single mental attitude regardless of the resulting consequences. Thus, Article 365
was crafted as one quasi-crime resulting in one or more consequences. Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crime
resulting in one or more consequences.
Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crimes under Article 365. It is conceptually impossible for a quasi-offense to stand for
(1) a single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies; or (2) an offense which is a necessary means for committing
another.
Prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single charge regardless of the number or severity of the consequences. In
imposing penalties, the judge will do no more than apply the penalties under Article 365 for each consequence alleged and proven.
In short, there shall be no splitting of charges under Article 365, and only one information shall be filed in the same first level court.