By: Marian Kay Yambao Topic: Art 365 Buerano vs CA Facts: 1.

Sept 20 1957: Bueranos LTB bus collided with the Mabuhay Bakery delivery panel driven by Hipolito Vismonte and owned by Chu Yu in Tanay, Rizal 2. Dec 3 1957: complaint was filed against Buerano for slight and less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence 3. Feb 6 1958: trial court found him guilty 4. On appeal at the CFI, it sustained trial courts ruling 5. Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed another case against Buerano for the Crime of Damage to property through reckless imprudence. 6. Petitioner filed motion to quash: he asserts its double jeopardy for he has been convicted already of slight and less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence 7. CFI denied his motion to quash 8. On appeal, the CA sustained CFIs decision Issue:

W/N CA was correct in ruling that aside from conviction for slight and less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, a conviction for the Crime of Damage to property through reckless imprudence is necessary

Held No o

Justice JBL Reyes 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 RPC 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. Justice Makasiar If double jeopardy exists where the reckless act resulted into homicide and physical injuries, then the same consequence must perforce follow where the same reckless act caused merely damage to property not deathand physical injuries. The value of a human life lost as a result of a vehicular

collision cannot be equated with any amount of damages caused to a motors vehicle arising from the same mishap.